the Difference between Combat and Stunt

I think the biggest difference between combat and stunt flyers is that stunt fliers LIKE sanding.

I think physical contitioning plays a MUCH GREATER PART in combat than it does in stunt. When I was 27 years old I flew all day long at the 1967 nationals and lost only one match (I accidently stepped on my streamer during a pit stop, ripping it off and forfeited the match), but still got the 5th place trophy. I was never so worn out in my life.....had to stop the car on the way home (3-4 miles from Olathe Naval Air Station) because of leg cramps caused by dehydration). I always found it more relaxing to go out and fly the pattern 3 times or so much less exhausting. Now at 63, most any of this kind of activity is challenging, especially to my arthritic knees..........TD

After flying 5 speed limit matches last weekend, I was totally whipped. I start my own and run(jog? trot?) to the handle and had pretty much instant starts, perfect performance and no comedowns where I had to restart and go back up save one so it was not dealing with contrary equipment, crashing out, restarting and running back and forth etc. that whipped me it was the intense center circle activity. I think your mind forgets how old and abused your body is in the heat of the match so you still use, or try to use every ounce of intensity and movement in the match. As soon as the match is over, your mind and body remembers that it shouldn't do that any more.

Stunt is sorta intense and there is actually quite a bit of body movement but it's different. Still, about 4 or 5 full pattern flights is enough for me in a day and it's Miller time unless I am practicing by myself and really trying to crank them out. If the patterns were good, you feel good and basically relaxed rather than whipped.

>I think physical contitioning plays a MUCH GREATER PART in
>combat than it does in stunt. When I was 27 years old I
>flew all day long at the 1967 nationals and lost only one
>match (I accidently stepped on my streamer during a pit
>stop, ripping it off and forfeited the match), but still got
>the 5th place trophy. I was never so worn out in my
>life.....had to stop the car on the way home (3-4 miles from
>Olathe Naval Air Station) because of leg cramps caused by
>dehydration). I always found it more relaxing to go out and
>fly the pattern 3 times or so much less exhausting. Now at
>63, most any of this kind of activity is challenging,
>especially to my arthritic knees..........TD

That's the '68 NATs at Olathe, and yes Sir it were hot and dry. I was running pit crew for my buddy and his dad in FF, and never saw much of the C/L area.

>I think the biggest difference between combat and stunt
>flyers is that stunt fliers LIKE sanding.

The biggest difference is what risk factors the flyer is willing to accept specifically, what can the flyer afford to risk in financial cost and building time. At one time I didn't give a darn about the loss of an engine or aircraft. Today, I am more interested in preserving what I have left so I can enjoy them for as long as possible.

Eggy
But combat ships are cheap and a one or two day build-say 8 leisurely hours total. Engines are cheap too if you stick to 75 mph. Stunt ships are much more expensive and much longer to build, engines are more expensive and very likely to be damaged if they go into the hard surface.
BTW, I had one old warhorse that went 20+ matches with occasional repairs and both the ships I flew in matches this past weekend were rebuilds-one's totaled, one has minor damage.

I don't know what I am saving the really good stuff for.

>Eggy
>But combat ships are cheap and .............. Engines are cheap too if you stick to 75 mph.

Jim, sorry but where I live there ain't nothing cheap anymore. Let me give you an example. The local hobby shop has a Pee Wee .020 for $95.00. Tee Dee .049s go for $125.00 brand new. Add two levels of sales tax and you should be able to appreciate what reality is for those of us who live north of the border. Even if we snag a "bargain" on Ebay, it costs enough landed all factors considered that we need to preserve what we have rather than risk it in combat.

PS some of us get more frugal as we grow older.

>Jim, sorry but where I live there ain't nothing cheap
>anymore. Let me give you an example. The local hobby shop
>has a Pee Wee .020 for $95.00. Tee Dee .049s go for $125.00
>brand new. Add two levels of sales tax and you should be
>able to appreciate what reality is for those of us who live
>north of the border. >
>Eggy

Eggy,
I think I'd go rent me a U-haul then head em up and move em out!
There is plenty of room here in Oklahoma, unfortunately not much work. Good place to retire though it's very cheap compared to where you currently reside

>Jim, sorry but where I live there ain't nothing cheap anymore

Sorry, Eggy, didn't realize you were North of the border.
Can you order from Lone Star Balsa? Even with shipping to Canada you can save a bunch. Same with E bay, again with shipping to Canada.

Example:
Used but good FP 25-$45(lasts forever)
Venturi/NVA $15 (same)
plus sell the carb to recover some of these costs-$10.

The airplane:
Laser ribs $4.00
3/8 LE .56
2 spars .74
1/16 TE .56
2 1/16 sheeting(contest1.26
1/16 center sheeting .56
1/8 tips(3 per sheet) .30
1/4 stabilator (") .40
booms/monoboom .50
2 1/32 solid leadouts .50
bearers(2 per 18" piece).45
Blind nuts .89
1/2 pod(6 per sheet) .30
Fascal 1.50
tip covering kote(scraps)
Total 12.07
No cost assigned for bellcrank, pushrod, clevis, horn as they are reusable indefinitely. Actually, the booms or monoboom and stab are also frequently reusable. Add another $1.50 if you use Towercoat to cover. No charge for golf tube bladder compartment, glue, etc. or a few coats of butyrate dope to fuel proof or use resin, etc.

I think all this stuff can be ordered from Lone Star at these or slightly lower prices. The laser ribs need to be ordered in bulk to keep costs down.

This is for a very capable and competitive 75 mph combat ship though somewhat more fragile than the foamies.

An interesting cost analysis for me as I would have guessed under $10.

>Eggy,
>I think I'd go rent me a U-haul then head em up and move em out!
>There is plenty of room here in Oklahoma, unfortunately not much >work. Good place to retire though it's very cheap compared to where >you currently reside

>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

Rick is right. Lots of room, reasonable housing, and actually, most McDonalds have help wanted signs. Finest politicians money can buy to boot! Sounds like you are living in a place that would look nice in the rear view mirror.

"Sounds like you are living in a place that would look nice in the rear view mirror."

Everytime I hear the latest load of BLEEP being trucked out of Washington, D.C., I grit my teeth because I have to think the Canucks and the French and Germans (just as a start) are thinking the exact same about us...

Yep. AND stunt flyers usually build one or two planes a year on average. When I was real young, foolish and into combat, I had an assembly line set up and built 6 combat wings a day. One thing at a time six times. At the end of the week I would have 12 to 18 wings. Buy six of the same engine, steal all my baby daughters Binkys (convinced her she was a big girl now)some silk or silkspan, three coats of clear, maybe a little red or blue trim, and done. Lots of parts were reusable including the pine booms, etc.
Being in the Navy I was in much better physical condition, lots of running and swimming, up and down ladders and the ship never stops moving so you never get over weight (at least on tin cans).
By comparison, it took a month to three, to get one good stunt ship finished. It was a case of beauty over brawn. Combat is much more competitive in that you are litterally in the other guys face, real up close. You get elbowed, punched, butted, shoved, stepped on and that's by your pit crew in the pits . PA is more serene, and you really only compete against yourself and your ability to build right, fly right. The rest is physcology.

The true difference between combat and stunt pilots is stunt pilots really like that wiggly thingy at the back of the plane. oh yeah....and a fuselage.

>Yep. AND stunt flyers usually build one or two planes a
>year on average. When I was real young, foolish and into
>combat, I had an assembly line set up and built 6 combat
>wings a day. One thing at a time six times. At the end of
>the week I would have 12 to 18 wings. Buy six of the same
>engine, steal all my baby daughters Binkys (convinced her
>she was a big girl now)some silk or silkspan, three coats of
>clear, maybe a little red or blue trim, and done. Lots of
>parts were reusable including the pine booms, etc.
>Being in the Navy I was in much better physical condition,
>lots of running and swimming, up and down ladders and the
>ship never stops moving so you never get over weight (at
>least on tin cans).
>By comparison, it took a month to three, to get one good
>stunt ship finished. It was a case of beauty over brawn.
>Combat is much more competitive in that you are litterally
>in the other guys face, real up close. You get elbowed,
>punched, butted, shoved, stepped on and that's by your pit
>crew in the pits . PA is more serene, and you really
>only compete against yourself and your ability to build
>right, fly right. The rest is physcology.

No, you compete against the guys judging you- just the same as in Combat.

Stunt.. easier physicaly, much harder overall..
Combat.. easier build, easier fly, harder physically

>Stunt.. easier physicaly, much harder overall..
>Combat.. easier build, easier fly, harder physically

You call manuvering at 100+ MPH on the end 40'-60' lines in the same airspace at the same time within armpit hair distance of another guy who is trying to cut you to pieces while you are trying to fly and do the same to him and stay out of each other's way all at once, easier?
BULLFEATHERS...
PA may be more precision and beauty, but Combat is a TOUGH game.

One thing I've found that helps with the physical exhaustion part is to wear earplugs. I wish I'd started doing it right from the beginning, but I didn't start wearing them until my 3rd or 4th contest. I noticed I was a lot less tired at the end of the day.

Speed Limit Combat is a lot less destructive than anything we've seen in the past (other than 1/2-A). You should be able to make 4 planes last an entire season (even if they do look really tattered at the end). 2 engines is all you need (OS .25 LAs or similar).

Yes, the other flyer screaming obsenities into your ears can get tiring

>>Stunt.. easier physicaly, much harder overall..
>>Combat.. easier build, easier fly, harder physically
>
>You call manuvering at 100+ MPH on the end 40'-60' lines in
>the same airspace at the same time within armpit hair
>distance of another guy who is trying to cut you to pieces
>while you are trying to fly and do the same to him and stay
>out of each other's way all at once, easier?
>BULLFEATHERS...
>PA may be more precision and beauty, but Combat is a TOUGH
>game.
>
>John

I think they're both TOUGH, but require a different kind of toughness.

I loved flying combat as opposed to stunt for many of the same reasons I loved playing football or wrestling as opposed to playing basketball: the rules are pretty clear, and I didn't have to guess what a judge is looking for. The whole world sees it. It's one-on-one competition at 60'. Very PHYSICAL competition.

But I think it's the "reacting" that can be exhausting. I remember a contest many years ago when I wanted to whip someone so bad I could taste it. I'd listened to his running mouth and bragging constantly from Friday night on. When we flew each other for first place early Sunday evening, I had more adrenalin running than could be measured. I started a series of loops, watched his (predictable) reaction, then picked a "spot" on the hemisphere of our flight paths where I could cut through the path of his streamer... and changed direction 3 times in less than the time it took him to fly a complete loop. I had his knot in something like 17 seconds of the match.

Following the trophy awards and the usual handshakes, I sat alone under a tree for a few moments and wondered how in the hell I could possibly have done that. It just doesn't SEEM possible to react that fast.

Let's face it, the events have different requirements in terms of physical skills.

I don't agree with the generalization that "combat models are expendable". Or something like that. It depends upon your approach. If you put the same kind of disciplined practice into combat as you do for stunt, you don't need to expect contests to be a day of re-kitting.

I flew combat competitively for more than 20 years - perhaps averaging 4 contests a year in the Upper Midwest, and taking first place in about 85% of the contests I entered. I built only a FEW new models per year on average.

In my opinion a lot of combat flyers think "practice" is all about chasing streamers. I treated it as an opportunity to get a 1-flip starts under contest conditions, fly left-handed and without looking at my airplane, and work out the situations normally encountered in contest matches - including flying out of line tangles.

I've tried the same approach with stunt and had some success. One summer I took a Sig Twister with an Enya .35 out week after week, practicing the same boring pattern. Late in the year we had a major contest in Minneapolis; I entered Intermediate as I recall and ended up placing first or second a class higher. Beat some nationally known "names" even!

But I'd have to admit considering the practice sessions as very boring. Slow motion action, if you will.

And - come to think of it - I really DON'T like sanding much...

Dennis Leonhardi
Apex, NC
AMA 353

>>Stunt.. easier physicaly, much harder overall..
>>Combat.. easier build, easier fly, harder physically
>
>You call manuvering at 100+ MPH on the end 40'-60' lines in
>the same airspace at the same time within armpit hair
>distance of another guy who is trying to cut you to pieces
>while you are trying to fly and do the same to him and stay
>out of each other's way all at once, easier?
>BULLFEATHERS...
>PA may be more precision and beauty, but Combat is a TOUGH
>game.
>
>John

It's like comparing Mike Tyson to Bart Conner.

I am pretty sure I have no interest in seeing Tyson do a floor excercise, but I am also pretty sure I would like to see Tyson beat the crap out of Conner.

Combat is combat-not subjective. Stunt is subjective.

LAST EDITED ON May-27-03 AT 03:34 PM (CDT)
 
Ok, I'll bite. Who is Bart Conner???
Sorry about the "bite" pun:-)

Dunno about not subjective. Have you seen some of the circle-lawyering that takes place when the pitmen "see" a cut the judges didn't? The difference between a protest in Stunt and a protest in Combat is that the latter is often accompanied by a very noisy argument on the spot..

>>Stunt.. easier physicaly, much harder overall..
>>Combat.. easier build, easier fly, harder physically
>
>You call manuvering at 100+ MPH on the end 40'-60' lines in
>the same airspace at the same time within armpit hair
>distance of another guy who is trying to cut you to pieces
>while you are trying to fly and do the same to him and stay
>out of each other's way all at once, easier?
>BULLFEATHERS...
>PA may be more precision and beauty, but Combat is a TOUGH
>game.

I think the whole question is of a flame-bait nature, but I'm not sure there's anyone who is truly qualified to anwser this question. I am not aware of anyone who was truly competitive at the highest levels in both events, at least not in the last 25 years. Howard and Phil certainly come the closest of anyone I know. I suspect Bob's assesment is probably in the ball park, but then again, I'm *for sure* not qualified to enough to tell.

>>>Stunt.. easier physicaly, much harder overall..
>>>Combat.. easier build, easier fly, harder physically
>>
>>You call manuvering at 100+ MPH on the end 40'-60' lines in
>>the same airspace at the same time within armpit hair
>>distance of another guy who is trying to cut you to pieces
>>while you are trying to fly and do the same to him and stay
>>out of each other's way all at once, easier?
>>BULLFEATHERS...
>>PA may be more precision and beauty, but Combat is a TOUGH
>>game.
>
> I think the whole question is of a flame-bait nature, but
>I'm not sure there's anyone who is truly qualified to anwser
>this question. I am not aware of anyone who was truly
>competitive at the highest levels in both events, at least
>not in the last 25 years. Howard and Phil certainly come the
>closest of anyone I know. I suspect Bob's assesment is
>probably in the ball park, but then again, I'm *for sure*
>not qualified to enough to tell.
>
> Brett

Both are tough- no question. It's like comparing a (motorcycle) Trials event to a cross desert Enduro. Trying to climb over a big rock or over downed trees on a steep rocky hillside without "dabbing" or falling, isn't a whole bunch easier than racing flat out across sand washes and rock strewn wasteland. It's ALL relative.

Photographs comparing a combat flyer with a stunt flyer are posted on the "Nobler rules the world" thread.

>Photographs comparing a combat flyer with a stunt flyer are
>posted on the "Nobler rules the world" thread.

Both are disturbing.

How does one compare drag racing to circle burning? You don't; although both sports involve vehicles with four wheels and a motor, the similarity ends there. Both combat and stunt fly airplanes....wing and a motor, the comparison ends there. Although I have noticed that stunt pilots are generally handsomer than combat pilots, the comparison ends there. Oh....and combat pilots can drink more No-Name beer than stunt pilots, but the comparison really ends there....no really! Of course thats my wifes opinion and I would appreciate it if you have any negative comments to direct them to her. Her email addy is [email protected]:7