Nobler rules the world...

Bill Netzeband wrote (M.A.N.-March 1969):"... The Nobler has had such succes as a kit and as a National winner, most historians feel it was the beginning. In one way it was. It's acceptance set the pattern of performance that still exists today, smooth. The fact that this type of pattern directly violates the description in the rule book, is generally ignored by flyers and judges to the extent that things have gone along dead level for some 17 years. ..." (Round & Round column).
Question: Is that concept (...directly violates the description in the rule book...)standing at present?
Thanks for the reply.

JCP

The fact that this type of pattern
>directly violates the description in the rule book, is
>generally ignored by flyers and judges to the extent that
>things have gone along dead level for some 17 years. ..."
>

He is talking about the 5-ft radius corner. It can be achieved but not by anything that remotely resembles the present plane. Why doesn't someone put in a rule proposal?? Perhaps they do not want a new number that can not be ignored.

>Bill Netzeband wrote (M.A.N.-March 1969):"... The Nobler has
>had such succes as a kit and as a National winner, most
>historians feel it was the beginning. In one way it was.
>It's acceptance set the pattern of performance that still
>exists today, smooth. The fact that this type of pattern
>directly violates the description in the rule book, is
>generally ignored by flyers and judges to the extent that
>things have gone along dead level for some 17 years. ..."
>(Round & Round column).
>Question: Is that concept (...directly violates the
>description in the rule book...)standing at present?

I imagine Wild Bill still thinks this is so. But it's a pretty narrow focus on one small aspect - i.e. 5 foot radius. There's a lot more to it than that.

I might also point out one additional factor - look at the most recent SN, particularly Chuck Buffalano's article. Has anyone seen PW and his Impact fly a triangle that looks like that - all indistinct like a side view of a potato? I seem to remember seeing a lot of impressively straight lines, maybe not always 120 deg apart, but never, ever, as marshmallow soft as the "analysis model" triangle in the article.

With no malice to anyone, this difference between analysis and "ground 'truth'" requires some explanation before I beleive the analysis. Either we are all seeing it with some sort of optical illusion that makes a really bloopy soft maneuvers look well defined, or the maneuver is really a lot better defined than analysis indicates. I tend to think it's the latter.

> I imagine Wild Bill still thinks this is so. But it's a
>pretty narrow focus on one small aspect - i.e. 5 foot
>radius. There's a lot more to it than that.

There is surely a lot more to it than that, but it seems that sharpness of corners was meant to be a goal and that other aspects of the pattern (bottoms, length and straighness of sides, etc.) suffer when the limits of sharpness are approached, due to reaction times. I think this very much affects the way the entire pattern is approached by flyers, since judges thus affect the pilots' approach to the whole pattern through their judgements and allowances concerning square corners. This has certainly affected the evolution of the CL stunter.

>I might also point out one additional factor - look at
>the most recent SN, particularly Chuck Buffalano's article.
>Has anyone seen PW and his Impact fly a triangle that looks
>like that - all indistinct like a side view of a potato? I
>seem to remember seeing a lot of impressively straight
>lines, maybe not always 120 deg apart, but never, ever, as
>marshmallow soft as the "analysis model" triangle in the
>article.

He pointed out, however, that the top "point" and thus slope and straightness of sides was affected in the illustrations by the Mercator projection of the actually spherical path. I also remember seeing a time-lapse photo of a lighted triangle or square (can't remember which), taken quite a few years ago and republished recently, showing a not very recognizable pattern shape.

>...Either we are all seeing it
>with some sort of optical illusion that makes a really
>bloopy soft maneuvers look well defined, or the maneuver is
>really a lot better defined than analysis indicates. I tend
>to think it's the latter.

A main point of the article (illustrated in Fig. 4) seemed to me to be that the heading of the aircraft is supposed to reinforce the impression of straightness, although the c.g. is said to follow a more curved path. So he is asserting that there is an illusion.

I don't know how accurate the analysis is, but recently quoted corner radii (Igor's, for instance) cut down the available room for straight sides considerably, especially if there is also space along the flight path taken for transition. If the cornering radius is, say, 12 feet and only about 55' is available on 70-ft lines in a square side (limited to 45 degrees), then there's only about 30' left for the "linear" path plus transitions. I then wonder whether what is sometimes seen as "bobbles" might not be an indication of an actually straighter path, with fuselage heading being past straight to overcome radial momentum at exits. An inward (toward center of loop) directed pitch heading of the fuselage would also provide a thrust component to tighten loops, the thought being that perhaps attempts to straighten the appearance by pointing the fuselage tangentially, through judicious use of flap/elevator ratio, might actually increase corner radius.

Anyway, this is just an essentially "outsider's" point of view, but it does seem to me that if "sharp" corners were what was intended (probable) and judging honored that intention, then the development of stunters might have resulted in a slightly different animal.

Here's a simple way to evaluate the maneuver size. A typical plane is some 40 inches long. On 70 ft. lines that means the side of the triangle should be, as Sergei says, about 30 ft.(with a 5ft radius turn it would be 45 ft., with the more usual 20 ft radius it would be about 15 feet) that means the plane should fly between 10 plane lengths(5 ft radius) and 4 plane lenghts(20 ft radius).

From everything I've seen, 4 plane lengths is the norm for a triangle. The triangle sides are a bit longer than the square loops, so they will appear a bit more definite, but if the pilot really keeps to the 45 degree angle the sides are barely visible, even on 70 ft lines. It only takes about 2 plane lengths to give an impression of a flat side.

>Here's a simple way to evaluate the maneuver size. A
>typical plane is some 40 inches long. On 70 ft. lines that
>means the side of the triangle should be, as Sergei says,
>about 30 ft.(with a 5ft radius turn it would be 45 ft., with
>the more usual 20 ft radius it would be about 15 feet) that
>means the plane should fly between 10 plane lengths(5 ft
>radius) and 4 plane lenghts(20 ft radius).
>
> From everything I've seen, 4 plane lengths is the norm for
>a triangle. The triangle sides are a bit longer than the
>square loops, so they will appear a bit more definite, but
>if the pilot really keeps to the 45 degree angle the sides
>are barely visible, even on 70 ft lines. It only takes
>about 2 plane lengths to give an impression of a flat side.

Following up with what you are saying and what Brett is saying, I think we need to also take into account the swinging of the tail. The trend today has become one of swinging the tail. If you look at the nose only, you will see a much less pronounced "square" corner than if you look at the tail.

The point I am making is that as the nose starts its climb in the plane's execution of the corner, and the wing starts to lift, the tail starts to drop. It maintains the level portion of the flight path for a longer period of time and then "snaps" into position beneath the arc of the plane to begin its task of giving more "plane lengths" to the visual perception of the flight path. I think this is where the eye is "tricked" into seeing a sharper corner than actually exists.

But, that is what we are here for. We present the best representation of the pattern that we can, and let the judges take if from there.

Leonard,

Well said!

I also had problems believing the path of the c.g. during the execution of the triangle as given in the last SN.
Then I remembered the flights I taped from the 1996 WCh in Sweden Norrkjoping. If you watch fligths in fast forward mode, the triangles and squares indeed look much 'rounder' than when played back at normal speed. The attitude of the model becomes less visible, but the flightpath itself becomes more defined.
Give it a try and watch carefully.

Paul

>
> I might also point out one additional factor - look at
>the most recent SN, particularly Chuck Buffalano's article.
>Has anyone seen PW and his Impact fly a triangle that looks
>like that - all indistinct like a side view of a potato? I
>seem to remember seeing a lot of impressively straight
>lines, maybe not always 120 deg apart, but never, ever, as
>marshmallow soft as the "analysis model" triangle in the
>article.
>
> Brett

Just an interesting point here. The corners of a "triangle" flown on a hemisphere, with the base at the equator and the top of the triangle at the 45-degree elevation, will not quite be the full 120-degrees of the corners of an equalateral triangle on a flat plane. As soon as you start making a "triangle" on a sphere with three equal length sides (great circle paths) and three equal corners, the corners become less and less than 120-degrees when the "triangle" gets larger with respect to the size of the hemisphere. These corner angles are measured on the planes tangent to the surface of the hemisphere at the point of those corners which is the corner the airplane actually turns when making these figures. (None of those three tangent planes are in the same plane defined by the three points of the triangle. Think about it.) In fact, it is possible to describe a "triangle" on a hemisphere with three equal length sides where the three corners are exactly 90-degrees.

>The fact that this type of pattern
>directly violates the description in the rule book,

Now isn't that an interesting thought. The design he's talking about was drawn by the same bloke that drew the pattern ...
Mind you, if it is the 5' foot corner that's at issue as Brett suggests (I haven't read the article), I seem to remember GMA saying the 5' corner was added to his pattern by others. If so, I wonder what sized corners he envisaged, especially when you consider the model he drew to fly them.

>>The fact that this type of pattern
>>directly violates the description in the rule book,
>
>Now isn't that an interesting thought. The design he's
>talking about was drawn by the same bloke that drew the
>pattern ...
>Mind you, if it is the 5' foot corner that's at issue as
>Brett suggests (I haven't read the article), I seem to
>remember GMA saying the 5' corner was added to his pattern
>by others. If so, I wonder what sized corners he envisaged,
>especially when you consider the model he drew to fly them.
>

May be right, but I seem to recall George mentioning (on the old, good, RCO) that they more-or-less guessed at how tight they thought they could turn, and put in 5'. Later, when it became obvious that they "couldn't" turn 5' corners, no one had ever bothered to try to change it.

I am sure that the analysis in the article is correct given the truth of the assumptions about lift. I am less convinced that the static characteristics used for lift/drag/etc. realistically represent the "transient" flight conditions.

I contend that the real limitation on cornering has next to nothing to do with technical capabilities of the airplane. I assert that it's the pilot's ability to control the corner. I know that my airplane can turn much harder and tighter than I regularly turn it. And, I turn it less in competition than I usually do in practice. And I'm considered one of the tighter cornering guys among the usual contenders.

At least to my eye, my triangles look to have much longer and straighter sides than in the diagram, and in general, look a lot more like triangles than that. I'm willing to be convinced that I am seeing it incorrectly, but...

One should note that the Nobler was designed to fly the OTS pattern, not the modern pattern. In the OTS pattern, the only time approx. 5-ft radius is mentioned is in the "square loop". It is the same in the 1949 and 1950 patterns.

I have seen many airplanes fly 5-ft corners. However, I doubt that any of them actually did so. I have done the experiment, with a very tight turning 1/2A, of attempting to turn a corner from horizontal and fly up the corner line of a nearby building. What happens is that as the airplane rotates, to increase the incidence of the wing and create the lift/drag necessary to change direction, it appears to be flying a much tighter line than it actually is. This is perhaps why a non-flapped model can appear to turn tighter than a flapped model.

Are we not agreed that the judges judge what they see? If they see 5-ft corners, as I do, what's the problem?

I believe Charles Buffalano is plotting the cg track. He states "So what the flyer sees is flat sides, a fast turn at the top, and a smart triangle, even though the CG track is 'rounder'."

It would be interesting to take some high speed photographic data with a visible dot on the model CG. I suspect we'd see the "potato" track for it.

Further discussion of Mercator distortion effects of the view is on the bottom of page 56. (The text seems to be truncated after the word "Second,". In the draft that Chuck sent me, that text continues with the paragraphs at the bottom of page 55.)

Charles' points about the ship's attitude versus its cg track would explain why we see very sharp square corners (that look very nearly like 5 foot radius), yet when we measure them (directly from video) we see that the turn radius (from orthogonal edges) is closer to 15 feet (as predicted mathematically).

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Many a man has fallen in love with a girl in a light so dim he would not have chosen a suit by it." -Maurice Chevalier

If you really watch an airplane doing squares, it's pretty obvious that the turn radii are 15-20 feet, not 5 feet. It might look like a 5 foot corner if you allow yourself to "think" that the turn is over once the fuselage has reached the appropriate attitude, but if you look closely, you can see the airplane "sink floorwards" along a curved path.

Looking at it from the outside, I find it somewhat humorous that people get really worked up over whether intersections are at 45 degrees, etc., but are willing to sweep something this obviously wrong under the carpet.

Not only did he not state a 5 foot radius corner, he also designed a vertical square 8 and it was replaced with the hour glass. This is from an interview with him on VHS tape put out by Bob Hunt.

I think what Bill was opining against more than anything was the overemphasis on "smooth" in the pattern. The least suggestion of a "bobble" or "wiggle" by the plane in a maneuver almost always gets a much bigger deduction than almost anything else. The judges pretty much ignore the fact that the square corners are supposed to be so hard and sharp the plane looks like it literally stops and turns. If they do see someone attempt a really hard corner and there is any hit of wiggle, it gets downgraded heavily, so naturally, flyers do what needs to be done.

I heard some real howls at the Brodak meet last year. Terry McDowell flew a modified slow comat plane and did a pretty creditable pattern to take first in advanced, I believe. The straights were straight, the rounds were smooth, the corners were MUCH sharper than ANYBODY else flew, but the plane did yaw some coming out of the turns. I thought the judges did a nice job balancing the fact that much sharper corners more than outweighed the little bit of wobbling. A lot of the other flyers didn't though. I overheard a lot of complaints. Hopefully though the judges will not listen to the complaints and we'll see the start of a new trend- sharp corners.

I like the points deduction scoring method discussed recently. If you follow Keith Trostle's method, I'd deduct 2 pts for each corner, since they're never anywhere near hard and sharp, so if everything else was perfect, the square loops would get a 24. Is that a typical score for square loops in expert? How about 10 for the square eights? At 2 pts off per corner it would deserve an 8 but the score doesn't go that low.

>I think what Bill was opining against more than anything was
>the overemphasis on "smooth" in the pattern. The least
>suggestion of a "bobble" or "wiggle" by the plane in a
>maneuver almost always gets a much bigger deduction than
>almost anything else. The judges pretty much ignore the
>fact that the square corners are supposed to be so hard and
>sharp the plane looks like it literally stops and turns. If
>they do see someone attempt a really hard corner and there
>is any hit of wiggle, it gets downgraded heavily, so
>naturally, flyers do what needs to be done.
>
>I heard some real howls at the Brodak meet last year. Terry
>McDowell flew a modified slow comat plane and did a pretty
>creditable pattern to take first in advanced, I believe.
>The straights were straight, the rounds were smooth, the
>corners were MUCH sharper than ANYBODY else flew, but the
>plane did yaw some coming out of the turns. I thought the
>judges did a nice job balancing the fact that much sharper
>corners more than outweighed the little bit of wobbling. A
>lot of the other flyers didn't though. I overheard a lot of
>complaints. Hopefully though the judges will not listen to
>the complaints and we'll see the start of a new trend- sharp
>corners.

I haven't read the article but I like this thread so I will jump in here.

I has been my experience that there is a tremendous emphasis on corners, at the Nationals at least. I have had conversations with several Nats judges and I have yet to find one who will score a flat, soft corner better than a bobbled hard corner (I have been asking that question for years). I would think that from what I saw last year, this would still hold true most of the time.

It would be my guess if one were to show up at the Nats with a blistering corner and VERY GOOD SHAPES one would score very well, if the wiggles were kept to reasonable level.

Also, I think anyone who would argue that some of the newer stunt designs could not give a a slow combat plane a run for its money in a hard corner, I think they would be mistaken.

Then again, this isn't combat....

I watched the top five flyers at the NATS a couple of years ago. They all fly extremely well with very good shapes-all the maneuvers were obviously recognizable and tracked well. Nobody made any obvious bloopers like getting blown out of a maneuver. One of them flew quite a wide pattern, the other four flew much tighter. One of them had a quite detectable wiggle in the square corners, the other four didn't. the guy with the wiggles placed a solid fifth, about 50 pts out of first. The wide pattern was middle of the pack in the remaining four.

That more than anything confirmed for me that "smooth" reigns supreme and that maneuver size, and hence the correct shape, is usually overlooked. The all were flying great-looking planes with the usual mix of engines so there is no question here about plane capability or turning performance.

>I like the points deduction scoring method discussed
>recently. If you follow Keith Trostle's method, I'd deduct 2
>pts for each corner, since they're never anywhere near hard
>and sharp, so if everything else was perfect, the square
>loops would get a 24. Is that a typical score for square
>loops in expert? How about 10 for the square eights? At 2
>pts off per corner it would deserve an 8 but the score
>doesn't go that low.

Adding my comments to the above, If you are using a "point deduction" method of scoring, then you need to make allowances for the complexity of the maneuver. The hourglass has four corners. The square eight has 16, and some judges count eighteen (they look at the exit and the entrance, although they are not truly a part of the maneuver). If you are doing a flat point deduction for each "whatever" of a maneuver, then this becomes silly. If you look at the elements of a maneuver and deduct for each portion (not corner, but all the corners bunched together as to how well they were executed as a whole) then it may become valid. Then four corners in an hourglass become equally as important as sixteen corners in a square eight--only in the square eight you have more chances to goof. Same with the sides. The hourglass has four sides to get straight and at the proper angle. The square eight has sixteen sides which should be judged as a unit. Again, more chances to goof, but less deducted for each individual element of the "portion" (in this case, sides). Then heights (bottoms and tops) are a portion, intersections are a portion (and again, for the loops allowances are made for the lack of intersections in the maneuver. (Tops and bottoms comount more. Sides--in this case roundness--count more.) But width should be as important as height. Is the maneuver too wide (square eight?) too narrow (hourglass?) judge the "portions" with point deductions overall, not for each element, and the system can work.

It is still complicated.

This all goes back to what a particular judge feels is important to score well. First and foremost in any judges mind is the SHAPE. From there it is a crapshoot. Some guys like it very smooth and clean. As long as it is smooth with no interuptions. This can give a very controlled presentaion. Sometimes big can even get scored well because the presentaion of the clean smooth flight is impressive. Us sharper corner guys are not gaining anything with these judges. It isnt such a bad thing. Just the way it works out sometimes. There are other judges who like the much sharper corner and will score it. I am a sharp corner flier, sometimes. I do think a sharp quik corner is needed to make a proper looking triangle/hourglass. Without it the shape is lost. Without shape there is no maneuver.

It is a very interesting point about how we all get worked up over 45 and 5 ft but just sweep by this one. I have watched alot of videos and even the hardest sharpest nastiest laser beam corners are at least 15-20ft when slowed down. There is an optical illusion there. The CG track is very much like a potato. The CG will always travel a smooth rounded path. The tail track is what gives off the hard corner. At least that is waht I think.

This has been a very interesting thread.

Len, there is nothing in the AMA rulebook about K factors for judging the maneuvers. The very difficult maneuvers with lots of chances for mistakes are supposed to be judged the same as the easy ones like loops. So a mistake is a mistake. Missing the bottom elevation is a error in the square loops where you have two chances, and it is also the same error in the square eights where you have four chances. I'd expect the complicated maneuvers to be consistently scored quite a bit lower than the easy ones.

Leonard,

This time I will take exception. I will not go into detail, but I will try to explain something here. There is nothing in the rule book that requires as you state "The square eight has sixteen sides which should be judged as a unit." The square eight provides many opportunities for error including but not necessarily limited to just straight sides, many altitude positions, vertical climbs (intersections) and near vertical climbs (the sides of the eights), same flight path through both sets of eights, position of intersections and sharpness of corners. Thus, it becomes difficult to get a good score for the square eights as compared to the other end of the spectrum of difficulty like inverted flight. A "competently flown" square eight will normally score less than a "competently flown" inverted flight manuever.

I do not have the time now, but perhaps in the future, we can carry this discussion further.

Since some "excessive" pitch should sharpen the corner (centripetal thrust component, perhaps some additional lift from fuselage and wing) and thus lengthen the straight sides, I suppose a flight employing this technique for a really good c.g. path would be scored lower, because it doesn't look as good as one in which the fuselage does not appear to overshoot ('bobble'), or just point "wrong". I don't know whether this is an intrinsically "bad" thing, but I agree that sharpness of corners should be a fundamental goal with all the rest.

>I like the points deduction scoring method discussed
>recently. If you follow Keith Trostle's method, I'd deduct 2
>pts for each corner, since they're never anywhere near hard
>and sharp, so if everything else was perfect, the square
>loops would get a 24. Is that a typical score for square
>loops in expert? How about 10 for the square eights? At 2
>pts off per corner it would deserve an 8 but the score
>doesn't go that low.

The error counting system that I use does not quite work that way. I do deduct for corners, and the softer the corners, the more I deduct, but it is in a "collective" manner. It is really much simpler than it sounds. More later when I have some time to outline this as I have promised several people I would do.

My answer to the question would be, "Yes, more than ever."

>My answer to the question would be, "Yes, more than ever."

Ok, fine. The whole thing is corrupt to the core. Does that make everybody happy?

>>My answer to the question would be, "Yes, more than ever."
>
>
> Ok, fine. The whole thing is corrupt to the core. Does
>that make everybody happy?
>
> Brett

You told me that no matter what you say, or what you do, someone will always get their panties in a bunch.

Must be true.

There were definately some hard corners being flown a the Nats in 2002. Off the top of my head would be Ted, Brett, and Doug.

I would be very happy to see Brett and Doug fly against anyone with a combat plane, and then talk about corners....

Hey I have a stunter that turns like a combat plane.. Doug flew it and said so

Neil Williams wrote a book on full scale aerobatic flying called "Aerobatics". In it he explained how to fly in wind to show a maneuver to the judges as being correct but in technical terms would be incorrectly flown. We all learn to fly the pattern to show the maneuver to the judges to get a score to win the contest. While it is interesting to talk about this stuff from time to time it doesn't really change much in reality. The 5 foot corner is still with us and Bill is still mathematically computing how the "rulebook" pattern should look and be flown, while the real pattern is flown daily by everyone who actually competes. The rulebook is but one facet of the whole of flying Controline Stunt. Aerobatics is subjectively judged and if beauty was to be exchanged for performance only, jerkily flown combat type models the event would be long dead.
Chris...

I seem to remember an article where the flyer was flying at dusk, with a pen light taped at the C/G. Taken with time laps photos, the rounds looked fairly nice, but the squares looked like rounded octagons.

I thought it was an interesting experiment, but am still not sure what any of this really proves, that we could actually do anything about. I actually was thinking this is a good thing. If the pattern was too easy or perfection was that simple to attain, we'd all get bored with it and walk away when we got tired of perfect scores. Got to keep that carrot hanging out in front!

Lots of patterns are flown every year, but NONE of them come close to the description in the rulebook because of the 5 ft. radius turns described in the 6 "sharp" maneuvers. On the other hand, if only round maneuvers are flown I'd bet that almost all the expert flyers should be getting perfect scores.

So you do the best you can and play the crap shoot with the judging.

>Lots of patterns are flown every year, but NONE of them come
>close to the description in the rulebook because of the 5
>ft. radius turns described in the 6 "sharp" maneuvers.

Come close? Define "come close". There's a lot more to doing sqaure maneuvers, even as described in the rule book, than the corner radius. Like, for instance, "does it look square (or triangular)?". Like, for instance, "are they both the same?". Like, for instance, "are they the right height?". Like, for instance, "are they precise?".

The sort of tunnel vision that seems to attach to 5 foot radius (presumably because it's one of the few "numbers" and therefore gives the illusion of "definitive" description) borders on the autistic. Just because it seems that you can't meet one criterion of the maneuver doesn't invalidate the entire event.

Besides, I challenge you to "prove" that the "really sharp" corner you just saw while standing there judging *isn't* 5 feet - not based on a priori knowledge that it can't be done (which would be invalid as it's pre-judging), but based on what you saw at the time, and using the tools available to you, IOW, your uncalibrated eyeball.

>So you do the best you can and play the crap shoot with the
>judging.

The obligatory cheap shot is noted, as is lack of any well-reasoned and valid suggestions on how to improve it.

I seem to remember that several years Baron and Netzeband came up with some little (half-A?) critter (a "Bug" of some sort, was it a Hum Bug?) that would in fact do 5' radius corners.

Of course, concentrating on this single aspect (and a MIS-aspect at that) of the stunt pattern did not produce some fantastic superior stunt ship. (It was, however, CAPABLE of a 5' corner.)

If one wants to pick technical nits about the stunt pattern, he needs to bring along a bushel basket for them, there are plenty. (Some of the geometry doesn't seem to "map" to the surface of a hemisphere..)

But, somehow, our event has managed to get along, and subjectively understand what a good stunt pattern is, for many decades now. Our pattern is, like the rest of the world, imperfect. I, for one, am content in leaving it in that state. ((Yes, I'm an old man, why do you ask?))

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"On the other hand, you have different fingers."

Brett makes an excellent point here. The original designer said they picked 5' radius because it "Appeared" to be that tight. I have seen some ##### tight corners that looked every bit of 5'in radius. Therefore they were reaching the rulebook criteria in my uncalibrated eye. Another good point is you cant just automatically say it cant fly 5' radius so points off before the start of the flight. It is all about how the model appears to fly the pattern. No one is measureing it during the flight so the appearance of how it is turning the corner is what matters.

I have heard about the Hum Bug and the 5 footer. How did they measure it? Did it really fly that corner? What did the rest of the pattern look like...oh yeah we aren't interested in that on this thread....

I would like to see the slow combat plane that can fly the 5' corner be slowed down to a judgeable speed and have his corner go up against the Infinity. Give me the Infinity. I saw that thing look like it was going to snap in half. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if it did later in its flying life do to stress from hard corners.

On another note as EricV and F4Fguy have stated it is a good thing to have "seemingly" unobtainable descriptions in the pattern. Therefore everyone has a carrot out there in front of them.

I saw a reference to perfect scores on the round loops. That is impossible. It can appear to be perfectly round therefore it gets the points but the word perfect means it is "perfectly" round. Impossible without a tool attached to your plane making it travel in a perfect round path three times in a row on top of each other. Round loops are very hard in my book and I practice them just as hard as I do the hourglass. But still they can always use some correction just as the Hourglass can.

>I would like to see the slow combat plane that can fly the
>5' corner be slowed down to a judgeable speed and have his
>corner go up against the Infinity. Give me the Infinity. I
>saw that thing look like it was going to snap in half. It
>wouldn't surprise me one bit if it did later in its flying
>life do to stress from hard corners.

As a matter of fact, the inboard wing did develop a pretty extreme stress crack where it had been damaged by the landing gear (after running it off into the grass on it's first official flight ever at the 98 NATs). I can't beleive the wing stayed on.

I really have no idea how tight I normally turn - I figure Ted and David usually turn tighter (because I know that I am backed way off from capability on official flight).

"close" for a five foot corner would be when the plane looks like it ran into a brick wall, fell flat, and started up the next line. I've never seen that, except once during the SLOW club's balloon bust event. Somebody actually hit the Monument, kept running , and took off straight up. They exceeded the five foot corner.

Hey - I've seen EddyR touch his wheels at the bottom of the hourglass once, roll to the next corner pull up and complete the stunt. Me, I'd have had to stop and put the electric paddles on my chest to get my heart going, change my shorts, and then complete the flight! Eddy likes to play around and fly on the low side, but this was a freak accident as a result of high winds and being blown down with his USA-1 if I remember correctly, a very impressive stunt ship to watch fly.

Weather that was a 5ft corner or not, we'll never know, but it was impressive, I'll tell ya that much.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Eric V.:Go to the head of the class!You're the only one who recognized that the "Rule Book"pattern,like any ideal,SHOULD represent an unattainable perfection.The best flyers are the ones who are able to make the compromises which are least obvious and which give the best presentation of their abilities and aircraft.I can't imagine anything more boring than watching flight after flight where the placings are determined by who flew 5'-1",and who flew 5"-2"
corners with airplanes which all look alike because thre is only one design which will do a rule book pattern.Talk about watching paint dry!

Im not sure I get the point here fellas! Can any one of us prove that someones round loops are any rounder than the next guys much less whose corners are. Sure some things are detectable to the naked eye and are judged by the naked eye....but far from the only criteria being judged. Were the radius undefined for any number or quantification we could all scratch the maneuver, zero points in any judges eyes, because in fact the shape was not square at all. It has rounded corners and therefore is not a square. Make it as tight as you can while describing in the sky what is pictured in the book.
Some 40 year old descriptions may leave a little to be desired but lets consider that in fact, WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE GOAL IS,....so dont split hairs that dont need it.

>Some 40 year old descriptions may leave a little to be
>desired but lets consider that in fact, WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE
>GOAL IS,....so dont split hairs that dont need it.
>
>John S.

I think the goal is to make your corners LOOK as tight as possible. Whether they are is really irellavent.

If to the naked eye your airplane APPEARS to corner like a madman, then in the stunt world IT DOES.

I frankly think there is more than one way to skin that cat.

> Come close? Define "come close". There's a lot more to
>doing sqaure maneuvers, even as described in the rule book,
>than the corner radius. Like, for instance, "does it look
>square (or triangular)?". Like, for instance, "are they both
>the same?". Like, for instance, "are they the right
>height?". Like, for instance, "are they precise?".

> The sort of tunnel vision that seems to attach to 5 foot
>radius (presumably because it's one of the few "numbers" and
>therefore gives the illusion of "definitive" description)
>borders on the autistic. Just because it seems that you
>can't meet one criterion of the maneuver doesn't invalidate
>the entire event.

Then you must also admit that all the talk we've had here in the past few months about maneuver size, the 45 degree elevation, etc. are also autistic.

We've pretty much come to the point where we have to admit that judging is pretty subjective, and no two judges will weigh the various elements of the pattern in exactly the same manner. Granted, judges "raised" in the same environment (e.g. in the US, at the Nats) will judge similarly, but that won't make them any more "correct" than another set of judges "raised" elsewhere (e.g. Europe). So when the Chinese win the World Champs with a big, loose pattern, who are we to say the judging was "wrong"?

But then, don't mind me.. I'm just a Combat flier..

>> Come close? Define "come close". There's a lot more to
>>doing sqaure maneuvers, even as described in the rule book,
>>than the corner radius. Like, for instance, "does it look
>>square (or triangular)?". Like, for instance, "are they both
>>the same?". Like, for instance, "are they the right
>>height?". Like, for instance, "are they precise?".
>
>> The sort of tunnel vision that seems to attach to 5 foot
>>radius (presumably because it's one of the few "numbers" and
>>therefore gives the illusion of "definitive" description)
>>borders on the autistic. Just because it seems that you
>>can't meet one criterion of the maneuver doesn't invalidate
>>the entire event.
>
>Then you must also admit that all the talk we've had here in
>the past few months about maneuver size, the 45 degree
>elevation, etc. are also autistic.

Not really. I don't recall anyone ever suggesting (and certainly nt myself) that because we couldn't hit 45, the entire event "violates the description in the rule book, is generally ignored by flyers and judges to the extent that things have gone along dead level for some 17 years". In fact, the mere fact we were talking about it means we were paying attention to the rule book - very much the same as paying attention to 5 feet, even though we "can't" to it. Smaller patterns generally outscore larger patterns of equal quality. Tighter cornered maneuvers generally get better scores than soft maneuvers with everything else being equal. The fact that we can't actually hit the specified dimensions doesn't invalidate the event or suggest that the rulebook is being ignored.

5 feet seems to have attracted a disproportionate amount of attention because it represents a technical challenge that can be analayzed, examined, etc, from an engineering standpoint. This is the sort of thing that engineering types can really dig their teeth into. I know engineers and engineer psychology - putting a number in there that represents a defined engineering requirement, and this means a point that can be designed to and labored over for long hours with a slide rule, MATLAB etc. Compare that to hitting a 5 foot bottom. There's not any single thing you can do on the design side of the equation to make the pilot pull out at 5 feet. You can help in an indirect sense, but the designer can't engineer a solution. Same thing with shapes, and precision.

Engineers tend to make a big issue of things that can be engineered, and tend to minimize or have contempt for things that can't be solved via engineering. I know I certainly did. Then I wised up.

>
>We've pretty much come to the point where we have to admit
>that judging is pretty subjective, and no two judges will
>weigh the various elements of the pattern in exactly the
>same manner. Granted, judges "raised" in the same
>environment (e.g. in the US, at the Nats) will judge
>similarly, but that won't make them any more "correct" than
>another set of judges "raised" elsewhere (e.g. Europe).

There are standards, there are relative measures of compliance to the rulebook. If the judges are rewarding only the hitting of 5 feet bottoms with nothing else taken into account, that *is* wrong, no matter where it occurs. By the same token, if the judges are only concering themselves with how close to 5 foot radius everybody hits, and not paying a lot of attention to everything else, that's just as wrong, no matter where it occurs. If the judges only pay attention to 45 degree sizes, and give the rest short shrift, that's equally wrong, no matter where it occurs.

You have to look at all the aspects of the maneuvers, and take them all in to account. Obsession with only one factor is always wrong - always.

>when the Chinese win the World Champs with a big, loose
>pattern, who are we to say the judging was "wrong"?

The "trouble" with the pattern is it has definite parameters, but it is flown as an art form. Technical aspects of the pattern defy the art of flying it. Ad nauseum.

> So when the Chinese win the World Champs with a big, loose pattern, who are we to say
> the judging was "wrong"?

W-E-L-L...

To the extent that this characterization might be accurate, wouldn't such assessments depend on its specifics? *IF* a "big, loose pattern" means that the 45 and 90-degree elevations are noticably exceeded, corners are not as sharp as they can be (i.e. someone else is successfully flying sharper corners of greater than 5' radii), and/or intersections move or are not accurate, then wouldn't rules require significant point deductions?

I make no allegations; I wasn't there. No international incidents, please.

>Can any one of us
>prove that someones round loops are any rounder than the
>next guys much less whose corners are. Sure some things are
>detectable to the naked eye and are judged by the naked
>eye....but far from the only criteria being judged.

>WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE
>GOAL IS,....so dont split hairs that dont need it.
>
>John S.

In the judgeing clinics and judges' training sessions I have been in, I like to talk about how to judge a round loop. Given that a judge is not in the optimum position to view how round the loop actually is since the perspective will give some distortion of what path was actually flown. I like to describe a round loop is one that you will know when you see it. It is sort of like the definition some judge gave to pornography. He could not define it, but he knew it when he saw it.

Well, one person who was at the World Champs says that the Chinese were flying egg-shaped loops, so there must be SOME disagreement about what a round loop is..

"...jerkily flown combat type models..."

Come, now. I'll bet there are some jerks flying stunt planes, too, although I can't think of any.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "...Brett and Doug fly against anyone with a combat plane...," but I choose to interpret this as to fly against someone in combat. I'll accept that challenge. I might even provide the planes if any remain by the end of the Nats.

>It's not clear to me what you mean by "...Brett and Doug fly
>against anyone with a combat plane...," but I choose to
>interpret this as to fly against someone in combat. I'll
>accept that challenge. I might even provide the planes if
>any remain by the end of the Nats.

Not getting me in a combat match with you! *Stunt planes* are too fast for me.

It's easier than it looks. You don't have to pull out at five feet unless somebody's in hot pursuit.

I have flown both stunt and combat, sometimes on the same day. The things I noticed most were: A) although they both pull about the same, the scenery goes by faster with the combat plane, and 2) it's a heck of a lot easier to fly stunt with a stunt plane than with a combat plane.

The converse may not be the case. There was a guy in Indiana about 1969 who flew combat with a Nobler. It had no landing gear nor colored paint, and had a bladder fuel system. It was a good combat plane. Last week I saw a 50-some-oz. Impact do some near-max-control eights. They were very tight. I would be happy with an F2D that turned that tight.

Perhaps the biggest difference between combat and stunt is in the people who do it. For example, this is a stunt flyer:

Whereas this is a combat flyer:

>It's not clear to me what you mean by "...Brett and Doug fly
>against anyone with a combat plane...," but I choose to
>interpret this as to fly against someone in combat. I'll
>accept that challenge. I might even provide the planes if
>any remain by the end of the Nats.

I just e-mailed Doug and told him if he doesn't accept the challenged he is a snowflake...

It's ON Rush!!!!!

I think it was more like the Combat plane n the stunt circle flyig stunt.

I have never flown a combat plane going faster then 60mph. I flew a slow combat plane in the circle of death at the 2001 jan 1st fly-in. We had something like 9 planes in the circle at once. Me and Steve on slow combats up first and going dead level with 9 other people and as theirs ran out we just kep on and on and on. It was the longest 10 minutes of level laps in my life.

The 2002 the circle of death included Mike Greb's Ringmaster with a Piped 60 on it. The stinger exit is behind the back of the elevator. When he came in for landing he put it on top of Dale Gleason's twister rudder. Sheared it right off! It was awesome! Everyone laughed including Dale!

"I think it was more like the Combat plane n the stunt circle flyig stunt."

This is being considered:

Hi,

I was just wondering if anyone would be remotely interested in a Nobler ARF competition being done somewhere, VSC, Nats or something? I think it would be kind of cool. Comments??? Just curious!

Yes, I think ARF Nobler combat would be great. Best idea on the board in a while.

Actually, I came to this thread looking for a post said to be "disturbing" but have not located anything "disturbing" yet. I notice the talking heads on TV, as well as Hillary, Daschole, etc. use that word a lot. Obviously, they are disturbed.

Posts 44 and 46 have photographs said by some to be disturbing.

Yes, VERY, VERY DISTURBING!!!!!!!!! I have seen that very same person throw the hell out of a Fox .15. Larry:)

>Yes, VERY, VERY DISTURBING!!!!!!!!! I have seen that very
>same person throw the hell out of a Fox .15. Larry:)

But, I might point out, he seems much happier flying stunt.

This thread has quickly gotten off-topic (as they all seem to do). So in response to the first question: Aldrich wrote an article in the model magazine called "Stunting Can Be Smooth", in which he featured the original Nobler.

The Nobler was, in fact, a new concept at the time, along with the Bob Palmer style of 6+ second laps and big, lazy maneuvers. Remember, this was the era of the Navy Nats, and the judges were not very well trained. Therefore, to the Navy judges, slow and smooth was better than fast and jerky with sharp-edged corners.

These days, Nobler will do well in OTS, but what is the trend among the "top dawgs"? Looks like large planes, 65+ oz. and 60 to 72 over-powered to help stay away from wind "burbles".

Nobler is a nice plane, but its day is long gone.

Yes, but. . . Unfortunately there are a large number of people who can fly a better pattern with a Nobler than I can fly with anything.

Jim. You are correct, as we have recently seen at VSC and NW regionals. Unfortunately, most of us do not have the "magic" to fly an ordinary plane to 500 points..(I used to, but those days are gone)..