Using Combat planes for stunt ...

The oh-golly, WOW, JEEKERS! best flying I've ever seen was combat at Brodak's.

I would assume that a really good combat flyer could take his plane and win just about any stunt contest there is.

Yes?

No?

Why?

If that were true, I would be a whole lot better at this than I am.

The first answer is easy - NO.

To explain "why" is more difficult.
It's a different mindset. Combat flyers are concerned with placing their plane on the opponent's streamer, regardless of the path their plane takes to get there. Stunt flyers are concerned with the path their plane takes. Stunt guys watch their plane, combat guys watch the opponent's plane.
The years I flew both stunt and combat events at Brodak, I didn't do very well at either - hard to switch modes.

I agree with the NO answer but can point to some pretty awsome examples of guys that crossed over and are VERY good stunt guys.

Rush, Granderson, McKenzie, Scavone come up right away. I know there are many more.

FWIW

>I agree with the NO answer but can point to some pretty
>awsome examples of guys that crossed over and are VERY good
>stunt guys.
>
>Rush, Granderson, McKenzie, Scavone come up right away. I
>know there are many more.
>
>FWIW
>
>Curt

"Crossing over" is one thing. They are usually good flyers who can fly low to the ground and are not afraid of 5 foot bottoms. But they need to learn precision. And their planes are not good planes for precision (too jumpy, too fast). So the answer is "no." Good combat flyers can become good stunt flyers and good stunt flyers can become good combat flyers. But usually they are better at one or the other.

>
>"Crossing over" is one thing. They are usually good flyers
>who can fly low to the ground and are not afraid of 5 foot
>bottoms. But they need to learn precision. And their
>planes are not good planes for precision (too jumpy, too
>fast). So the answer is "no." Good combat flyers can
>become good stunt flyers and good stunt flyers can become
>good combat flyers. But usually they are better at one or
>the other.

Hmmmm...

I find few acts which are more precise than flying a 120-mph model aircraft through a relatively short length of string being towed by another 120-mph model aircraft. All while the models are a mere 60 feet or so away.

As to the models being "too jumpy," one does not perform the above act with any regularity whatsoever if the model cannot be flown quite precisely indeed.

Still, Combat models do not suit the CL Stunt application, although it is not because they are "too jumpy," the best ones not being jumpy at all.

Personally, I think "good fliers" are good fliers, no matter the discipline. Yes, that includes FF and RC, not just Combat and Stunt.

> Good combat flyers can
>become good stunt flyers and good stunt flyers can become
>good combat flyers. But usually they are better at one or
>the other.

On the other hand, Howard and Phil have both been national champions in combat, and both have every chance of being national champions at stunt. I suppose you could say they were better at one than the other, but being a national champion in each would be pretty good,

Closer to the topic, I would wager either Phil or Howard could beat most stunt specialists, in stunt, with combat planes.

I agree it is very difficult to be really good at both at once, for the reasons stated. Now, if they would put two stunt planes up at once in the circle, it might make a difference. (He he he).

--Ray, an old unreconstructed combat flier.

It was suggested to me that a Mongoose with a 19 would be a good sport flyer and possibly a stunt trainer. Thoughts on this? I don't think I could keep up with one on a hot 35.

They're mainly too FAST for Stunt. Slow them down to Stunt speed and you lose all that nice line tension.

And getting enough fuel in a Fast Combat plane for 7 minutes? With 3-4 ounces, they can barely stay up for 2 1/2!

>It was suggested to me that a Mongoose with a 19 would be a
>good sport flyer and possibly a stunt trainer. Thoughts on
>this? I don't think I could keep up with one on a hot 35.

Sure! So would a Flite Streak (used to be a Combat plane many many years ago), or a Tallman Spider, or Bear Sidewinder, or any of countless Slow Combat designs, which are supposed to have a profile fuselage and a 5 inch nose.

So would, say, an Allenplane or a Core House Gotcha Psycho, but you'd need to learn to use bladder tanks. Just alter and mount a .19 (or better yet a .25). The prop is the secret - use a 8x4 or 9x4 and it'll slow down nicely. You could even use a Fox .35 Stunt (though it'll eventually vibrate to death..).

>It was suggested to me that a Mongoose with a 19 would be a
>good sport flyer and possibly a stunt trainer. Thoughts on
>this? I don't think I could keep up with one on a hot 35.

Hmm Russell, That may work very well, I and my sons flew a Mathis
Cherokee in the bygone Super Slow Fox.35 Combat events that predated
80 mph Combat. It was a very competitive model that I can state out turned
any othe model I flew against back then. It had great line tension and
was very stable. It flew in the 76-78mph range with a Taipan semi-pliable
9x6, wish I could find that prop again.(Ha!) I used a Paul Smith design
chicken hopper tank, what an incredible running setup. That model would
fly a stunt pattern easily and accurately with a 10x5. To further your
Mongoose Cause, one of my twin sons, built a Mongoose covered with nylon,
and using a Thunder Tiger .19 and alternately a TT .25(these were very early non-schnurle ver's)
and it flew very well also.
Tony

>It flew in the 76-78mph range with a
>Taipan semi-pliable
>9x6, wish I could find that prop again.(Ha!)

http://www.modelflight.com.au/powered_propellers.htm

I have tried flying stunt with a combat plane. It is a lot easier to do it with a stunt plane.

It's definitely true that some people are good at both combat and stunt. I can think of some others not yet mentioned who would be good at the other if they tried it. But they are definitely two different things, and I don't think the ability to do one has much influence on the other.
Similarly, I think you can fly a combat match and then step to the adjacent circle and fly a stunt flight, and the one doesn't have to much affect on the other. They're just not at all similar. Now, flying one stunt plane, and then shifting to another -- for me anyway -- that's much more difficult (e.g.: Classic, followed by PA, with two different planes).
But it seems to be true what someone above said -- most people are just better at one thing than the other.
I am definitely still better at flying combat with a combat plane than stunt with a stunt plane, despite the fact that stunt is mostly what I do now. I have flown a stunt pattern with a combat plane, but never tried flying combat with a stunt plane. I suspect that would be the hardest of all.

John Thompson

http://flyinglines.org
News of Northwest CL
Model Aviation:D

There was a guy in Indiana about 1969 who flew combat with a Nobler. It had no landing gear, no colored dope, and a bladder fuel system. It turned very tight.

Paul Walker, the PAMPA president, is an excellent combat flyer. He would possibly be even better if he could fly without giggling the whole time.

I'd bet a bunch that ol' Bigiron could go to most any local contest and kick keister in both the stunt and combat circles. Da' Dirt could, too.

>I'd bet a bunch that ol' Bigiron could go to most any local
>contest and kick keister in both the stunt and combat
>circles. Da' Dirt could, too.
>
>Bill Jacklin
>(A Ringmaster/Fox .35 kinda' guy)

I note that GMA (the designer of the modern PA pattern) wasn't really a Combat fan. He once wrote about a demo Combat match he flew at the '57 Nats where his opponent "took the whole outboard wing off my pretty Flite Streak and that was it for me!"...

JAK

LAST EDITED ON Oct-24-06 AT 06:56 PM (CST)
 
>I'd bet a bunch that ol' Bigiron could go to most any local
>contest and kick keister in both the stunt and combat
>circles. Da' Dirt could, to.

Too bad they missed our local contest in Clovis this past weekend.


(Back row) Kieth Trostle, Bob Whiteley, Brett Buck, Ted Fancher and Paul Walker
(Kneeling) Bart Klapinski and Dave Fitzgerald.

For those who are not aware, they are all Walker Cup winners.

Ho hum, just another, typical local west coast meet.

Larry Fernandez, NorCal Circle Jerks

Add to the above group, Howard rush, Phil Granderson, Dave Sabon, and Chris Cox. Boy what a tough crowd.

Yeah Howard,
I've flown the pattern a bunch of times with some of my FAI combat planes (With Fora's). I'm not sure the judges could tell how "precise" you're flying.
You really don't have to worry about fuel consumption, however, as the post above suggested. It only takes about 2 min to fly the pattern.
You're right much easier with a stunt plane...you can actually see what you're doing.
It is kinda fun though.

>The oh-golly, WOW, JEEKERS! best flying I've ever seen was
>combat at Brodak's.
>
>I would assume that a really good combat flyer could take
>his plane and win just about any stunt contest there is.
>
>Yes?
>
>No?
>
>Why?

Progress is our most important problem

Because they won't give you any points if it doesn't look like a stunt plane. Although the rules don't say that stunters need to be slow, the judges do.

Trust me, I've tried it.

Even with a muffler and landing gear.
Combat flyers can win stunt, but not with the same planes.

What have I learned from this thread so far?

Hmmmm ... It seems to me that stunt flying is a necessary step toward combat flying.

And then we come to total dedication. Champion Stunt flyers and champion combat fliers ... about the same.

Fuel? I'd say 10 gallons of stunt fuel to 100 gallons of combat hot mix in practice sessions, maybe the same in contests.

Yes, I'm in awe of combat flyers since I witnessed one of them talking to another in center circle while their planes flew around in loops and eights BEHIND THEIR FREAKIN' BACKS!

>What have I learned from this thread so far?
>
>
>Hmmmm ... It seems to me that stunt flying is a necessary
>step toward combat flying.
>
No, In my opinion, once you can do 8's inside and outside loops and fly inverted comfortably, you can fly combat. Get a Russian F2d, put a 25 on it, prop it to go 80, and find someone to fly friendly combat bouts with. You will learn a lot in a hurry.

Also that same combat plane combat plane will teach you the harder stunt maneuvers. They won't look so pretty, or score well at a contest, but you will get through them.

Dave

>Yes, I'm in awe of combat flyers since I witnessed one of
>them talking to another in center circle while their planes
>flew around in loops and eights BEHIND THEIR FREAKIN' BACKS!

Don't be in such awe. Give it a try yourself, it's a lot easier than it looks. Those speed limit airplanes look very fast from outside the circle, but from inside they're not that fast, most people can handle one just fine.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-22-06 AT 08:09 PM (CST)
 
>>Yes, I'm in awe of combat flyers since I witnessed one of
>>them talking to another in center circle while their planes
>>flew around in loops and eights BEHIND THEIR FREAKIN' BACKS!
>
>Don't be in such awe. Give it a try yourself, it's a lot
>easier than it looks. Those speed limit airplanes look very
>fast from outside the circle, but from inside they're not
>that fast, most people can handle one just fine.

Indeed. It's all in the perspective of things.

"I" can't do that!" never could do a BLEEPing thing!

I personally have been amazed at the things I thought I could never do once I had the courage built up to actually try them (sometimes though it took a few times I grant to get it tweaked "just right").

JAK

PS: if you can fly a Combat model well, you can fly anything in C/L...

Hi,

>Yes, I'm in awe of combat flyers since I witnessed one of
>them talking to another in center circle while their planes
>flew around in loops and eights BEHIND THEIR FREAKIN' BACKS!

Sure. One asked: "Do you know where are the ##### planes?" And the other answered: "I have no idea"

LAST EDITED ON Oct-23-06 AT 10:34 AM (CST)
 
the only time I've seen somebody not used to combat get in real trouble was when I got one of my club buddies up on a fast ship, circa 105 mph. He did fine level and did quite a few maneuvers. Then he stopped flying to take a breath and it was behind him. Fortunately he did the right thing and hauled full control and looped it until he could find it again. Anyone who can fly the pattern can fly any of the Speed Limit combat planes. The Teosawki right now is an excellent flying stunt plane built off a combat design. Most of the flapless profiles are very similar to a combat plane.

I'm a firm believer that learning how to fly combat an getting good at it is a great way to learn how to fly stunt better. The higher speeds train up your reflexes. Combat is all about precision flying, putting the plane within a foot or so of where you want at speed. The planes crash without usually breaking so you can learn the maneuvers much faster. They are relatively so cheap even a total writeoff costs way less than the hardware on a stunter so you can quite agonizing about crashing the newest plane. You learn to fly without focussing totally on the plane. It's amazing how much that helps to frame maneuvers like the loops, eights, hourglass, and cloverleaf.

As an even bigger benefit, learning to fly the plane anywhere on the circle, keeping it under control, and learning what to do when it does something funny saves lots of planes. I don't know how many stunters I've seen go in when the motor burps unexpectedly in an unusual spot or the plane gets a bit loose on the lines and the pilot freezes up and just lets it crash or does the wrong thing and makes it crash needlessly. You learn to use the wind too.

In the Old Days, sturdy combat models were used as trainers. You could take a Riley Wooten Whatzit and stick, say, a 19 on it. Slow down the controls, put a small pitched prop on it, and a lot of nose weight. The Whatzit was a pretty strong model compared to what came later, with the twin boom models. Of course, a "modern" foamie combat job would work quite well in this application.

Sometimes, newbies do better at hand launch than ROGs. Maybe it is because you get to manuever both ways upon release...

When I first started,

a) We learned to fly without crashing

b) We learned loops and flying inverted, maybe outside loops too

c) Then, because flying around in circles gets pretty boring, we attached streamers and flew combat. This was slow with 15's in GMA Peacemakers.

d) We did that for a few years . . . then built things like Noblers and Thunderbirds and started practising the schedule. But we tried out the manouvres first on the Peacemakers (eights, clovers etc.) to make sure we could do them.

e) Now I am WAY too slow in reflexes for combat!

As to why not combat models for stunt?

1) They just don't LOOK right (important!)
2) Way too fast to actually see the manouvres properly
3) Stunt should be SLOW and ELEGANT

LAST EDITED ON Oct-23-06 AT 02:11 PM (CST)
 
Uh...Oh,Oh, I gotta ask. Where in any Stunt/Pattern/Schedule rulebook does it
say that the Flight should be slow and elegant? I do realize that this
flight presentation is advantageous for higher scoring...also, no, you're
probably not to slow to fly Combat.

2? years ago Larry Scarenzi (sp) flew a Wild Bill Scared Kitten at VSC with a russian combat motor and prop on it. It was going about 95-100 on 52 ft lines. Since this is an old timer he flew the old pattern with the single square loop. It was a very nice loop with good corners and nice even sides the length of the horizontal sides was even longer than the height ones. It took all of 1 second or less to do. I was VERY impressed.

I used to like painting with dope but now I can't remember why. _________Steve Fauble

Yes, and He didn't score very well!

I launched the airplane and at least one of the judges was a little "miffed" because it flew so fast. Go figure!

Fly a perfect pattern real fast and see if it will score? Not.

Judges can't score what they can't see. Remember most airplanes look faster from the outside of the circle than from the inside, and most modern combat planes look plenty fast from the inside.

>Judges can't score what they can't see. Remember most
>airplanes look faster from the outside of the circle than
>from the inside, and most modern combat planes look plenty
>fast from the inside.

They probably didn't care for the noise, either..

>Uh...Oh,Oh, I gotta ask. Where in any Stunt/Pattern/Schedule
>rulebook does it
>say that the Flight should be slow and elegant? I do realize
>that this
>flight presentation is advantageous for higher
>scoring...also, no, you're
>probably not to slow to fly Combat.
>
>Tony

Tony,

No rule SAYS it has to be "slow and elegant" - but slow and elegant is what impresses the judges (and gives them time to think too!). A very fast schedule with a combat plane looks a bit like chasing the soap around in the bathtub

From a spectator point of view IMHO slow is nicer to watch. Combat is great to watch (and better to fly!) but it's -zip, zip, zip.

I thought I heard that Morway had to fly a stunt plane in a Combat finals match. not sure how he did with it.

I think Combat flying is way easier than Stunt. It's too hard for me to watch my own airplane - makes me dizzy.

About Larry Scarinzi, the first time I saw him fly was at the Chicago 1966 Nats. In Combat, he was flying his Super Satan designs with much-modified Fox 36X engines that were running an honest 120 MPH. (Blowing away everyone else, with their Johnsons and Super Tigres.)

To relax between matches at the Nats, he flew Stunt. (I think he placed at both events.)

Bud Bodzioch

Come to think of it.. THe second time they ran Speed Limit at the Nats, someone from North Carolina showed up and flew some Stunt job. Nice, doped tissue, flaps, he was going to fly it in Beginner Stunt (or maybe Intermediate) but changed his mind and flew it in Combat instead. I remember it eventually lost its landing gear, and it was painted purple, but he ended up taking second place after the rest of us "experts" had midairs and whatnot and didn't score the extra bonus points! All with that one stunter.

And there was that Frozen Finger where Jimmy van Dyck flew a Tutor II - and won! That one eventually lost it's vertical stab but also survived to the end.