Engine offset??? Is it needed? If so howmuch??

Engine offset? I have heard that the Chinese team in Germany had extremely light airplanes. They were powered by the Chinese version of the ST 60. The airplanes were of average size but Very light. They used a large amount of engine offset. I am very curious about this and wonder is anyone has heard of this and has any ideas about this.

I have one(idea) of my own. The need for engine offset could be because the lightweight airplane does not create near as much centrificle force as a heavier one would. Therefore the engine offset a visually noticeable amount, could counteract this and create the needed line tension.

My initial thought was "Why bother with all that light building if you are gonna have to set it up weird to get the proper line tension?"

Well here's why.

As many of you know in the world of FAI competition the judges do not move after the flight has begun. This can play havoc for many of the fliers and usually does every year. This year was no different. I heard about a practice flight from one of the Chinese fliers, the eventual winner. The wind was shifting from one side of the circle to the other in the middle of his flight. He looked off to his coach and his coach signaled him to stay where he was a complete the pattern where he had originally started it. The guy watching this flight (a very accomplished judge) was stunned. He said that plane powered through and never looked in trouble once. He said there were two practice flights going on at this time. He was between the circles. He could have judged both flights from where he was standing. One down wind and one up wind. He said the upwind flight was excellent.

Anybody seen this or have any ideas?

Doug,

If you would have looked close, you would have noticed the 2 degrees engine offset and 7 to 8 degrees rudder offset in my P-51 at the NAT's. Something new to me.

I had the opportunity to fly Xian Dong's ( previous 2 time world champ from China) plane in 1991. That memory has never faded. It tracked very well, turned acceptably tight, and did nothing unexpected. I have never flown another plane even close to that one until the Mustang came along. It is close, but needs some weight reduction.

The light weight allows them to fly in many conditions without significant trim changes, and the engine / rudder offset gives line tension. In the past I have attempted to achieve this with the tuned pipe setup, but NEVER got there. Now, with the 4 stroke, I am much closer. Next years Mustang WILL be significantly lighter, or it won't be (flying at the NAT's that is)!

Yes Doug, I think you observed it correct. The light weight will be the key to this setup!

Let's take this a little further.

Do you think this setup works on specific designs? Or is it weight related or both.

You stated with the tuned pipe you could not acheive desired results. Is this because of the steady speed run the pipe delivers as opposed to the more on off run the coventional 2s gives? The VF 40 is a one speed setup pretty much through and through. The more on off run would be really accepting of the rudder and engine offsets I would think. Because they(offsets) act defferently at different speeds.(So I believe) When the plane slows down the offset rudder/engine keeps it out there. Where as in a pipe setup there might not be as much slow down or need for such a setup. I am also keeping in mind that almost all of the pipe setups are gonna be heavier. So the setup there might not be needed as much either.

I sure do like the idea of not having to retrim as much for different areas. I wonder how they(the planes) are gonna fly here in the states? Probably excellent as usual.

Am I close here or just wondering about aimlessly?????

I believe the answer in the pipe airplanes was in the amount of line tension they had. With the rudder offset, there was not enough tension to overcome the line whip in the corners and a bad yaw oscillation would start. I tried adding some engine offset, but that didn't solve it.

The line tension with the 4-stroke is naturally higher and this creates a force to keep this yaw to a minimum. If I want to ignore flying the P-51 in the wind, I can offset the rudder twice as much and get GREAT dead air capability. It gives up in certain maneuvers in this configuration in a strong wind. Ah comprimise!!! (My TRIZ instructor would not appreciate me saying this!)

About 4s line tension. I have a bear I retro fitted with a 4s(os 52) it is 58oz 650 sq. It has exceptional tension below 45 and horrible above. It has an airfoiled straight mounted rudder. Would offset come into play here?

It might. I have an 80-ounce ThunderTigre Extra RC ARF I converted to C/L and put a .56 4S Saito on it. Have about 5 degrees rudder offset and it pulls hard at top of wingover. However, I've never done complex overhead work with it and I have the luxury of continued centrifugal force on a simple wingover. So my answer remains: "It might." Try it and let us know.

I haven't seen any problems caused by engine offset. In fact, the more the better for controllability in the wind. Combat flyers have been doing this for years, up to 10 degrees.

The offset doesn't really add much line pull, that comes from the weight and centrifugal force. I've been pretty happy with the Giles(http://home.earthlink.net/~philcartier). It pretty much ignores gusts and wind up to about 5 mph. Even then when it gets upset, it falls back in line without major problems.

>I believe the answer in the
>pipe airplanes was in the
>amount of line tension they
>had. With the rudder
>offset, there was not enough
>tension to overcome the line
>whip in the corners and
>a bad yaw oscillation would
>start. I tried adding
>some engine offset, but that
>didn't solve it.
>
>The line tension with the 4-stroke
>is naturally higher and this
>creates a force to keep
>this yaw to a minimum.
>If I want to ignore
>flying the P-51 in the
>wind, I can offset the
>rudder twice as much and
>get GREAT dead air capability.
> It gives up in
>certain maneuvers in this configuration
>in a strong wind.
>Ah comprimise!!!
>(My TRIZ instructor would not
>appreciate me saying this!)

So Paul...When you have this much offset (engine & rudder)is your lead outs Farther Foward then about 1/2" behind the CG?

Scott(Stunt Student)Riese

Doug,

The air was somewhat thinner than I was used to. I participated on a contest a month before WC on the same place in Sebnitz. I had enough time to trim the model for those condition, and to my surprise the leadout ended up ½” back than I expected. My model have had only some 10 flights till that time so I understood it as an logarithmic device property, but after my return back home I moved them to original – expected position. After my arrival to Sebnitz again (to WC this time), I quickly explored that I must move leadouts to previous position I found last time in Sebnitz. So I would say they also find that the regular trim is not the best for Sebnitz. Excessive engine and rudder offsett could be another way for the same.

Btw our FAI jury really does not move more than 1/8 of the circle. On my bad luck I did all 3 flights in “warm up” contest in Sebnitz against the wind. It is not so difficult if you know what to do. Side wind hurts figures much more.

I restored a flea market Nobler last year. I was attracted to it because of its light, dessicated status upon purchase, despite a dreadful, gone to seed silk job that I completely replaced with dyed 'span.

Anyway, the original builder had not trued the nose portion fore of the LE, and it was bent, Rocky Marciano style, outboard. On top of that, the drilled-for-Fox (natch) holes had some offset built in. Net result was more offset (a lot more) than I really wanted, thank you very much.

But the model came out, ready to go, at 37 ounces. I made a cowl that I hollowed, Scientific model Hollow Log style (translation: a lot) and used ultralight 'span on those open areas on the side; you know, the part that always breaks just aft of the TE (Why GMA, why? TF wood wasn't that porky). In fact, the entire plane saw nothing but thinned Rit-tinted Blue clear (which isn't that pretty on the fuse, actually), save the blue flaps and (blue again) antidazzle paint in front of the canopy. There's a bit of tip wt, something around 0.5 to 0.7 ounce, and George's killer airfoil rudder, of course. David Brown (or Dubro?) wheels, for their lightness, and ultracool tread, which of course no self respecting stunter can be without (hate those spongy looking Slicks).

Bottom line with this setup: Very sweet,relaxing slow flights, lap times not that far south of 6 seconds, probably the best flying ship I have. Even I can do passable Squares with the thing.

This was all pure luck, less my obsession/compulsion to keep the avoidupois off.

On the other hand, I have an Upright engine T-Bird, another resto, the nose is bent out again, but I didn't notice. Had to completely replace and glass the maple mounts, Fox again, and (again) this time I drilled in my own offset, mistakenly. After it was all done (of course), I notice that there IS A WHOLE LOT OF OFFSET on this very fat, getting close to 50 ounces job that Mr. Palmer intended to be a lot, lot less (read the Veco plans sometimes).

Anyway, this one flies just OK, and a lot, lot faster, and we ask the Fox to be more of a wet 2 this time. I'll get my flying buddy to tell me how much yaw we're talking here (Until I get my new glasses {recent retinal tears in R eye], to me it's only a rumor that there's an actual plane out there on the lines).

So: you win one, and the other is called on account of rain.

Currell (love those Classic ships)

Doug and I have had some discussion on this subject.

One of the things is think you may overlooking would be the contribution of the large propeller and how it adds stability. My 4 cycle airplanes appear to be extremely stable (pretty much all of them) and are reasonably easy to trim. One of the contributing factors (I feel) is that I am using 14” and 14.25” propellers on planes that were designed for 12” or 13” propellers. My latest airplane, which is basically an Impact, was designed to be flown with an 11.25” propeller!

The 4 stroke is capable of providing tremendous line tension (if that is what you want) but most of this is ultimately trimmed out to make the corners clean and precise as possible. Maybe Paul’s definition of line tension is different than mine. I have always been a proponent of solid line tension. I am also probably not capable of trimming to Paul’s level.

I am planning to change the design of the Impact flying trim just slightly to suit the big prop. I said something to Howard rush about that at the Nats and he gave me a confused look. Basically, the nose moment would be 9.25” and the tail moment 17.75”. The theory being that the larger prop disc requires more leverage from the tail to turn. This is the same tail moment as Doug’s plane, and his turns quite nicely. The shorter nose is for balance.

Anybody and I mean anybody, who is flying CLPA competitively at the expert level and is running a 4 cycle with a big prop would benefit greatly from the addition of a Rabe rudder. I think a lot of the “line tension” problems people talk about are occurring in the outside portions of the pattern almost exclusively.

Here what I have seen. Light airplanes require MORE thrust than heavy airplanes to create the same amount of line tension, and do not lend themselves to a broad power band. Light airplanes are more capable of changing direction faster than heavy airplanes but often do at the expense of stability. Light airplanes do not “load up” the handle in high winds, but are less capable of “punching through” turbulent air. Light airplanes are much harder to build. Light airplanes do not win much (at least here in the States).

All in all, everything is a trade off. There is no one setup that outperforms all the others.

With the rudder
>offset, there was not enough
>tension to overcome the line
>whip in the corners and
>a bad yaw oscillation would
>start.

Could you explain this "line whip"?

"the Chinese team in Germany had extremely light airplanes"
Any definition for that ? I think you all are flying very light planes, so how much lighter the Chinese planes can be ?
And any idea how that is achieved ? Where are they saving the weight if the planes are about the same size as all the other ones ?
regs. Jyrki

Engine offset works for other than all-out PA planes also. GMA used to write about the fun he had with his Flite Streaks powered by PAW .19 diesels and using lots of offset. I think he said that you could go up to about 15 degrees on the Flite Streak without adverse effects. Can some of you folks who flew with him shed more light on this?
George

This is a VERY interesting thread. Very interesting indeed. I am reading and am on pins and needles just awaiting the "input" from the top experts.
Bigiron

LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-02 AT 09:51 AM (CDT)

>"the Chinese team in Germany had
>extremely light airplanes"
>Any definition for that ? I
>think you all are flying
>very light planes, so how
>much lighter the Chinese planes
>can be ?

I have heard as light as 48oz 60 size ships. Dont quote me on that. That is really light.

>And any idea how that is
>achieved ? Where are they
>saving the weight if the
>planes are about the same
>size as all the other
>ones ?
>regs. Jyrki

They arent running pipes so there is a weight savings there. Maybe they dont put as much into the finish. Maybe they dont have as much filler paint clear etc. All that equals weight.

I am not sure how they are saving the weight. I have not actually seen one in person. Just heard stories.

Marvin,

Read thread posts #'s 1 and 3. Paul is 9 times Nats and 1 time World Champ and has flown Chinese built airplanes - how much more of a top expert can you expect to reply to this thread?

> This is a VERY
>interesting thread. Very interesting
>indeed. I am reading
>and am on pins and
>needles just awaiting the "input"
>from the top experts.

Bait. But I'm not biting.

> Bait. But I'm
>not biting.
>
> Brett

What does this mean? Where did Pual go? There was a question about line whip. I think I figured it out though.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the thread. Is there a significant advantage to the engine and rudder offset with the really light airplane as opposed to the normally weighted airplane using straight mounted motor and rudder?

>> Bait. But I'm
>>not biting.
>>
>> Brett
>
>What does this mean? Where
>did Pual go? There
>was a question about line
>whip. I think I
>figured it out though.
>
>I would like to hear your
>thoughts on the thread.
>Is there a significant advantage
>to the engine and rudder
>offset with the really light
>airplane as opposed to the
>normally weighted airplane using straight
>mounted motor and rudder?
>
>DMoon

YES,YES...Please come back "Shane" what is "line whip"? Is it the force of the lines going through the hard coner after the plane exits and when the lines catch back up the plane jumps?

Awwwww Cumm'on Brett make my day!!! I am sorely disappointed.
To Jim P, I know that Paul W is one of the more prolific winners of this country; however, he doesn't expound on the various subjects on this forum as some of the others do. When he does, it is usually clear and concise to the point that there is little to argue about.
Brett. You know that I am kidding don't you??
BUT, you got to admit that this could be a good place for some varying points of discussion. ---- don't you??
Bigiron

>>> Bait. But I'm
>>>not biting.
>>>
>>> Brett
>>
>>What does this mean? Where
>>did Pual go? There
>>was a question about line
>>whip. I think I
>>figured it out though.
>>
>>I would like to hear your
>>thoughts on the thread.
>>Is there a significant advantage
>>to the engine and rudder
>>offset with the really light
>>airplane as opposed to the
>>normally weighted airplane using straight
>>mounted motor and rudder?
>>
>>DMoon
>
>YES,YES...Please come back "Shane" what is
>"line whip"? Is it the
>force of the lines going
>through the hard coner after
>the plane exits and when
>the lines catch back up
>the plane jumps?
>

The lines are springs that are driven from one end, and held (hopefully), stationary at the other end. Maneuvering tends to set up oscillations in the lines that take a while to damp out.

Go tie a 30 foot rope to a pole, and yank the other end around - you'll see what I mean. A jump rope is just a special case where you intentionally get it whipping. If the lines are very light, and have a lot of drag (like the reprehensible Sullivan kevlar lines), this motion can be critically or overdamped, meaning they don't make oscillations but just trail along. If you have a lot of line tension, the oscillations are of a higher frequency and smaller amplitude, and can be lived with on some level. This is what Paul was referring to. If you have heavy lines and light line tension, the whip can result in significant feedback into the airplane.

The other factor is what sort of motion drives the oscillation. Simply maneuvering is a pretty low-frequency motion, and doesn't really drive it all that much. Maneuvering, and having this maneuvering cause a lot high-frequency roll and yaw due to trim settings, really tends to get the lines going in several vibrational modes, and tends to cause a problem.

The rate at which the vibrations like to occur are the "natural frequencies" of the system. I don't think this is the time to digress into the nature of second order damped oscillators, but any decent college physics book will address the subject. An important feature is the response of such systems to being driven is that they respond strongly if the driving frequency is near or higher than the natural frequency, and weakly if the driving frequency is lower than the natural frequency.

As a reference, the first (lowest) natural frequency of the lines on my airplane seems to be in the 2 hz area (two swings per second). The first natural frequency on the B-17 was probably about 10 hz.

Paul's point (and we talked about it a bit so I think we were on the same page) was that once he had a lot of intrinsic line tension from the 4-stroke, he could get away with things like a lot of rudder and engine offset. It caused the same issues with generating roll and yaw motions in the airplane, but the extra line tension didn't result in nearly as significant a problem with driving the line oscillation (same input but higher line frequency and thus lower amplitude). I think that the point was that Paul preferred the response of the airplane to *external* disturbances from turbulence with the extra rudder and engine offset, and the *internal* disturbances caused by the yaw and roll were now something he could live with.

Most of the trimming that I normally do, and has become standard practice among many, was to trim for absolute minimum roll and yaw, because the reaction through the lines drove the pilot to react and mess up. Everything I tell people to do in trimming is intended to make the driving motions as minimal as possible. Paul is suggesting that he thinks he prefers it another way

PW, please correct/elucidate further if I got it wrong.

One other note- my airplane looks like 3 billboards flying in formation (vice like the tailfins on a '59 Caddy) because I wanted to limit that yaw motion and reduce the associated line whip. The intent was that the yaw natural frequency of the airplane would still be lower than that of the lines, but high enough to limit the amplitude yaw motion resulting from other internal torques (GP or P-factor, both of which exists and can be factors at different times on the same airplane, even in the same flight). It's arguable whether this worked out, but it certainly was different.

In my experiments in the past 2 years on 4 strokers, I tried them in some of my really light planes. They did not work as well. Problem was that I was unable to offset the engine enough to counteract the loss in line tension due to the weight, as well as get enough rudder offset. That experiment pointed to a "moderate" weight plane with 2 degrees engine offset as being the best under the limitations of the experiment. Also, at the time, I was not using the larger diameter props as well. I should revisit this experiment.

I don't believe that is the final answer.

I have watched the Chinese plane very closely in the strong winds of Sweeden. Several of their flights ended up with aborts due to lack of penetration. I believe the problem there was the limited power of their "mighty" 60's. They are set up mild on purpose, and the strong wing was a problem. This can be overcome )I believe) with a bigger 4 stroker and big prop.

The weight. I still believe that a lighter plane "should" fly better. My NAT's and WC's results have not proven that out though. A lighter plane makes things much easier to do repeatedly (intersections, corners for example)but I have not had the right combination yet.

For what it's worth, I will be heading down the path of light weight and significant (obviously a subjective term here!) offsets in both the engine and rudder. On the P-51, I had to reduce the optimal rudder offset (for calm and light wind conditions) to get the proper strong wing capabilities. With a little less weight, and a 72 up front, I might be able to go back to the larger rudder offset positions. Time will tell on this one.

I obviously don't have all the answers on this yet, and since I have gone down the 0 - 0 path for so many years, it's time to travel the other path now and see what can be extracted from it.

I'll keep you posted on the results in the future.

We could do square eights with combat planes with .015" lines. When the rules changed to .018" lines, the square-eight handle-moving frequency was close to the natural frequency of the airplane and lines. It was then unpleasant to try to do square eights.

Bob Carver likes to do square eights with combat planes, so he would use light-- sometimes really light-- lines when flying by himself. This resulted in some humorous incidents.

>We could do square eights with
>combat planes with .015" lines.
> When the rules changed
>to .018" lines, the square-eight
>handle-moving frequency was close to
>the natural frequency of the
>airplane and lines. It
>was then unpleasant to try
>to do square eights.
>
>Bob Carver likes to do square
>eights with combat planes, so
>he would use light-- sometimes
>really light-- lines when flying
>by himself. This resulted
>in some humorous incidents.

I take it, not the kind of humor an insurance writer would enjoy?

With a
>little less weight, and a
>72 up front, I might
>be able to go back
>to the larger rudder offset
>positions. Time will tell
>on this one.

Good for you. I think you will like the big Saito.

I know me giving you advice is a little arrogant, but I will anyway.

Why not use the Rabe rudder? Really... The 72 is really not complete without it.

Why not trim for ZERO yaw, by using an active system?

I believe some of the "line whip" I have seen is due to the induced yaw in a hard (especially inside) corner. Why not actively eliminate the yaw?

I told Doug the same thing. Even his marvelous airplane yaws hard outside on the third corner of the triangle.

Al had it right all along, I think. No doubt in my mind.

I saw the Chinese models fly last month. I do not know how much they weigh. There are a lot of stories that could be told. The patterns the Chinese fly are very disciplined. The scores throughout the Championships showed that the judges preferred large, smooth patterns with consistent bottoms. The Chinese consistenly flew large patterns with consistent bottoms. The several windows they had during the finals where the wind was not gusting to 20 mph or more, or swirling in differnet directions during a single flight, the Chinese posted some good scores. In contrast, the Americans and the French had fewer windows of "reasonable" winds. The Chinese models did not handle the unfavorable winds any better than other unpiped ships and not as well as any of the piped ships in my "unbiased" opinion. An example is during the final round, Xinping Han flew right after David. David's air was probably the most turbulent during that period but scored 2,909 to Xinping's 2,911. Then about 30 minutes later, Bill flew in really treacherous air and scored 2,985. Even with Bill's pipe working very well, the airplane came loose at the top of his hourglass. He was able to recover and still present a reasonable hourglass, but points were lost on this high K-Factor maneuver. (This is a measure about how bad that air was - his airplane never comes loose in the verticals). Xinping's model had even more trouble in the verticals in that round with air that was not as bad as Bill's. Bill needed 3,027.5 on that flight to take the Championship. The French had the best performing 4-strokers there. Their performance in the verticals were about as good as the good piped ships there. If the weather had been constant through the Finals, I think Bill had a real shot at first. Both David and Todd could have also placed higher. As a team, they would have been closer to the Chinese. The French would have also been closer to the team championship with constant weather conditions. (I am not saying that the Americans and the French would have done better with just good air. Both teams flew well very given the wind conditions. I think the French and the Americans would have had a real interesting contest for the team championship if the air would have been a constant factor. The Chinese had the opportunity to sometimes and more often to fly in more favorable conditions and they took advantage of it. Other Championships have been won in the same way.)

I think before more mistique is generated, the Chinese models did not represent any advancement in performance. They were able to give more what the judges were looking for. And the judges seem to like large patterns, with consistent bottoms and consistent intersections. The Chinese did these things well.

Enough for now.

>I saw the Chinese models fly
>last month. I do
>not know how much they
>weigh. There are a
>lot of stories that could
>be told. The patterns
>the Chinese fly are very
>disciplined. The scores throughout
>the Championships showed that the
>judges preferred large, smooth patterns
>with consistent bottoms. The
>Chinese consistenly flew large patterns
>with consistent bottoms.

One might even be tempted to speculate that light airplanes with lots of offsets, *without* the extra line tension afforded by 4-strokes, may be prone to the line whip discussed above, and may thus *have to* be flown more softly to avoid inducing a lot of extraneous roll and yaw motion. Makes you think, anyway.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-02 AT 02:54 PM (CDT)

Is it the judges at the worlds liking large patterns or the judges in the states liking small patterns.

Don Hutch has a device that you set an anle on it like a protrctor. Then when you sight through it like a scope the buble will travel to that line that you set for that particular angle. I set it 45 degrees. I sighted it up and tilted back until the bubble was in the middle. I havent flown that big since I was in Int. It was astounding how much higher 45 really is than what scores well here in the states. Flack jacket firmly strapped on! However my findings with that scope were quite different than I expected. I am not saying "Hey everyone fly big" I am just saying there was quite a difference in the amount of angle that angle finder was showing me and what we actually fly.

I have watched the walker flyoff many times now and we all flew relatively close in size but from the side of the circle on video it looks alot lower than the so called 45. I have heard for years the 45 is really alot lower than you think. After using the angle finder and it showing me 45 for real I think differently now. I am still gonna keep flying it the way I like though.

It's all perception anyways.

DMoon

PS After watching the video Pauls flights were closer to 45 then the rest of us. He was larger than the rest of us were flying that day. He won. So the judeges are looking at it correctly we just weren't flying it that way.

Doug,

Glad to see that you have found the truth about the 45 degree angle. I believe that a true 45 degrees on 70 foot lines is approximately 50 feet in altiture. When you look at a plane that high you will swear it is at nearly 55 degrees. I believe it's all in the preception relative to the ground instead of the base of the hemisphere we are required to fly in 4-6 feet above the ground. I think that makes the planes appear higher and at more than a 45 degree angle.

Yes Jim it is around 50 feet. Someone a while back did the math and it comes out around that number. Yep from outside the circle in the judges view it looks big but from the sides the line look to be at the correct angle.

Yes, the height is simply
(line length)*sin(45 degrees)=linelength*0.707,
or 49.5 feet.

What actually is interesting, is that to the judge standing on the opposite side of the circle (~120 feet taking into account that the projection of the plane onto the ground is also 49.5 feet from the pilot), the angle appears to be about 25 degrees (judge's perspective). Of course the judges will have normalized that out. The judge's angle is 45 degrees when the plane is directly overhead (to the pilot).

No wonder it is tough to judge.

Alan said,

Yes, the height is simply
(line length)*sin(45 degrees)=linelength*0.707,
or 49.5 feet.

Close, but don't forget the normal level flight altitude in this calculation.

(Center to center length) * sin (45 degrees) + normal flight altitude = 70 * .707 + 4 = 53.5 feet (above ground level).

I guess I'm just to picky picky picky..... No, just a pain in the .

I guess that's what makes the difference when the points are finally tallied!

Here's an exercise for those who feel we are flying patterns smaller than rule book.

First of all, remember that each of our single segment maneuvers should be flown within 45 degrees of arc in both the horizontal and vertical directions (with the exception of the triangle which deserves a little extra discussion). Ergo, if their shape fits the rule book and their horizontal dimension fits the 45 degrees of arc, than the vertical dimension will be 45 degrees as well.

Because this is the case, we have one direction that we can easily and visibly define. That is the horizontal. We can make markers to divide the circle into rulebook defined segments.

We did this back in the '70s. Make up a half dozen or so stakes with bases on them that allow them to be positioned at various places around the circle. Just for hoots, make some cardboard circles about two feet in diameter and attach them centered on a point five feet from the base of each pole. These circles now define rule book "level flight" with the bottom of each at four feet and the top at six feet.

Now take a protractor of some sort into the center of the circle and place a sighting device of some sort on it...a simple tube a foot long or so will permit adequate precision. Utilizing a helper and a tape measure, very carefully position these poles at 45 degree increments around the nominal downwind perimeter of the circle and equidistant from the plainly marked center of the circle. Any five of these will precisely define 180 degrees of arc...or half of the circle. Using six or seven allows some left and right fudging for shifting winds.

Now, take off and fly the pattern between these poles.

Here are the parameters you've gotta use if you are flying "rule book" size maneuvers. All round and square loops must be just touching any two adjacent poles...45 degrees of arc. All of your horizontal eights must fit so that one pole is at the intersection and the end of each loop "just touches" the adjacent pole on the appropriate side of the intersection...90 degrees of arc.

Here's what I think you'll find. You are most likely flying somewhat larger rounds than will easily fit within 45 degrees of arc. You will likely find that with some practice you'll be able to tighten them up to fit.

Your round eights will be harder to squeeze in to 90 degrees of arc and you'll find that trying to get them in that space will require more precision on just touching tangent at the intersection. The tendency of almost all of us is to fly just a bit past tangent which forces the following loop segment to grow slightly in size. With close attention you might be able to fly rule book size round eights with some degree of consistency. I do suspect you'll find that you aren't doing it right now.

Square loops and square eights in the rule book space will be eye openers. Most square eights you see even in top five flyoffs will be a lot closer to 120 degrees than 90 and I've seen some really gross size ones with some supposedly high zoot classic planes with "modern" powerplants in them flown by some pretty high priced talent.

You will find it "VERY" difficult to fly square loops in 45 degrees and##### near impossible to do a decent square eight in the rule book 90 degrees.

Remember, if your maneuvers are symmetrical, height = width on a square and a loop is simply a cone on which any two points 180 degrees apart should be exactly the same dimension...in other words if the maneuver is round and/or square and the horizontal dimension doesn't fit within the appropriate poles, the vertical dimension is flawed as well.

When we did this exercise in the '70s I found I pretty much couldn't move my hand fast enough to do even a presentable square eight in the rule book space...let alone a high point version. A great deal of my design priorities since those tests has been aimed at making ships more agile without being squirrely. Much of the recent discussion on other threads has touched on exactly the things we've done to make rule book sizes more possible. I think they are more doable now than they were in the past.

I still feel, however, that it is unlikely that anyone is actually flying entire patterns at sub-rule book size. It is possible that some might be squeezing down the rounds to get pretty close but I'd be willing to bet they are losing some points during the squares because they are noticeably larger than their rounds.

Exactly that point was made to me by a judge after a nats in which I either won or placed high. His comment, almost verbatim, was: "the thing that made your pattern stand out to me was the fact that you flew your cornered maneuvers close to the same size as your rounds. A lot of the other guys flew compact round maneuvers but their squares were so much larger that it stood out. I dinged them for it."

Just a couple of words about the triangles and why they don't fit the "poles". Our triangles are supposed to be equilateral...i.e. three equal sides and three equal angles. They are also, by the rule book, to be flown so the top corner is at 45 degrees elevation. As a result, a perfect triangle can be divided into two "right" triangles by a vertical line from the top corner to a point equidistant between the two bottom corners. By definition each of the sides of the triangle now are the hypotenuse of its respective right triangle. Remembering our good old A2 + B2=C2 rule its obvious that each side is greater in length than a 45 degree arc segment. Since all sides must be equal the base of our triangle must, as well, be greater than 45 degrees of arc.

Having stated the goal...watch your average pattern and see if the triangle isn't the tallest of all the cornered single segment maneuvers in most instances. It's really tough to squeeze in two full 120 degree changes of direction into that much circle arc and still have anything remotely like a straight side to it. Ergo, they're generally a smidgen...or a smidgen and a half...too big.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-10-02 AT 08:23 AM (CDT)

LAST EDITED ON Aug-10-02 AT 01:45 AM (CDT)

Hi Doug,

Congratulations on your performance last month in Muncie.

I find your comments about the size of the maneuvers are interesting (Ref your post #28 above). Ted sort of beat me to the punch regarding his discussion in his post #34. I would like to add another perspective to this. I think particular attention needs to be given to what Ted just said here about the size of the maneuvers. There is a growing sentiment that the overly large patterns that are being flown are acceptable and when a true 45 degree pattern is flown, people firmly believe that it is too small.

First, I would like to know more about this sighting device you mentioned. Is this hand held? Where is it located? Is it held by the pilot or located by the pilot? Is it on the side of the circle to compare to the line angle at the top of the maneuvers? How accurate is it to really measure a 45 degree elevation angle and from what perspective. Or in other words, how does it work and how is it used? This could be an extremely useful tool if it provides an accurate measure of the angle of the lines at the top of our maneuvers.

Second. Before there is a stampede to justify the overly large patterns that are being flown on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific, I would suggest that anybody serious about how the PA pattern is to be flown should do a fairly simple exercise. This can be done at a contest (as long as it does not interfere with the operation and judging at that contest) or on the practice field. Take a large piece of cardboard or foam board and make a right triangle with the base and the height being at least 24 inches. 30 to 36 inches would work even better. Then stand at the outside of the circle, crosswind to where the pilot will perform his downwind maneuvers. Hold the triangle so the base is on the horizon (base of the circle which is essentially the handle height of the pilot.) As each of the downwind maneuvers are performed, you will normally only be able to see an approximation of the actual line elevation angle as you will only on occasion be in the optimum position to accurately align the triangle with the true line elevation angle. There will, however, usually be an instant at the top of the square maneuvers where you will be in that optimum position to accurately compare the 45 degree triangle to the actual line elevation angle. This process does not allow for a high degree of accuracy. But it does start to give an idea or an approximation of how close or how far an elevation angle is compared to the prescribed 45 degrees.

Also, this same triangle can be used on the upwind or downwind side of the circle to see how close the ends of the overhead eights come to the same prescribed 45 degree elevation angles.

It has been my experience over the years of using such a triangle at the Nationals and Team Trials during the judges' training sessions as well as several clinics I have participated in that even the "better" fliers will noticeably exceed the 45 degree elevation angles that define most maneuvers. But this experience has also shown that almost any kind of sighting device can be very inaccurate when trying to measure the elevation angle of the lines connected to a model going through the pattern.

Third. There is a way for a judge to fairly well determine what the size of a 45 degree loop should look like, regardless of the length of the lines or the size of the airplane. When you stand directly upwind of the pilot, you can mentally draw the 45 degree segments to the left side and the right side of the circle directly downwind from the pilot. This defines the 90 degree segment of the circle that the horizontal eights are to be flown. It is fairly easy to visualize each 90 degree segment of the circle. That 90 degree segment is 1/4 of the circle circumference. Then watch a pilot as he flies through the round and square horizontal eights. I think you will be surprised how few pilots even come close to containing the horizontal eights within a 90 degree segment of the circle. In fact, I think you will see many pilots, even some good ones that will use up to 120 degrees of the circle to fly their round horizontal eights. On really windy days, it is not uncommon to see 150 degrees being approached, particularly with the square eights. If you see a horizontal eight that exceeds 90 degrees in its width and if the loops in these round horizontal eights appear round, then they are higher than 45 degrees in elevation. The size of the squares should be similar in width and height to the round maneuvers. With some training and experience, a judge can start to recognize the relative size of the loops (round ones, square ones and the triangles) given differences in line length and aircraft size by comparing what is being flown to those 45 degree and 90 degree segments he can visualize on the circle. Even if you are not directly across the circle from where the horizontal eight is flown, (as when the maneuver is to the left or right of the circle from where you are standing), you can still easily visualize the 90 degree segment (a quarter circle) that should contain the horizontal eight. (It is stuff like this that makes it fun for the judges and explains why they get paid so much money for what they do.)

On the overhead eights, the judges are in a good position to determine the 45 degree elevations at the ends of the eights. When you see where that low point is, visualize in your mind if another loop could be performed between that low point and the ground and visualize if it would be the same size of the loop just completed. You will be surprised how small that imaginary loop would have to be for most overhead eights because the overheads are normally are too big.

For the vertical maneuvers (the vertical eights and the hourglass) the bottom loops should appear the same size as the other 45 degree maneuvers. The telltale sign if the entire maneuver is the right size, assuming the bottom and top segments appear to be the same size, is to look where the model is at the top of the maneuver relative to where the pilot is standing. (This means you have to take a quick glimpse where the pilot is at the instant the model is at the top of the maneuver.) You will be able to see if the model is behind the pilot. It it is, the maneuver is too big and most people are surprised at how often this occurs, even with the top pilots. If the model is in front of the pilot, the maneuver is too small (but you seldom see this except for the four leaf clover which is a whole different subject).

I would like to hear from those who believe that the judges at the Nationals and Team Trials are looking for patterns that are too small after they have critically observed a number of patterns as described above by a wide variety of skill levels. I am not trying to say that I am absolutely correct in my assessments. But I am suggesting that people are wrong when they think the judges are incorrectly emphsizeing the smaller patterns.

There are many aspects that a judge should be looking for in the pattern. The rulebook emphasizes that size, shape, corners, bottoms, concentricity and intersections are all to be considered. If you fly the proper shapes, the pattern will be smooth. The converse does not necessarily follow. Flying a smooth pattern does not necessarily mean that proper shapes are being flown. It is difficult to fly the 45 degree maneuvers and make the maneuver look "smooth". Yet the pilot who is attempting to fly the 45 degree meneuvers is flying the more technically correct and difficult pattern and should be awarded points for it. It is up to the judge to determine if other errors outweigh the bonus the pilot should recieve for flying the more difficult but technically more correct pattern.

(It will be interesting in the future if the FAI rules being proposed are adopted for FAI competition where markers are to be placed around the circle to mark each 45 degree segment of the circle. I think there will be some huge surprises for many competitors -- and judges for that matter.)

I am reserving comments regarding the "approximately 38 degrees" entry level of the four leaf clover for a later discussion on a new thread in the future.

WHAT A POST. Thanks to the "BIG HITTERS" for comming back and Explain the simlpe art of STUNT. What can I say but THANK YOU.

We are all students, Scott. I have used the triangle method that Kieth mentions here when working with Matt, but it is difficult unless you are exactly 90 degrees off the maneuver. Round loops, triangles, and the vertical eight are the easiest to work off of using this method. Squares and horizontal eights can be down right difficult.

I do like to use the vertical eight as a good reference point, however. This, to me, is one of the easiest ways to check. For the coach, while watching the loops, find something in the background as a reference point for the heights (if possible. Trees, hills, mountains, that SST going by. Uh, better scratch that.) Then, when he does the vertical eight, we want to make sure that the bottom loop and the top loop are the same size. Now, if the bottom height is in the correct location and the top of the maneuver is straight over his head, then the intersection should be the 45 degree reference point. If that coincides with the approximate location of previous maneuvers, fine. If it is above or below (seldom above) then we need to adjust the size of the earlier maneuvers accordingly.

Many flyers make "snowmen" (small upper loop) to keep the maneuver from going over their head. That is why the above method works only when the upper and lower loops are approximately the same size. Shape must come first while learning. Then we try to make them the proper size and put them in the proper location.

And since flyers can get into bad habits quite easily, whenever I am there to coach Matt, one of the first things he asks and one of the first things I check is the 45's. Of course, the coach is only as good as his eyesight or his perspective. That is why some of these aids come in handy as good reference points for both the coach and the flyer.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-10-02 AT 04:54 PM (CDT)

Kieth,

Thanks for the Congrats!

I am not challanging anyone or any judges at all with my above statement about small patterns. So please no one take any offense when this is discussed by me. That is exactly what this is, a discussion. I have no doubt about what has been tested and done by many pilots before and I think I might do it myself. I know for a fact that my square eight is much larger than it should be. What do you think I have been working on for so long? Still dont know if I will ever get it right.

As far as the device goes. I have no idea what it is called. Don Hutchenson has it. Next time I see him I will ask him what it is called. It is accurate. It doestnt matter what you are standing on or what angle you are at when you set it for 45 degress or whatever angle you want. It has to be at the angle before the bubble lines up in the view finder.

Smaller patterns. According to what has been said above and I the past it would seem to me that the smaller pattern that was close to correct would always be awarded more points than the larger one that had flat straight legs and all the goods. Right? Even a pattern with missed angles as long as it is closer to rule book should get higher. I have watched the top 5 flyoff on video many times. I love watching that video! Paul Walkers maneuvers were larger than Ted's. However he had laserbeam bottoms. Outstanding consistancy on his bottoms!!!! It was there every time no matter what. BAM! FIVE FEET!! BAM! FIVE FEET!! His shapes were good but they were larger than Ted's. I didnt notice it that day I was really doing all I could to get through my flights trying my best to look like I belonged there. It was not gigantic or nothing no one get the wrong idea here! You can see it on the video when you can watch one set of loops by Ted and then put in another set of loops by Paul. But he had the shapes intersections and bottoms that were clean and smooth that day. Also his lines in the video of the side of the flight were right on 45 where others including my own looked lower. It looks lower there is no other way around it. Ours looked lower that day and Pauls didn't. He won.

I want to end this by saying this is just an observation of my own. After watching that video many times.

>
>Smaller patterns. According to what
>has been said above and
>I the past it would
>seem to me that the
>smaller pattern that was close
>to correct would always be
>awarded more points than the
>larger one that had flat
>straight legs and all the
>goods. Right? Even
>a pattern with missed angles
>as long as it is
>closer to rule book should
>get higher.

Well, maybe we could use another devil's advocate. Unfortunately, many people and judges these days are favoring smaller patterns. I hate to take a serious position contrary to Keith's. I treasure him as one of my best friends, still, Keith talked of 45, size, 45, elevation, 45, higher, 45, larger, and finally offered the opinion that there should be a bonus the pilots receive for the more difficult but technically correct pattern. When did we start giving bonus points for technically correct patterns? Even Ted observed that the judging expectation is that maneuvers be done within 45. WITHIN 45?

Stunt in the U.S. is changing from a sport to an athletic contest. If the new vision of technical correctness should prevail, and Keith trains the judges, the victors will be those having the fastest or best trained reflexes able to do high speed miniature maneuvers.

The conversation, so far has centered on small maneuvers with most, it seems, ignoring Paul's observation that 45 plus 5' is actually 53'. Will people holding those cardboard triangles actually hold the base at the fliers 5'? And for what its worth, I hate looking a pattern videos typicallly taken with wide angle camera settings which introduce their own distorted vision of reality.

What hasn't entered into the conversation so far, and perhaps accounts for our recent lack of success in World competition, are rather odd concepts such as presentation, beauty, form, smoothness, grace, flow and integration. Maybe there should be an implied bonus for pretty patterns with nice shapes, good bottoms and intersections.

It seems that our decline in World competition perhaps coincided with the development of stunters utilizing piped PA 65s with carbon 4 blade props in a slightly enlarged version of an airplane designed to fly with a rather anemic Fox 35. The designer of that defining stunt ship proudly acclaimed that "Stunting can be smooth". What happened to his concept. Just because we can build airplanes with outrageous capability, should stunt evolve into an athletic event to take advantage of those capabilities?

George said that "Stunting can be smooth". For what its worth, I think stunting should be "pretty". Maneuvers should be flown as close as possible to rule book, but not to the extent that the beauty of the pattern is ruined. Overly large maneuvers should be downgraded, but so should bad shapes, angles, missed botoms and intersections. We shouldn't be "one note Jonnies", regardless of the oft stated and overweighted opinions of the competition elite.

What dose it take to get over the idea that our concept of the pattern isn't shared by the rest of the world. They seem to prefer "pretty" to technically correct.

>What hasn't entered into the conversation
>so far, and perhaps accounts
>for our recent lack of
>success in World competition, are
>rather odd concepts such as
>presentation, beauty, form, smoothness, grace,
>flow and integration.

These aren't in the rule book.

Brett,

>>>>What hasn't entered into the conversation
>so far, and perhaps accounts
>for our recent lack of
>success in World competition, are
>rather odd concepts such as
>presentation, beauty, form, smoothness, grace,
>flow and integration. <<<<

>>>These aren't in the rule book.<<<

But rule books don't judge patterns. People do. No matter how tecnically correct your pattern is, if it isn't "pretty", you probably won't score as well. This is a judged event and as such, will ultimately be judged based on the impression your flight makes on the judges. Technical correctnes contributes to it, but it's not the only consideration. Judges are people and subject to the overall impression of the flight.

Just look at other judged events. Figure skating, diving, skateboarding, surfing, gynastics, you name it. Each has technical merits that they are judged on, but in the end, it's the performance that makes the most favorable impression that gets the highest score. Certainly technically good, but all the things Al mentions contribute to the judges impression of the performance. And that's what it is, a performance.

Randy (putting in his 2 cents)

>
>What hasn't entered into the conversation
>so far, and perhaps accounts
>for our recent lack of
>success in World competition, are
>rather odd concepts such as
>presentation, beauty, form, smoothness, grace,
>flow and integration. Maybe
>there should be an implied
>bonus for pretty patterns with
>nice shapes, good bottoms and
>intersections.
>
>It seems that our decline in
>World competition perhaps coincided with
>the development of stunters utilizing
>piped PA 65s with carbon
>4 blade props in a
>slightly enlarged version of an
>airplane designed to fly with
>a rather anemic Fox 35.
> The designer of that
>defining stunt ship proudly acclaimed
>that "Stunting can be smooth".
> What happened to his
>concept. Just because we
>can build airplanes with outrageous
>capability, should stunt evolve into
>an athletic event to take
>advantage of those capabilities?

>What dose it take to get
>over the idea that our
>concept of the pattern isn't
>shared by the rest of
>the world. They seem
>to prefer "pretty" to technically
>correct.
>
>Al

100,000% agree.

I brought this up at the judging clinic at the Dalls Stunt Symposium. All they were talking about was 45 degrees and flying small, with the shapes "correct". I asked "what about quality". What about a quality corner verses a geometrically "correct" corner with bobbles. The guy giving the clinic really had no response.

Stunt was once more than just 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 5' bottoms and intersections.

I always liked "smooth" over "fast and hard". Maybe we should all look at where exactly the opinions regarding these styles are coming from.

I vote for "smooth and hard". It can be done. Doug is "smooth" and he flies very hard corners. I am also a big fan of the "freight train" look (Al Rabe's BBQB is a friggin' freight train). Which is a completely locked in look.

Thanks to all who have posted to this thread. The size explanations were most helpful to me personally. I just had not given much thought to this, rather, tried to fly what I felt were the correct sizes and geometry.

Today, we had a local club contest, Classic stunt, and I flew my Excalibur. Since the information was fresh in my mind, I concentrated on using the excellent information regarding size and intersections. It paid off as I scored the best flights I've ever done. Thanks all for the help, I couldn't have done this without your input.

John Miller

>Thanks to all who have posted
>to this thread. The size
>explanations were most helpful to
>me personally. I just had
>not given much thought to
>this, rather, tried to fly
>what I felt were the
>correct sizes and geometry.
>
>Today, we had a local club
>contest, Classic stunt, and I
>flew my Excalibur. Since the
>information was fresh in my
>mind, I concentrated on using
>the excellent information regarding size
>and intersections. It paid off
>as I scored the best
>flights I've ever done. Thanks
>all for the help, I
>couldn't have done this without
>your input.
>
>John Miller

O.K. John, no fair! You can't get out of this that easy. When you used the "excellent information regarding size..." were you then flying bigger or smaller than before?

>
>O.K. John, no fair! You
>can't get out of this
>that easy. When you
>used the "excellent information regarding
>size..." were you then flying
>bigger or smaller than before?
>
>
>Ted

Hi Ted, Did I mention that Pete was one of the judges? He has a pretty good eye and afterwards was very helpful talking to me about areas I still need to work on.

In answer to your question, Both would be the answer. Some manuevers I had been flying too small, esp. the triangle. The explanation regarding the necessary longer legs, AND the longer base, was most helpful. I finally got a great score on both flights with that manuever.

My loops wound up being larger as I tried to visulize the mental stakes set in the ground as you described. I still had some trouble with the horizontal eights. My first one was pretty good, but the second one opened up too wide on both flights. I'll be working on that though.

The description of the hieght the plane would be flying above the ground when at 45 degrees made it much easier to find that elevation. For some reason, it appears easier for me to judge the hieght above terrain better than the angle.

The entire experience was an epiphany for me. Thanks again all.
:-D

>I brought this up at the
>judging clinic at the Dalls
>Stunt Symposium. All they
>were talking about was 45
>degrees and flying small, with
>the shapes "correct". I
>asked "what about quality".
>What about a quality corner
>verses a geometrically "correct" corner
>with bobbles. The guy
>giving the clinic really had
>no response.
>
>Stunt was once more than just
>45 degrees, 90 degrees, 5'
>bottoms and intersections.

Yes, it was. Then someone started looking at the rule book instead of randomly assigning points based on how pretty (in some undefined sense) it was. And it became much more difficult to win on reputation, much more difficult to hide the shortcomings of certain airplane designs. I personally think that this is an improvement. Guys can more realistically just pop up out of nowhere by flying well, instead of having to spend years "paying their dues". R.O. was a great example, and I guarantee that in the "good old days" someone like Doug who flew well enough but wasn't a "name" wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in H*ll of going from not winning Advanced to making the Top 5.

You are engaging an overblown discussion based on tiny differences that are being over-emphasized. The people who win are those who make the least errors.

Anyone who sits around spending a lot of time on these abstracts like presentation, style, and flow is largely wasting their time, and it's a conceit to think anyone currently flies well enough consistently enough to think that plain old errors are a solved problem. I would be very surprised to find this was any different in the past. I see the best pilots in the most competitive era in stunt (now) all the time, and I guarantee that the people who win make the fewest mistakes, and that even the best make some mistakes that all the style in the world won't outweigh.

PW won this year, and most other years, by not making obvious mistakes, not through a "style". In fact, he has won flying 3 distinctly different styles (hard and fast with ST60s, overwhelming accuracy and tight and smooth with the 40VF, and smooth and relatively large with the Saito). In all cases, he simply made fewer obvious mistakes in things like bottoms, intersections, etc.

The question about bobbles is easily addressed. Tight and bobble is a mistake. Soft and smooth is a mistake. Tight with no bobble is correct. A bobble is a shape error. How much you deduct for this depends on the size of the bobble is a matter of opinion. How much you deduct for 60 degrees vice 45 is another matter of opinion. How the two play together to result in a score is a third matter.

My personal method is to assess deductions for over- or undersize as a reduction of the max points available. Every maneuver starts with a 40. A little bit but noticably large, or a little bit but noticably small might knock it down to a 37. Distinctly large or distinctly small might knock it down to a 33. Way big or way small maybe down to a 28. Even if everything else is perfect.

Same thing with bottoms - a little bit higher or lower than "reference" (say 3 or 7-8') is maybe a 37, 10' is a 33, 25 feet is a 28, on down.

Then further errors like bobbles in the corners, shape errors, imprecision, knock it down as they come.

It's really pretty simple, and Tight and Smooth *absolutely kills* anything else in competition, at least in the US. Please describe where it says differently in the rule book.

>I always liked "smooth" over "fast
>and hard". Maybe we
>should all look at where
>exactly the opinions regarding these
>styles are coming from.

I won't dignify the cheap-shot, finger-pointing aspect of this comment with a response.

IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "STYLE". It does to some extent, but that's not a positive thing, in my opinion.

The flight is *supposed* to be judged on the individual accuracy of each maneuver. Not a "presentation", not a "flow" or "continuity".

What it *is* supposed to be about is shown in the rules. The maneuver definitions are reasonably objective. The area where subjectivity enters is in the assesment of the flight relative to the standard, and assigning points to it.

If you don't like the rules, change them. I challenge you to come up with acceptable defintions of "presentation", "flow" or "continuity". If you don't, maybe you would just like to let everybody fly and then decide who wins by an applause meter. Then it would be a B.S. competition like figure skating, with no attempt to have any criteria.

Re the magic angle finder I have. It is really a simple device similar to a sextant in that you set the desired angle into the sighting piece and then adjust the position of the device until the bubble in the bottom is centered. At that time you are looking upward at the exact angle selected. I think it is intended for surveyors to use for measuring slopes etc. The interesting thing about it is when you set it at 45 degrees you find yourself looking up quite steeply. It is fun to have a pilot point to where he thinks 45 is, then let him check it through the device. Most everybody points low. It's Really quite a long way up there. We need a flying site near a tall building so we can paint a horizontal stripe 45 degrees up from the pilots hand position til we get the feel of it exactly right!

LAST EDITED ON Aug-11-02 AT 09:17 PM (CDT)

>Re the magic angle finder I
>have. It is really a
>simple device similar to a
>sextant in that you set
>the desired angle into the
>sighting piece and then adjust
>the position of the device
>until the bubble in the
>bottom is centered. At that
>time you are looking upward
>at the exact angle selected.
>I think it is intended
>for surveyors to use for
>measuring slopes etc. The interesting
>thing about it is when
>you set it at 45
>degrees you find yourself looking
>up quite steeply. It is
>fun to have a pilot
>point to where he thinks
>45 is, then let him
>check it through the device.
>Most everybody points low.
>It's Really quite a long
>way up there. We need
>a flying site near a
>tall building so we can
>paint a horizontal stripe 45
>degrees up from the pilots
>hand position til we get
>the feel of it exactly
>right!
>

Where they point, and where they fly, might be two radically different things! I think Ted's experiment will give more accurate results. Or take your theodolite out to the center of the circle during a flight and measure where it really is, instead of where they might think it is just standing there talking about it.

Before I knew anyone in stunt, and flew exclusively by myself, I would set out markers at 45 degree intervals, and not knowing any better, practiced everything that size. Then I went to a practice session with Wynn Paul, Ed Robbert, Dan Lutz, and maybe Larry Robertson, and they were practically running out into the middle of the circle yelling "bigger, bigger"!

Everybody that has doubts, do Ted's experiment, then get back to me.

I know that every time I thought someone was flying too large or too small, and went out 2-300 yards and actually measured it from the side (where the elevation didn' distort the view), I was surprised. No one flys under 45, that I saw, and these are the same people indirectly being "dinged" for flying too low above. All you need is a peice of paper folded to give a 45, and a bit of walking.

>
> I won't dignify the cheap-shot,
>finger-pointing aspect of this comment
>with a response.

None meant. Maybe I said what I meant incorrectly. I simply meant to say nothing different than has already been said. The US "style" is what it is. Where is that coming from? I honestly don't know. I know very few individuals in the National judging scene. Maybe you do, I don't.

Ultimately opinions relate to individuals. The "rulebook" argument is tired. That argument has been used since the beginning of stunt, and is ultimately not completely honest.

Brett, I wish you would lighten up a little (at least in my case).

> The question about
>bobbles is easily addressed. Tight
>and bobble is a mistake.
>Soft and smooth is a
>mistake. Tight with no
>bobble is correct. A bobble
>is a shape error. How
>much you deduct for this
>depends on the size of
>the bobble is a matter
>of opinion.

EXACTLY WHAT I ASKED ABOUT! Which one is worse? How much does each one count? Is it worse to bobble or soften? There is no "rulebook" that defines the deductions.

Hence, "style" was born.

How much you
>deduct for 60 degrees vice
>45 is another matter of
>opinion. How the two play
>together to result in a
>score is a third matter.

It amazes me how you say the rulebook defines how we fly, and then you admit that the errors are defined by opinion. We all make errors, so, logically, how we fly is really a matter of opinion.

>>
>> I won't dignify the cheap-shot,
>>finger-pointing aspect of this comment
>>with a response.
>
>None meant. Maybe I said
>what I meant incorrectly.
>I simply meant to say
>nothing different than has already
>been said. The US
>"style" is what it is.
> Where is that coming
>from? I honestly don't
>know. I know very
>few individuals in the National
>judging scene. Maybe you
>do, I don't.
>
>Ultimately opinions relate to individuals.
>The "rulebook" argument is tired.
> That argument has been
>used since the beginning of
>stunt, and is ultimately not
>completely honest.

The rulebook argument is the only valid argument possible. What the event should be is completely spelled out. The only significant subjectivity comes in interpreting the rulebook, and I can see no way, even subjectively, to interpret it as intending to reward "presentation". In fact, it emphasizes exactly the opposite, that the only thing that matter is the path the CG follows - not the paint job, not the scale accuracy, not the lap speed, not the style with which it is presented.

The options to change this emphasis are to ignore the rules, which I think would be unfair and irresponsible; to change the rules, which is up to whoever wants to change it; of to create a different event with different rules.

I know it's impossible in real life to ignore the other factors, and I'm not sure that's completely a bad thing, but I doubt that you can make a case that these "other factors" are justified by the rules.

I would also point out that while I think your point boils down to "we are being overly technical", there are just as many people making arguments that we are not being technical *enough*. Talk to Wild Bill sometime, or even our old buddy "Ferocious".

I also think this whole topic is being grossly blown out of proportion. This started at the NATS when one competitor who did fairly well flew noticably larger than most of the rest. In some cases, it was pretty unequivicolly oversize by even the most casual observers. The difference was noticable enough to trigger this discussion, but it's not a huge trend and the difference was pretty close to negligible by the end of the week.

No one was flying "minature maneuvers" "fast and hard" at any time - I guarantee no one, including Ted and myself (once again the poster boys for "flying too small") was doing square 8's that fit into 90 degrees. Or even 100-105 degrees, for that matter. The notion that I, in particular, was quite competitive in an event driven by superior athletic prowess, is laughable. I'm absurdly unathletic, and my hand-eye coordination, in general terms, is pathetic.

To Al, I strongly suggest that you might come out and at least watch a NATs before decrying the current state of affairs. I think you lost out due to the whims of fashion on several occasions. Are you sure it wouldn't have been better with some consistent standard?

Without making a value judgement about it one way or another, there's a lot going on that isn't 4-blade props on PA65's in 49 oz airplanes. It's valid, but it's only one approach.

Moreover, the best flights at recent NATs were not harsh or fast-looking at all, and while you might not like the style, I would find it difficult to call it completely devoid of style or panache.

I'll defer to the others on their assessment of the W/C winners, but based on their input, I bet everyone who comes to watch in 2004 will be surprised at what has been winning - everyone.

>Brett, I wish you would lighten
>up a little (at least
>in my case).

After the late Bob Baron's unabashed finger-pointing and unabashed B.S. "Anatomy of a Team Trials" letter, and the subsequent degeneration to death threats, the idea of "who's responsible for things not turning out the way I want" is a *very sensitive area* for a lot of my friends. I know these people to be above reproach, so the mere concept of trying to find the culprits and "looking into where this is coming from" is a pretty touchy subject, and certainly recalls a few unpleasant letters I have read.

I know you weren't involved in the previous incidents, and if I read too much into what you said, I apologize.

>> The question about
>>bobbles is easily addressed. Tight
>>and bobble is a mistake.
>>Soft and smooth is a
>>mistake. Tight with no
>>bobble is correct. A bobble
>>is a shape error. How
>>much you deduct for this
>>depends on the size of
>>the bobble is a matter
>>of opinion.
>
>EXACTLY WHAT I ASKED ABOUT!
>Which one is worse?
>How much does each one
>count? Is it worse
>to bobble or soften?
>There is no "rulebook" that
>defines the deductions.

This question is unanswerable, the way you asked it. How much booble vs. how soft? It's analog, not binary. There a bobble - a big one counts a lot, and a little one is negligible. A little soft is not detectable, like a marshmallow is a huge deduction.

That's why there is judge's training, and there is some subjectivity to that. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't.

This is a completely different issue from intentionally letting "style" and "presentation" be an explicit judging criteria.

>
>
>How much you
>>deduct for 60 degrees vice
>>45 is another matter of
>>opinion. How the two play
>>together to result in a
>>score is a third matter.
>
>It amazes me how you say
>the rulebook defines how we
>fly, and then you admit
>that the errors are defined
>by opinion.

Not exactly. The *amount each error counts* is a matter of opinion, not what the errors are. "Presention" doesn't appear anywhere, and allowing "presentation" to trump definiable parameters liked size, shape, and precision would, in my opinion, be incorrect.

>> I won't dignify the cheap-shot,
>>finger-pointing aspect of this comment
>>with a response.

>None meant. Maybe I said what I meant incorrectly. I simply meant >to say nothing different than has already been said. The US >"style" is what it is. Where is that coming from? I honestly >don't know. I know very few individuals in the National judging >scene. Maybe you do, I don't.

>Ultimately opinions relate to individuals. The "rulebook" >argument is tired. That argument has been used since the >beginning of stunt, and is ultimately not completely honest.

>> The question about
>>bobbles is easily addressed. Tight
>>and bobble is a mistake.
>>Soft and smooth is a
>>mistake. Tight with no
>>bobble is correct. A bobble
>>is a shape error. How
>>much you deduct for this
>>depends on the size of
>>the bobble is a matter
>>of opinion.
>
>EXACTLY WHAT I ASKED ABOUT!
>Which one is worse?
>How much does each one
>count? Is it worse
>to bobble or soften?
>There is no "rulebook" that
>defines the deductions.
>
>Hence, "style" was born.
>
>
>How much you
>>deduct for 60 degrees vice
>>45 is another matter of
>>opinion. How the two play
>>together to result in a
>>score is a third matter.
>

Hi Brad.

I hope this is not a reversion to the Brad Walker/Eddie Haskell routines we saw earlier this year. Your earlier post implied there were some individuals with less than honorable intentions trying to somehow create subterfuge in how the stunt pattern should be flown and/or judged. If you say you did not intend to do so, I want to believe that, but I do not think you talked yourself out of it very well. What "rulebook argument is tired"? What is "ultimately not completely honest"? In my discussion of the 45 degree patterns, and I do not want to speak for Brett or Ted, but neither they nor I have emphasized any more than what is in the rule book. The rule book does emphasize several aspects of how the pattern is to be flown including size (as in the 45 degree parameters that define most maneuvers), shapes, bottoms, corners, intersections, concentricity, and smoothness.

In my previous post, I was trying to say that most patterns are not flown to the 45 degree requirements of the rulebook. And when a 45 degree patten is flown, it will likely be considered too small and scored down accordingly. Just because this seems to be the norm, even on both sides of the Atlantic, does not change the wording in the rule book that size is still important.

If there are other errors in the pattern, like irregular maneuvers, and/or inconsistent bottoms, and/or inconsistent corners and/or whatever else and those errors outweigh the effort to keep within the 45 degree parameters, then the pattern should be scored accordingly, but not just because it looks "too small" when in actuality, it might be closer to the rule book size than what is generally accepted today as OK.

I mentioned before that I give a bonus for when I see somebody trying to stay within the 45 degree boxes. I think there has been a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. I count errors and deduct those from the possible 40 points for a maneuver. If some of those errors are induced because of trying to stay within the 45 degree box as in loosing some precision or "smoothness", I give some credit for the attempt to stay within the box. Hence, my reference to a "bonus". On the other hand, if too much smoothness or precision is sacrificed in that maneuver, those errors can negate the attempt to try to keep within the 45 degree boxes. A 45 degree maneuver does not automatically get a "good" score and I hope I did not imply that it should do so.

The last time I looked, every maneuver in the rule book except for the takeoff/level flight, wingovers, inverted flight and the four leaf clover is defined in some way by 45 degree increments of the hemisphere we fly our models on. And quite frankly, most people do no fly to those 45 degree parameters. And most judges apparently do not know how to judge to those standards.

Another aspect about judging is that it is common to see is when a serious point deduction results when the bottom of a maneuver is too low. One foot too low (as when a bottom is 3 feet high) seems to warrant serious point deductions while flying the tops 10 to 15 feet too high is OK because it looks smooth and "pretty", and I think this is wrong.

With apologies to Don Hutchinson, I must admit that I am a little slow. But I still do not understand how this device of his works and how it is giving such an accurate measure of "how high 45 degrees really is". Where is this device located relative to the center of the circle?. Who is looking at it?. Is it the pilot? Is it hand held? If so, whose hand? If it is in the center of the circle, is it aligned with the lines in some manner? Has this been actually used in any kind of controlled test on a control line circle? In short again, I do not yet understand what has probably been quite clearly explained. However, I cannot see how it can be that much more accurate than the hand held triangles that Brett and I have discussed here. I will admit that the hand held triangles are not all that accurate, but they will provide a good approximation of what a true 45 degree line elevation is. I cannot see how that the triangles, particularly as Brett described them can be as far off as evidently the device the Don has seems to make them to be. And the 45 degree markers around the circle as described by Ted will also surprise a lot of people, including those who think they are competent judges and or pilots but have never used any kind of 45 degree markers around the circle.

I think Brett explained about as well as can be explained on one sheet of paper what a judge has to balance in his mind when he determines a score for a particular maneuver. And you have to remember, he has about 5 seconds to to this. There is no automatic tool or button to push for errors, or degree of errors or degree of perfection. That is why it takes some practice to become a competent judge (and why so many people are clamoring for the job, particularly in consideration of all the praise they get).

By the way, at the World Championships, and for those who missed my post in another thread, the United States and the French Teams all flew extremely well. The Chinese Team, as a whole, had more windows of more favorable air than the collective efforts of either the French or the Americans. And the Chinese took advantage of those opertunities. There is nothing wrong with that. Other World Championships have been decided in the same way. For the record, if the air would have been a consistent factor throughout the 15 man finals, I do not think there would have been any question that Bill Werwage would have won. And he was flying closer to the rule book pattern than anybody there AND HE WAS BEING SCORED WELL FOR IT. He had to contend with terrible wind on two of his three flights and there was no way he could keep the shapes and all the other aspects of a World Championship pattern together for those flights. He needed a good score on one of those flights, but the wind would not allow it and the judges could not and did not make allowances for the wind. (I am talking about 20 mph wind with gusts beyond that and with swirling wind at the same time. It was even worse for some pilots who got to make a reflight after the wind blew folding chairs across the circle. Bill's two flights as well as several flights for David and Todd were in almost similar conditions.) The Chinese do some things very well. But thay have no secret formula that presents any form of a super precise pattern.

Don't you just love this event?

I've been thrashing this same argument for 50 years now and we are no closer to putting it to bed than we were when "slow stunt" trumped the 90 MPH+ Stunt Wagon!

Having said that, I once again have to agree with Brett. We have a rule book and that rule book defines what it is we are supposed to be accomplishing. The rub comes in when we decided to try to decide who does that particular stuff the best...and then told somebody else to make the decision!

What Brad is suggesting is certainly a tactic an individual pilot may want to take if he decides that a technically correct interpretation of the pattern isn't what those "somebody elses" are buying on a given day. I have to agree with Brett, however, that we probably shouldn't be abandoning a strict interpretation of the rules as the basis on which we train our "somebody elses" to evaluate us.

FWIW, by the way, I don't think any competitive pilot places a higher personal value on "presentation" than yours truly. Ever since I saw Billy W. win the Walker Cup in 1959 I've recognized the beauty inherent in a beautifully choreographed pattern. My personal version of that beauty, however, has pretty much always been one that includes flying that choreography as close to rule book dimensions as possible.

I prefer to fly tight, clean and with a smooth flowing presentation from beginning to end. If I don't on a given day it is because I lacked what it took to do so, not because I compromised the desire.

Let's not beat each other up over this. It wasn't resolved in 1952 and we won't resolve it in 2052. With any luck we'll still be debating the merits.

>FWIW, by the way, I don't
>think any competitive pilot places
>a higher personal value on
>"presentation" than yours truly.
>Ever since I saw Billy
>W. win the Walker Cup
>in 1959 I've recognized the
>beauty inherent in a beautifully
>choreographed pattern. My personal
>version of that beauty, however,
>has pretty much always been
>one that includes flying that
>choreography as close to rule
>book dimensions as possible.

But, what you have never done (in my experience), is make mistakes and expect that even with those mistakes, you ought to get a break because you did a good "presentation". That appears to be the crux of the suggestion.

Maybe it worked out that way sometimes, or maybe it didn't, but I don't think you would argue that it *should* be that way in a perfect world.

Maybe I'm too crude/unsophisticated to appreciate it, but I hardly ever even consider doing anything but avoiding mistakes. I think it's a bad idea to do anything to enhance the "presentation" that might result in errors. Maybe that's why I keep losing, but I would find it hard to do anything else.

"Anyone who sits around spending a lot of time on these abstracts like presentation, style, and flow is largely wasting their time,"

I know pilots who do this and it kills them every time. Worrying about how well the whole thing looks and the two laps between and all that. Fact is it is a series of seperate manuevers with nothing from the last maneuver having to do with the next. Except at this years nats the level flight was the level of your bottoms throughout the rest of the flight. Learn it maneuver by maneuver and it will eventually present very well whether you want it to or not.

If there were a "stlye" way into winning the top pilots would all fly exactly alike. That couldn't be further from the truth this year.

I for one thought the judging at this years Nats was EXCELLENT!! There were four seperate "styles" in the flyoff. Ted has his own, there are others who fly very much like he does but didnt make it in. Bill and Curt fly very similar patterns with Curt's looking a bit faster but the quality of their flights was very similar. The SV designs looked very similar in the air. PW had a style all his own. Then there was me flying rediculously slow laptimes and loving every minute of it. I have a Geobolt wing and I kept being told I was gonna have to fly it fast to have it perform. I was told this by many different people. Well I tried that time and time again and it alwasy flew way better at 5.78-5.85 over 5.28-5.32. Slow stunt is so fun!(until the heavy winds blow) Anyway, sorry about that tangent there, it was very obviuos to me by the end of that week that quality of shape was winning out that contest through and through. The best shapes made it to the end. Then it was all about simple mistakes and who made the least of them. Pual made the least and I made the most. I believe this to be the reason the scores are so close on finals day. I have heard many times that the scores should be way apart. Well watch the patterns on video and there is no glaring errors(tendencies to do the same thing wrong over and over) only tiny mistakes differing from flier to flier but yet only tiny mistakes. The styles differ but the shape is good and the sizes are all very relative. There is only tiny mistakes at different places in the pattern for different pilots but still adding up to very even scores.

Brett,

>>The rulebook argument is the only valid argument possible. What the event should be is completely spelled out. The only significant subjectivity comes in interpreting the rulebook, and I can see no way, even subjectively, to interpret it as intending to reward "presentation". In fact, it emphasizes exactly the opposite, that the only thing that matter is the path the CG follows - not the paint job, not the scale accuracy, not the lap speed, not the style with which it is presented.<<

And as soon as computers are doing the judging, this will be the case.

I was watching a baseball game today. Now, I've wathced a lot of baseball over the past few years (sorry to say), and I can tell you pretty clearly that the umpire in this game wouldn't know a strike if it bit him on the rear. But, whether a pitch is a ball or a strike is the judgment of the umpire and his call is effected by a lot of elements, not the least of which is the catcher's framing of the pitch and the reaction of the pitcher to the pitch, though every one of them would deny it.

Judges judge, but a lot of factors are present when they do. Techincal correctness is a factor. A big one. But it will never be the only one as long as people and not computers judge the event.

Maybe I should clarify something. I'm no nats flyer, that much is certain. So my opinion is not worth much other than as a interested observer. When I can fly with these guys, I'll speak for authority.

What I was trying to say was that if you see 2 patterns and both are technically identical (for all intents and purposes) and very good, no obvious mistakes, what factors sway a judge in any one direction. I've watched Ted, Brett, Paul and David fly on a number of occasions. All 4 are outstanding, though very different, pilots. I've watched each put in very good patterns in less than ideal conditions. Very often, there will be very few if any obvious mistakes in these great flyer's patterns. So why does Brett (or Paul or Ted or whoever) edge out the others to win. Now, you can say that the (fill in your manouvers) was 1 point better than the others, but I think ultimately it was that killer bottoms that just looked cool or the slick way the plane made the transition from inside to outside in the 8 or whatever that sways the judge to award that extra point.

All things being equal (including technical prowess), the cooler pattern wins . Cooler being whatever the judges believe cooler is. I'm not complaining about it at all. I think it's just human nature, regardless of the rule book or judges training or experience. I don't believe it's at all a conscious decision, but as long a people judge this event, it will be the case. As Keith noted, judges have a few seconds to make a decision based on experience and impression. That's it. Hey, when computers are judging the technical correctness of a flight and that's the only factor, I'll probably quit this and take up free flight.

OK, I've spouted off enough.

Why is it that everyone thinks people are always looking to take cheap shots at someone? I dont get it. I guess Brett explained it some. This is ridiculous. Brad was simply agreeing with Al. When we talk at the field Brad is almost always in agrrement with Al.(99% of the time) Al comes on here and says whatever he wants and no one says a word. Not a soul! He straight up blasted the content of PAMPA and said it was in need of a lift in content and several other things, nothing happened. I said something and got roasted for it publically and privately. Brad comes on here and says a couple of things along the same lines and it is a cheap shot. I dont get it. Why is everything taken as a personal attack???????? We are talking about styles of flights on toy airplanes "for crying out loud" I just dont understand why people always think someone is trying to undermind them. What gives? This has got to stop.

READ THE POST FOR WHAT IT IS! If you(meaning anyone) cant understand it ask for a better explaination.

This not directed straight at Keith, it just falls under his post, but at all who post and read here including me. These are discussions about CL flying. If people are taking cheap shots than so be it. If you read the post for what it is than you wont even see it. Kind of like watching a pattern take it for it is not what it can or should be.

I'd like to offer a couple of observations if I may.

This thread has, as does many other threads from time to time, illustrate how passionate some people are about this sport/hobby. I know myself I virtually live and breathe stunt, one of my own designs is called "Obsession" named by my now ex-wife quite appropriately.

Stuka Stunt Forum is read by people all over the world. When you start having shots at each other and cutting people down it reflects upon not only stunt fliers but American people as well. Stunt enthusiasts from all over the globe are reading and probably forming negative opinions about you.

Some here have expressed thier OPINIONS with technical and practical backup in a humble and neutral manner. Others have expressed themselves with attitude that has built up over time.

After every world champs there are excuses, the judges bought this or the judges bought that, the weather did this,....and so on. What ever happened to good sportsmanship??? Everyone did their best, including the judges. Again a repeating reflection that we, the globe, see every 2 years.

I'm not a saint, I've done this myself many a time, I lost my wife, I lost some friends, people stopped phoning me for a friendly chat....sooner or later we end up having to take a look at ourselves and say.....how do I want people to see me????

Sure the rulebook is there for a reason, sure we put a lot of time and passion into what we do, but lets not allow our personal differences and opinions effect us as people. If we want our sport to have new beginners, if we want people to come along and participate as officials and judges, lets not make it a bad experience for them.

Remember....on the internet....in the public forum....everyone is watching.

If you saw your kids fighting over the rules for a game of hide and go seek.....what would you tell them????

A good public debate is great reading, but getting personal is ugly. Ego's can be ugly things too.

>Stunt was once more than just
>45 degrees, 90 degrees, 5'
>bottoms and intersections.

I have read this post many times. From what I have heard from some older guys stunt used to be ONLY about 5' bottoms.

I dont know how many times I have heard that it was always won a 5'.

So that would mean that now it is about more.

I also beleive that at the worlds there is so many competitors each day that by the end of the day the judges have looked at 400+ corners. At that point intersections and bottoms might be the only thing you can see. I for one would think that at a contest that has so many flights for so long back to back all day that your best bet for a good show is smooth flat flat flat bottoms with laser beam intersections. The rest is just helpful. In our nats it is there isnt as many competitors for the judges to have to look at. They can keep the concentration up and really get it close. I have heard at the worlds in the past it has gone from 7am to dark and they still werent done and had push round 1 to day 2. At that point the judges are exhuasted. Corners and 45 they have seen 10000 corners and 45s. You put your bottoms on a flat table with a reference behind you it just might be helpful and stand out a little.

Just my thoughts.

>
> But, what you
>have never done (in my
>experience), is make mistakes and
>expect that even with those
>mistakes, you ought to get
>a break because you did
>a good "presentation". That appears
>to be the crux of
>the suggestion.
>
> Maybe it worked
>out that way sometimes, or
>maybe it didn't, but I
>don't think you would argue
>that it *should* be that
>way in a perfect world.
>
>
> Maybe I'm too
>crude/unsophisticated to appreciate it, but
>I hardly ever even consider
>doing anything but avoiding mistakes.
> I think it's a
>bad idea to do anything
>to enhance the "presentation" that
>might result in errors. Maybe
>that's why I keep losing,
>but I would find it
>hard to do anything else.
>
>
> Brett

Oh, that's certainly true. Don't get me wrong. I don't place presentation above accuracy. What I do feel is that you can't avoid the effect that doing the right thing smoothly has on the judges.

You can hammer a nose heavy ship and force it around the corners and you can simply relax and wander around between maneuvers and still be technically "correct". But if someone comes along with a well trimmed airplane that can make it do all the tricks with the same degree of accuracy but with it seeming to be effortless; and if each maneuver blends smoothly into the laps preceding and following it and if the airplane never makes an abrupt or disruptive move except when it's supposed to...it's going to impress the judges more. In addition, from time to time somebodies going to come up to the pilot afterwards and say..."that was really beautfiful".

If I can get a few of those unsolicited "really beautifuls" as well as a handful of those "that was one of the two or three most accurate stunt patterns I've ever seen" from a knowledgeable judge or observer, than I'm really pleased. I don't think the pattern "has" to be violent to be rulebook. The same way that some pianists can play a technically accurate but boring rendition of a work while another can play the same notes but make them seem to come alive.

Like it or not, there will always be a certain degree of artistry involved in any endeavor which is evaluated subjectively, if for no other reason than the people disposed to spend their time judging such an event are more likely than not to have a streak of artistry in their souls as well.

I agree that the personal stuff is not good in any respect. However, one statement troubles me:

"After every world champs there are excuses, the judges bought this or the judges bought that, the weather did this,....and so on. What ever happened to good sportsmanship??? Everyone did their best, including the judges. Again a repeating reflection that we, the globe, see every 2 years."

I hope that this was not meant as a criticism of Keith's reflections on what he saw at the World C/L championships. I saw no "excuses" nor anything but the best sportsmanship expressed in his comments. He appears to have been complimentary to all who competed or judged. Without his and Igor's written comments, we would not have been let in at all on how the events unfolded. I also believe that great performances - winning or losing - should be recognized and applauded.

...and for what it's worth, the bashing of our artists, technicians, and athletes depresses me. I am thus happy to read what a great performance Bill Werwage put in. He's truly an icon in his field and if he doesn't merit induction into modeling's Halls of Fame, then no one does.

I must apologise. My comments were not directed at any one particular person. They were very generalised. It was not meant with a sharp tongue. The thread was proving to be excellent reading and really makes you stop and think when you read all different viewpoints. It, The thread however was begining to become a bit personal rather than factual, when this occurs it becomes ugly and ruins a good discussion.

Positives out of this thread:

Great input on pattern size. It inspired me to go out and place garbage bins around the circle at 45 degree intervals. I had recently been assessed as flying too small myself....after this experiment...not by a long shot. I had great trouble fitting a square 8 into 90 degrees. In the same session I placed the video camera at a good distance from the circle side on to see what my line angles looked like. Some manouvers were very close, and others weren't. So this thread has helped my pattern....thanks guys. I'm sure it has helped others too.

I always like to read the opinions and observations of people who attended WC's, so thanks Keith for your observations. They are greatly appreciated. The "excuses" comment was meant to quell the fire before it started regarding why the Chinese are winning.

Here in Australia we have had many similar "discussions" on why a particular person has won our nats the last 2 times running. Some have tried to blame judging, some blamed "perception", but when it comes down to it, he simply makes fewer noticable mistakes to the rest of us and flew closer to the book on than the rest of us did on the day. I'm sure the US nats and world champs are the same.

Ted,

Curtis, Rollin and I went out and used some cones and poles marked at 5-6 feet with a target and spaced them at 45 degree angles around the circle. We know it was exactly 45 degrees because we used a drafting 45 degree trinagle to line them up. Also to find 45 degree elevation and a perfect circle to line up between the poles to help define just how a loop should look when done between the 45 degree poles. The big eye opener for me is that the round loops have a pretty abrupt change of direction and go around the circle at a much faster rate than I thought was correct when just eyeballing them. I was able to get a half way decent square eight into the 90 degrees allowed by the rules, but I still need to work on that some. As you said plain old horizontal eights were nearly as hard to keep within 90 degrees as the square eight was and fly it with precise intersections, tops and bottoms. Also, I began retrimming my plane after the Nats, starting from zero. I took out all the tip weight, set the rudder straight, then put back an exact 1 & 1/8 ounce of tip weight set my wingtip trimtab to exactly zero incidence. I also moved my leadouts forward so that the CG was exactly 1 inch foward of the center of the leadouts - boy what a difference that made, the plane flew much better, never lost tension anywhere in the pattern, and I could actually make it do the 4th corner of outsides and last corner of the square eight without noticeable yawing. In all I would say that todays practice session and re-trimming of my plane has improved my pattern by at least 25%. Now, I just have to go out and keep it up with the practice so my pattern gets even better!