Ted, now we are talking about the human factor.
An assassin with a katana and an empty-handed hero square off at a sushi bar. Assassin swings and misses, and the hero stabs him in the eye with a dirty chopstick. We all know how this movie ends; the hero always wins due to his sheer skill and prowess (and because the truth is on his side!).
No argument there. (Although... are you volunteering David's plane if I build him a Brodak Nobler? I've always wanted to try a celebrity plane, so I'll take you up on that )
To be a little more serious, if we eliminate the "pros vs amateurs" factor from your hypothetical competition, then such thing already takes place - every other year - and it's called Worlds. I doubt David, Paul, Derek, etc would take a Nobler to represent the US against the best of the rest.
The question is, what could our Top 3 take with them to the Worlds to stem the composite Shark infestation?
Hi Mike,
I think you missed my point...although, after re-reading it, I didn't make the point all that clear so, for that, mea culpa! Below in red, I'm reasonably certain, is the sentence to which your post was addressed:
"In fact;in turn, give each of them a dozen flights to get comfy with the Nobler and then have a flyoff with the others flying their own ships, each developed to maximize their performance in the airspace allotted by the rule book. Add up the number of times the Top Gun flying the Nobler on 40' lines comes out on top."The phrases "...in turn..." and "...others flying their own ships..." did, in fact refer back to the previous paragraph's "...go fly against Dave, Derek, Paul and the rest of the current best...". I agree the meaning of the paragraph was open to interpretation.
The intent of the "test" I suggested was that each of the Daves, Dereks, Pauls and/or other current top guns would take turns getting used to the Nobler on 40' lines and then compete with it in a judged contest against the other Top Guns flying their own "designed, built and trimmed for the available airspace" ship. The question was: After each "top gun" had his/her opportunity with the big airplane on short lines against the other "top guns" with their own equipment, how many would have won the competition when they flew the Nobler on the short lines? My guess would be a big fat zero.
If my suggestion of the old as the hills Nobler instead of their own Impact/Thundergazer etc. is your concern I feel the outcome of each flyer flying "his own" ship
on 40' lines would be the same; zero wins.
I was trying to demonstrate--rather than pontificate--that the amount of airspace available is among the most critical factors to be considered when developing a competitive stunt model. Was it an extreme example? Yes, and purposely so, so as to make the cause/effect obvious.
Re your Reynolds number observation...
Although I recognize the validity of Reynolds numbers and the desirability of greater chord length in the pursuit of performance I think its importance vis a vis stunt ships confined to neighborhood park sized flying sites pales in comparison to other factors, specifically aspect ratio of area appropriate wings and appropriately configured high lift devices (flaps and...I guess I have to throw them in...vortex generators [icccck!] I said it). Within reason, I don't feel today's competitive stunters have a wing loading which is restricting our turn radii.
There was a period of time in what is now almost ancient stunt history where many thought we should be flying 725+ square inch stunt ships on S.T. .46s. While some success was achieved the "appropriate" (yeah, I recognize the ambivalence) size was more like 650 square inches. What we even later learned was that even with .75s and .82s we were still comfortable with airplanes in the 650 to 700 square inch range.
Of pertinent interest is that since the advent of that revolution (the .45/6 generation) we've increased the size of the powertrains but not found much to be gained by making ships bigger.
I know, TMI Mike. My only real purpose in the lengthy explanation is to hopefully help you to understand that it was never my intent to suggest that what I called "Top Guns" could whip the not quite yet top guns flying an overpowered Nobler on 40' lines.
Quite the opposite, my intention was that whichever T.G. was flying the airplane too big for the available airspace was going to lose big time.
Ted
p.s. Just as I was about to post this novel I noted a post from Proparc in the "topic summary" below this window saying pretty much the same thing in less than three lines. Now, I could'a done that too but I get a little teary eyed thinking about all the letters and punctuation marks that would never have had their chance to shine. thus, I'll post it anyhow.