Turning Radius in Maneuvers...?

[Joe Yau]

I was talking to someone in the club about turning radius in square maneuvers, and he was saying that it is not necessary to pull tight corners ( 5' radius turn)  to score high in squares, triangles, hourglas,  etc.  I'm just looking for more input on this.

Thanks in advance.
 

[Elwyn Aud]

I don't think super tight turns are as important as the smoothness and flow of the pattern. Watch a video of a pattern of an expert flier and you'll usually see nice corners but not violently quick corners on the square maneuvers. 

[Joe Yau]

 I don't think you're suppose to make the turns violently though.  But I do agree the turns should be smooth, and with no bounce or wing wobbles coming out from the turns.    How about the turning radius?  and If the turning radius is 7-8'+  do you loose points?   



 

[minnesotamodeler]

I think it's been pretty well established that NO-ONE makes 5' radius corners...apparently not possible by the laws of physics.  Seems like I've heard 15' radius suggested as about as square as you're gonna get. I know people will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Don Hutchinson AMA5402]

Ray-
Yep, 15'  is about all you can get. There is only so much lift available and if one does the math, the figures calculate very close to your numbers.
As for the Arctic Circle, I don't think so. I lived about 3 miles south of you from '39 to '55. St Clair and Hamline. used to fly on the Highland Park golf course in the winter, spark ignition and skis made from yardsticks! It was cold but not near as bad as up near the border.
Don

[Joe Yau]

^ So is that what you're allowed (15' radius turn)  for squares and triangles maneuvers before points deductions? 

[Steve Helmick]

It's generally accepted that it's the perception of being a 5' radius, tho we know it's not. If you watch Paul or Howard flying their Impacts, their corners are usually very 'sudden', and at least my eyes cannot see a radius. I think that if I was flying their planes, I would be able to see the radius, since I would know exactly when it was going to occur. Not that it's ever going to happen!

If you are lucky enough to see Paul, Howard and Chris Cox all flying at the same contest, you'll see Chris fly a softer corner, extremely precise appearing, and relatively "slow motion". All three will be very close in score. Chris does get downgraded a bit on corner radius, but the rest is as good or better, if he's 'on'. Bruce Perry flies a lot like Paul/Howard, when he's 'on'. Monty Summach ditto. FWIW, I think the .40VF is a perfect match for Randy Smith's "Shrike" (I think that's what Monty had in Eddie in '06...sweet!), tho Bruce would probably like a .75 in it.  Steve

[L0U CRANE]

Joe,

The replies already in here pretty much spell out the realities.

Another reality is that unless and until the wording of the FAI and AMA Rules is changed, no one is "allowed" to fly larger radii for full points. Rules allow or disallow such details. ...not usual practice, or common interpretation of the Rules.

So, in the real world of physics, there should always be a deduction for overly large radius corners. Compare the significance: In the Square Loops there are 8 such corners, there are 8 sides, there are 8 tracks for each of the sides to follow, there are altitude and angle requirements for each of the corners and sides, and there is a requirement that the second figure retrace the path of the first. That's a lot of detailed specifics that go into assigning a score for just the Square Eights - in this example.

If ALL of the other requirements are done very well, and the corners are both tight and of consistent size, the impact of the failure to make the corner radii 5' to 7' is slight in the overall quality of the figure.

Some very famous people have worked very hard to try to achieve 5' to 7' radius corners. Consistency, smoothness and repeatability suffered, to a greater loss of points than if they had flown the tightest corners practical and possible, and done better on the other judged factors. It's better to keep the whole figure in mind, not just any one unrealistic specific factor, like the 5'-7' radius wording.

[minnesotamodeler]

Ray-
Yep, 15'  is about all you can get. There is only so much lift available and if one does the math, the figures calculate very close to your numbers.
As for the Arctic Circle, I don't think so. I lived about 3 miles south of you from '39 to '55. St Clair and Hamline. used to fly on the Highland Park golf course in the winter, spark ignition and skis made from yardsticks! It was cold but not near as bad as up near the border.
Don

Yes, and Canada is colder than that, and Alaska is more extreme yet, and then there's the North Pole...if that's not enough, Antarctica is I guess the coldest place on earth.  It's all relative

What you gotta understand is that I'm an Oklahoma transplant up here....  Contrasted with where I grew up and lived 2/3 of my life, this is the Arctic Circle.  Especially this year, today is supposed to be in the 60s and there's still snow to melt. 

Truth is, I just like to complain about it. If I really hated it I'd move south.  But I don't think I could take the heat any more.  Arizona's too dry.  The Gulf coast is too wet.  Texas is too...well, Texas.

Strange as it seems, I miss Oklahoma's storms.

Someday I'll be in Heaven and nothing to complain about; then what'll I do?

I fly on an old abandoned softball practice field in Central Park in Roseville. I don't think they'd let you fly on the golf course any more.

[Jim Thomerson]

I have designed and built a number of 1/2A stunt airplanes.  They do 0' radius turns, simply rotate around the center of gravity and change direction--or so it appearers to me while flying them.  One day I was flying in a schoolyard near a relatively tall building.  Decided to fly square corners with the vertical leg in line with the corner of the building.  No way!  Hit the controls and the airplane skids 10 feet past the corner while making the turn.  The airplane goes into a high pitch angle to generate enough lift to make the turn and thus looks like it is turning much tighter than it is.  Judges judge what they see and if it looks like a 5' radius turn, that is how it is judged, and pooh on physics.  

[Joe Yau]

It's generally accepted that it's the perception of being a 5' radius, tho we know it's not. If you watch Paul or Howard flying their Impacts, their corners are usually very 'sudden', and at least my eyes cannot see a radius. I think that if I was flying their planes, I would be able to see the radius, since I would know exactly when it was going to occur. Not that it's ever going to happen!

If you are lucky enough to see Paul, Howard and Chris Cox all flying at the same contest, you'll see Chris fly a softer corner, extremely precise appearing, and relatively "slow motion". All three will be very close in score. Chris does get downgraded a bit on corner radius, but the rest is as good or better, if he's 'on'. Bruce Perry flies a lot like Paul/Howard, when he's 'on'. Monty Summach ditto. FWIW, I think the .40VF is a perfect match for Randy Smith's "Shrike" (I think that's what Monty had in Eddie in '06...sweet!), tho Bruce would probably like a .75 in it.  Steve

I have seen Alan Resinger do a very tight turning radius squares with his Stalker .66 powered Firecracker.   It was during one of his slower run.. something like 5.8/sec lap.  and it looked very graceful. It actually rotates at the middle of the wing (nose up tail drop)  in slow motion.




I have only seen Paul Walker in the 2003 Regional U-Tube video clip, It looked very smooth through out.  But his turning radius is well over 5' as percieved though.  specially at the last corner of the hourglas.    

[Bill Little]

IMHO (as if it mattered! LOL!!), I say do away with the *5' Radius* wording in the rules and use *Abrupt Change of Direction*. 

Why have we kept this wording for more than 50 years when we are all FULLY AWARE that our models cannot achieve it?

Bill Little

[kdheath]

If the sides are straight  and parallel, and the shape is right, your scores will be better than if you fly hard corners that result  trying to make the thght radius corners and have wobbly sides. Shape, size, and placement make the difference.

[Joe Yau]

^ I guess I should of made it more clearer..

For example:  If one flys a "Square Eight" with perfect size and shape with tight (5-7' radius) corners, and with no bounce and wing wobbles vs one that flys a softer rounder (7-15'+ radius) corner with also perfect shape, size with no bounce and wobbles.    How many points do you loose based on the cornering?

[Bill Little]

^ I guess I should of made it more clearer..

For example:  If one flys a "Square Eight" with perfect size and shape with tight (5-7' radius) corners, and with no bounce and wing wobbles vs one that flys a softer rounder (7-15'+ radius) corner with also perfect shape, size with no bounce and wobbles.    How many points do you loose based on the cornering?

Hi Joe,

If it were indeed possible for anyone TO fly 5'-7' corners, and everything else is as you say, they would get 40 points since they have flown a perfect maneuver! (never possible!) and the other guy/gal would get 37-39 depending on the judge. 

Of course, the second scenario would be probably be graded a 40!  (since the first one is impossible)

Bill

[Bob Reeves]

All any of us can do is relate the results of our experience in front of judges and you have to decide what will work for you. I believe smooth scores better than abrupt with or without bobbles..

Year before last at a local contest I was having trim problems with the ship I was flying and had to fly soft corners to keep it from looking like a flounder out of water. I ended up winning. Then, last year at Brodaks in Advanced Classic, I wasn't happy with the engine and the only way I could get through the square eight without slowing down to a stall was to fly soft corners. Somehow I managed to pull out another win. Would be real hard to convince me that soft accurate smooth corners don't score..

[Shultzie]

In my lifetime....I will NEVER FORGET the pattern that BART KLAPINSKI flew to his first place win at the 67 Nats.
Not only were his corners TIGHT-TIGHT-TIGHT...but his rounds were ROUND...NOT EGG SHAPED LIKE the majority of us fly AND TOTALLY SUPER IMPOSED OVER EACH OTHER...(EVEN IN THAT SQUIRREEE' WIND.
 His entrance and exits...were true poetry in motion...BEST OF ALL...his pattern FLOWED SMOOTHLY FROM TAKE OFF to the best landing of the day!

Althought the score sheet didn't show it...HIS TALENT THAT DAY...WAS HEAD AND SHOULDERS UP IN THAT SKY..WHERE THE ANGELS DARE TO FLY.....
ABOVE ANY MORTAL STUNT GRUNTER ON THE PLANET...
IT WAS HIS MOMENT IN TIME...!

[phil c]

Read section 14.7.2 in the rules.  Makes it pretty clear that hard corners should score better than soft corners.

The rules also have some comments about how many points to deduct for not meeting the specs on tracking, etc.  There a 1 ft error in a plus/minus 1 ft. situation is a minor error, or 1 pt, 2 ft would be two points, 3 ft. would be three points.  Apply the same logic to the corner radius.  5 ft, plus/minus 1 ft.  A 15 ft corner misses the tolerance by 15 times.  That is certainly worth at least a 3 point deduction for each of the corners.  Logically is would be a 15 pt deduction, but I won't go their.

It is quite possible to build a plane that will turn 5 ft corners.  Mainly it is a matter of weight, wing area, and power.  Build a 45 oz. plane with 750 squares using Al Rabe's wing design, power it with a 91, and you will get very close to a 5 ft. radius.

The judges may give soft corners a good score.  They can do whatever they d*** well please.  I coached Pancho a few years ago about hitting his corners harder and tightening the maneuvers up.  First flight to second flight he picked up something like 30 points.  Everything else was pretty decent.  He was just flying the square maneuvers way to large and soft. 

[Bill Little]

Hi Phil,

That is why I said the first scenario would get a 40 if it were possible.  Since it isn't, the best we can do gets scored the highest.

We have all seen certain planes that in real time seem to turn on an axis near the middle of the plane.  But when we see stop action photos, we can see where the corners are still in the ~15' radius.  Optical illusions........

Now, as you say, it (5'radius) COULD be done, but could WE fly it good enough to win?? 

Bill

[Larry Cunningham]

I believe it was Bill Netzband who was working with Bob Baron (??) and actually developed
a stunter capable of 5' corners. It was a 1/2A model, twin booms if I remember correctly.
Not quite like the modern stunters we are familiar with. Years ago I calculated  the length
of a circle and timed level laps on one of Windy's tapes, and stepped through the corner
frame by frame. My calculation was a radius of 17'.

I think the airframes may be capable of enough lift, as well as the airfoils, but there is a little
barrier called Netzeband's Wall, which boils down to the forces on the control surfaces,
reflected back through the bellcrank, starting to exceed available line tension, which limits
the turn rate.

The "snap" which perhaps looks pretty close to 5' radius at times, is really not a flown radius,
but a fast rotation. The ship will rotate quickly but continue to skate forward a bit. In realtime,
the human eye does not readily see the effect, but it's there.

Common errors for square corners, other that overly large radii, include bobbles, when the
ship returns to neutral. The ship must compromise for corners - it must be nearly unstable,
to have maximum sensitivity and turn rate. Yet it cannot be astable, or it will "ring" or oscillate
a little on abrupt changes. Also, there can be PIO, Pilot Induced Oscillation, where the flier is
just enough behind on the control function to start an oscillation. This is where wing loading
can adversely affect performance. A ship must be properly light in weight, but it also must be
trimmed well, and the pilot must have good reflexes and motor skills.

L.

"Like all great travelers, I have seen more than I remember and remember more
than I have seen." -Benjamin Disraeli

[RC Storick]

I have seen Alan Resinger do a very tight turning radius squares with his Stalker .66 powered Firecracker.   It was during one of his slower run.. something like 5.8/sec lap.  and it looked very graceful. It actually rotates at the middle of the wing (nose up tail drop)  in slow motion.


I have only seen Paul Walker in the 2003 Regional U-Tube video clip, It looked very smooth through out.  But his turning radius is well over 5' as perceived though.  specially at the last corner of the hourglass.    

Now lets watch two world champs fly side by side. Note the Aircraft. Bill's airplane has much tighter turns, (Weight in the nose) While Paul's airplane looks smoother. Watch the figure eight top corners close. The figure eight is a violent maneuver if flown correctly. See my drift on weight. I can see it in the nose of every plane flying. I hope you can too.


[youtube=425,350]kTMsClfltO4[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]Sf6jdEbxQzQ[/youtube]

[Brett Buck]

I believe it was Bill Netzband who was working with Bob Baron (??) and actually developed
a stunter capable of 5' corners. It was a 1/2A model, twin booms if I remember correctly.

    I think they only got it down to 9', but it was very obviously tighter than everybody else.

   The 5' thing is really an obsession. There have been more stunt contests lost because people homed in on the "5' radius" part of the rule book and didn't overly concern themselves with the other thousand things they needed to do right to win.

    Bill was the first to mention it in this thread, and GMA himself suggested it a long time ago, but I think that just saying "tight" is sufficient and would be a worthwhile change to the rules.

      Brett

[Joe Yau]

Thanks for all the replies..... 

It seems the 5' turning radius might not be achievable..  sharper or tighter turns in square maneuvers should still be awarded with higher score.  I guess it is up to the judges to interpret that.

AMA 14.7.2  Turn Radius.

Similarly Judges should recognize that the intent of the rulebook regarding corner radius in maneuvers such as Square Loops, Square Eights, Triangles, Etc. is that model aircraft should turn as sharply (tightly) as possible.  Therefore although it is not possible for Judges to accurately measure whether or not a model aircraft has or has not made a turn of between 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) and  2.1meters (6.9 feet) radius.  The intent of the Sporting Code  is clearly that a model aircraft should turn as tightly as possible. When making such turns. Therefore Judges should award the Highest marks to model aircraft turning the tightest (sharpest) corners. (provided that the required line elevation angles and/or the model pitch angle have also been achieved) and  they should award the Lowest marks to model aircraft making the largest (softest) such turns.

[phil c]

The 5 ft. radius should be an obsession since the rules, especially the new ones, place a lot of emphasis on it.  You can't get anywhere close on the shape for a square loop if the plane can't turn sharp enough to define the corners clearly. 

For your edification, take a look at www.vicstunt.com and look up "The Judges View" under Patterns and Tips.  Ken compiled all the maneuvers, complete with left and right offsets(as flyers do in the wind) using Keith Renecle's sim.  You can see just how the maneuvers should look to the judge.

Bill Werwage's horizontal and vertical eights in the above videos came awfully darn close to perfect.

[Shultzie]

The 5 ft. radius should be an obsession since the rules, especially the new ones, place a lot of emphasis on it.  You can't get anywhere close on the shape for a square loop if the plane can't turn sharp enough to define the corners clearly. 

For your edification, take a look at www.vicstunt.com and look up "The Judges View" under Patterns and Tips.  Ken compiled all the maneuvers, complete with left and right offsets(as flyers do in the wind) using Keith Renecle's sim.  You can see just how the maneuvers should look to the judge.

Bill Werwage's horizontal and vertical eights in the above videos came awfully darn close to perfect.

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT GREAT WEBSITE WITH SOOO MUCH INFO AND HISTORY...'
CHECK IT OUT GANG! BE FORE-WARNED....the  interest in place will have you locked into some beautiful memories....
bye the way...
Check out the elevators on that beautiful Rebel model of John Hunt's
SHOULD REALLY HELP CARVING OUT THOSE TIGHT CORNERS...HUH?

[Ron Belcourt]

  Only one thing to say....   

[Joe Yau]

For your edification, take a look at www.vicstunt.com and look up "The Judges View" under Patterns and Tips.  Ken compiled all the maneuvers, complete with left and right offsets(as flyers do in the wind) using Keith Renecle's sim.  You can see just how the maneuvers should look to the judge.

Wow.. great Website! 

[phil c]

one thing to watch out for, the AMA rules and F2B rules describe quite different square loops.  The AMA rules(para13.6) calls for a square course(implying 4 equal length sides, the definition of a square), with equal angles at the bottom and the top, and the top segment to be flown at 45 deg. elevation.  F2B requires the sides to be at 90 deg. to the ground, and a proportionately shorter top side flown at 45 deg.

An AMA square will have the vertical sides noticeably angled out(approx 82 deg. to level) and the top turns will be more than 90 degrees, and the top segment will be noticeably bowed up at the ends.  With a 17 ft. corner radius, all the sides will be barely 17 ft long and barely visible(65 ft. lines).  If you see distinct sides watch the plane closely on the top segment.  It is almost invariably well over 45 degrees, and the maneuver is wider than 45 degrees also.

Per the Judge's View presentation,  the F2D square loop will have the sides noticeably angled in(even though they are actually at 90 deg. in the pilot's view) with the top segment also noticeably bowed up at the ends.  With a 17 ft. corner, the top side will only be about 40 ft. long including the corners, so it will barely be visible, much less have any curve to it.

[Steve Helmick]

One thing I have noticed from watching the U-Tube videos is that I can see the radius on vid, while in person, in some cases (Howard, Paul, Bruce and Monty), I cannot always see any radius. Any ideas on why that is? Same speed/time, generally farther away/smaller view on the video. I don't get it.

I will admit that I've done smaller and smaller triangles with the ex-Dirt "Mutant Magnum"...as it slows down, I can make them very small. I don't think they're 25' high. Still pretty well shaped, too, tho not pretty. Flyin' it like a Voodoo! My squares sucketh.    Steve

[L0U CRANE]

    I think they only got it down to 9', but it was very obviously tighter than everybody else.

   The 5' thing is really an obsession. There have been more stunt contests lost because people homed in on the "5' radius" part of the rule book and didn't overly concern themselves with the other thousand things they needed to do right to win.

    Bill was the first to mention it in this thread, and GMA himself suggested it a long time ago, but I think that just saying "tight" is sufficient and would be a worthwhile change to the rules.

      Brett

I think it was Rich Porter's Ridiculous that was doing the 5' corners. It was a published plans article many years back. Biggest problem was that is was kinda big - around 500 sq in - on a honking TeeDee. Wind? fuggedaboutit...

I know Bob Baron and Bill Netzeband worked on the Humbug, flapless, twin-boom, large model for a VECO 19BB. HUGE tail, long before we started doing that. It was "too different" for the judges, so they said... Also a published plans article...

Jim T: I think it is easier to see a radius in the videos because there's a ghost image of the previous frame is still there for an instant ...

In both the YouTube sequences, if you watch closely, you can see the relatively short straight tracks between the turns, even with these guys who are among the world's best. And, as Jim T found out the hard way, the models often "dirt-track" around corners, sliding wider than the apparent shape we perceive from the rotation of the fuselage... There've been stop-motion sequences of "tight" corners showing that the fuselage rotation is not on track with the path of the model. Since a corner takes around - or less than - 1/3d of a second, humans can be forgiven for an inability to follow both the rotation and the path accurately.

[Howard Rush]

That Mustang flew softer corners than other Walker airplanes, but it had its virtues.  I watched his Nats finals flights with it and was impressed at how abruptly he snapped from the corner radius to the straight leg.  This is a different effect than just the sharp corner, but it makes for a pretty pattern. 

[Just One-eye]

I think it was Rich Porter's Ridiculous that was doing the 5' corners. It was a published plans article many years back. Biggest problem was that is was kinda big - around 500 sq in - on a honking TeeDee. Wind? fuggedaboutit...

I know Bob Baron and Bill Netzeband worked on the Humbug, flapless, twin-boom, large model for a VECO 19BB. HUGE tail, long before we started doing that. It was "too different" for the judges, so they said... Also a published plans article...

First off, what is Will Bill's current status?  I know he wrote a few columns in PAMPA's Stunt News while I could still feel comfortable belonging to that organization, and showed up at a few VSCs, then even dropped into one or another CL message forum to post a few comments, but I haven't heard anything about his situation in a few years now.

The Humbug was flying "closer" to the small radius than any other "semi-normal looking" model, but was hampered by its speed (too fast for the judges to keep up with).  The Porter planes did turn tight, but Rich all by himself can seemingly alienate entire armies of detractors, apparently through negative energy (sorry, Rich, if you're lurking, we've not met, although several people I've come across have done so, and the opinions seemed way out in either left field or right field, with nothing much between!) 

The Netzeband design that came closest to the magical, mystical 5' radius, I'm almost certain, was one of the "BareCat" designs that led to the Doodlebugs.  I think it was powered by a 15 . .

Well ? ?

[Jim Thomerson]

I saw the original Barecat fly at the 1980 Nats.  It had a TD 049 and was very impressive. 

[Shultzie]

The Humbug was flying "closer" to the small radius than any other "semi-normal looking" model,
but was hampered by its speed (too fast for the judges to keep up with).  


[/quote]

NOT TRUE! IT WASN'T THE SPEED!

I can assure you that most of us standing there back at the 68 Nats and watching Baron during his amazing flight with that HUMBUG...IT WASN'T THE SPEED OF THE HUMBUG that resulted in the lower score...
REMEMBER GANG! BOB'S LITTLE 19 POWERED HUMBUG WAS USING A FLAT BLADED LOW PITCHED PROP....FOR TWO REASONS...(REALLY QUITE UNIQUE AT THE TIME!)

Although that little .19 engine sounded like it belonged in the speed circle...THE LAP SPEEDS WERE ACTUALLY SLOWER THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE TRADITIONAL stunt models  on the staging area.
HOWEVER...THE FLYING WAS AMAZING! SMOOOOTH LEVEL LAPS...SNAPPY SQUARE CORNERS...NO BOBBLE OR WOBBLE...WHAT SO EVER!! ON RAILS!!!
Bob Baron was ONE OF THE FIRST ADVOCATES OF USING THOSE LOW PITCHED PROPS turning at unusually HIGH RPM'S that took advantage of the BRAKING effect that seemed to actually PREVENT AND CONTROL THAT INFAMOUS SPEED WIND UP IN THAT INFAMOUS KANSAS MID-DAY WIND that was upsetting and causing so much havic to the traditional Nobler style stunt models.

Also while standing around the line up stage area...TWO AIRPLANES stood out that on first appearence, especially to the NOBLER-SCHOOL PURIST...that the  Bob Baron's HUMBUG was out of place and belonged in the combat or speed circle..and AL RABE'S beautiful RED MUSTANG belonged in the Scale model section...NOT THE CLPA CIRCLE!

However after seeing how beautifully Bob Baron's  FLAT BLADED HIGH RPM'D LITTLE ENGINE cut through that wind with perfection CHANGED LOTS OF MINDS THAT DAY!!!
Although that engine noise was reeeeeeeeeeaaaall screaming...that little HUMBUG flew at NORMAL SPEED..(NO WINDING UP IN THE LOOPS) and best of all...

BOB BARON DIDN'T HAVE TO POSITION HIS LOOPS AND OTHER PATTERN MANOUVERS' out of the DOWNWIND VIEW OF THE JUDGES...unlike so many of the other flyers. Even our world champions where seen positioning their loops etc..waaaaaaaaaay up into and downwind....in ORDER TO KEEP THEIR TRADITIONAL UNDERPOWERED FOX 35'S  AND K&B 45 POWERED STUNTERS UNDER CONTROL...due to the high Kansas winds.

I THINK BOB BARON...(although sadly, his score didn't show it) I THINK THE MAJORITY OF ALL OF US STANDING AROUND THEIR WITH OUR EYEBALL POPPIN OUT....SEEING JUST HOW BEAUTIFULLY THAT HUMBUG CUT THROUGH THAT HIGH WIND AND HOW BEAUTIFUL & PRECISE BOB BARON FLEW THAT DAY...
THE FUTURE OF STUNT WOULD SOON BE CHANGED...that no longer a NOBLER style or design would RULE THE CLPA WORLD.
Soon after...we began to see the tuned pipes...flat bladed HIGH REV. LARGE DISP. SIZED ENGINES begin to take awards and set records.

 THANKS BE TO FOLKS to folks like BOB BARON, AL RABE...etc,  who were brave enough to
THINK OUTSIDE THE TRADITIONAL STUNT BOX.
Bottom line:
IT WAS NOT THE SPEED...OF BOB BARON'S MODEL THAT WAS AT FAULT OR THE PROBLEM WHAT SO EVER......IT WAS THE SIMPLE FACT OF "BREAKING THE TRADITIONS OF THE DAY!"

Our world of CLPA JUST WASN'T READY FOR IT AT THE TIME.

[john e. holliday]

Too bad that judges, some of them in reality, don't concentrate on judging the pattern, not the airplane, not the pilot, not the sound of the engine and most certainly not how the wind is blowing.  Round 1 to round 2 flight I improved score by 60 points by warming engine up first.  Round 1 it took several laps to get warmed up after a half lap take-off.  Another contest a change in judges I went from 1st by 40 points to 4th with a different set of judges.  One judge scored me low as he did not like the looks of the plane.  I am flying a "DoodleBug" for fun and it looks like it rotates instead of turning the corner.  May add landing gear to top side so Leo can fly it.  DOC Holliday

[Brett Buck]

I THINK BOB BARON...(although sadly, his score didn't show it) I THINK THE MAJORITY OF ALL OF US STANDING AROUND THEIR WITH OUR EYEBALL POPPIN OUT....SEEING JUST HOW BEAUTIFULLY THAT HUMBUG CUT THROUGH THAT HIGH WIND AND HOW BEAUTIFUL & PRECISE BOB BARON FLEW THAT DAY...
THE FUTURE OF STUNT WOULD SOON BE CHANGED...that no longer a NOBLER style or design would RULE THE CLPA WORLD.
Soon after...we began to see the tuned pipes...flat bladed HIGH REV. LARGE DISP. SIZED ENGINES begin to take awards and set records.

Our world of CLPA JUST WASN'T READY FOR IT AT THE TIME.

     I certainly didn't see Bob fly in 1968 so I couldn't challenge your comments on that. But I do know that the subsequent airplanes (the 9' radius jobby and the one he flew at the 1997), while certainly turning tightly, didn't do *a lot* of other things well enough to win. Same with Rich Porter's airplane (which turned about the same, very tight but not 5', as confirmed with Rich's "turn radius gauge"), which I have seen fly numerous times and have launched a few times.

Stunt contests are won with a *combination* of things, only one of which is the turn radius. Like flying straight lines straight, curved radii evenly curved, making square loops that look square (i.e. 4 equal sides that are at right angles), round loops round and right on top of each other, not overshooting in corners,  etc. Setting the airplane up to fly super-tight corners might help that one aspect but it has, in every case I have ever seen, greatly compromised the others. That was a big problem with Rich Porter's airplanes, and from what I saw, it was also a significant factor to Baron.  It wasn't the judges "not liking it", the airplanes didn't go where they needed to go to get good scores and had numerous other mistakes that were getting caught and correctly assessed, and counteracting any beneficial effects that were gotten by flying the corners 4' tighter.

     Brett

[Shultzie]

    I certainly didn't see Bob fly in 1968 so I couldn't challenge your comments on that.

 But I do know that the subsequent airplanes (the 9' radius jobby and the one he flew at the 1997), while certainly turning tightly,

 didn't do *a lot* of other things well enough to win. Same with Rich Porter's airplane (which turned about the same, very tight but not 5', as confirmed with Rich's "turn radius gauge"), which I have seen fly numerous times and have launched a few times.

Stunt contests are won with a *combination* of things, only one of which is the turn radius. Like flying straight lines straight, curved radii evenly curved, making square loops that look square (i.e. 4 equal sides that are at right angles), round loops round and right on top of each other, not overshooting in corners,  etc.

Setting the airplane up to fly super-tight corners might help that one aspect but it has, in every case I have ever seen, greatly compromised the others. That was a big problem with Rich Porter's airplanes, and from what I saw, it was also a significant factor to Baron. 
It wasn't the judges "not liking it", the airplanes didn't go where they needed to go to get good scores and had numerous other mistakes that were getting caught and correctly assessed, and counteracting any beneficial effects that were gotten by flying the corners 4' tighter.     Brett

Brett...WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT "WINNING" IS RIGHT ON THE $$$$ AND THANKS FOR TRYING TO PUT TO BED THIS "FIVE FOOT CORNER TO REST!

  However, perhaps you might have failed to understand the POINT...of my post.

 Don't you agree...just maybe, CLPA HISTORY HAS SHOWN....a few strange facts that seem to self evident!
That NOT ALL THINGS ARE CREATED EQUAL...AND ALSO...ONE MAIN FACT!

Whether your name is "BRETT BUCK OR OL' NERDALDO-NEAR-DE-WELL' from nowhere........over the years, especially in local yokle' contests....
HISTORY, TRADITION OFTEN RULES HEAVY ON THE MINDS AND HEARTS OF JUDGING STAFFS...WHETHER THEY BELIEVE IT OR NOT! And our indiviual success's are often EZZZ-RRRRR if we take the PROVEN TRADITIONIST PATHWAY...when building and flying stunt machines.


 Still one thing still remains..
BOB BARON FLEW NOT ONLY NICE TIGHT CORNERS BUT THAT LITTLE .19 POWERED FLAT PITCHED "COMBAT" MODEL...NOT ONLY CUT THE WIND...BUT FLEW A CONSISTANT, PRECISE, SMOOTH AND AMAZINGLY TIGHT PATTERN and althought the sound of that little SCREAMING engine sounded like a combat engine in full killer mode....Truth is....
Bob's lap speed was quite normal  and best of all Bob's patterned...FLOWED BEAUTIFULLY...FROM TAKE-OFF TO LANDING!