Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 28 of 28 known posts recovered · the forum listed 93 replies
Did I read this right about controls, weight and alignment? About heavy is good. I'm at a loss for words.
I entered the Tulsa triathlon this past weekend flying my wife's trainer and had the most fun I have had at a contest in a long time. I learned not to do a reverse wingover flying the beginner pattern, under the right conditions a Fox 35 will outrun a FP-25 and baloons are a little hard to hit.
John just may have a point..
(I'm not sure a 55-ounce Nobler can fly better than a 38-ounce Nobler, regardless of what is in the nose..)
[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]
"Happiness is like a precious Ming vase balanced on the head of a dancing drunk."
Larry
To be honest, I've never witnessed any real elitist attitudes in stunt, even among very competitive people. This is one of the properties that has made stunt appealing to me. There is a great willingness to help and share with the beginner or competitor. Beginners and sport flyers are not look down upon!
People seem interested in each other's model airplanes, even if they aren't full tilt boogie competition ships.
Now, I know that some folks resist some of the finer points of linearized controls, for example. More often than not, these are not fresh sport flyers but folks with many years experience. There's a little "technology backlash" at times, but so what? I'm interested in this sort of stuff myself, but I don't see it as a requirement by any means.
I understand the sentiment that not every technical detail or feature is needed for a ship to fly well, and/or be quite competitive. (Remembering John Wright flying a beater Ringmaster or such, flying superbly..)
I don't agree with Ashford's advice myself, but I'm not troubled in the least by it.
[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]
"Even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat."
Indeed! In fact, the airplane I enjoy flying the most is a 12 year old S-1A Ringmaster which has been rebuilt and refinished 3 times. The venerable Fox 35 sits up front. It's a little cranky to start sometimes but it flies remarkably well for a RM.
Just noticed my upper motor mount is cracked. Pulled it off and tried to set it back with epoxy. Epoxy I used is 8-9 years old and didn't set up fully. Now looking at glassing over those crappy luan ply doublers.
Larry Foster
Oh, my! You need to do some judging, to see how bad the EXPERT reverse wingovers can be. A 35 point reverse wingover is quite a feat! It is a very tough maneuver to do well, due to the need to align it perfectly with the wind, and the wind had best not change direction by 5 degrees during your inverted half lap, or you're TOAST! I believe I am the *hole that gave Paul Walker 33 points for his first round wingover at the NW Regionals...the track was missed by about 3', as I recall. I believe I gave Ted Fancher 36/38 for his wingover. It was much better, but must not have been perfect. While running score sheets at this June's "Stunt-a-Thon" I did notice that one of the judges gave 40 points for a landing, and I was somewhat surprised, but some of our guys can really grease 'em down. Also, I have not judged with that individual before. Pretty sure he has judged at VSC, tho, if not the Tri-Cities NATS. The other judge that day has judged at several NATS and probably VSC.
2) It has always been my contention that sport fliers can fly pretty well, usually. Mostly, they (we) are handicapped by poorly trimmed models, or bad control systems, etc. In an effort to cure some of those ills, I am CD for a rather strange Stunt Clinic/Contest. It will be at the Arlington (WA) Airport site, July 19 & 20. Saturday, we will have Expert (catagory) fliers helping the Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced fliers get their airplanes trimmed, engines working properly, etc. And then coaching, coaching, coaching. We have Paul Walker and Don McClave promised to support this, and I hope a lot of other Experts and Advanced fliers will pitch in.
Saturday night, 5pm, we will converge on the Buzz Inn for group chow. We think getting to share some off-field time with the "Stunt Grunts" might make the "Sport Fliers" more comfortable with competing in the events.
On Sunday, we will have 4 classes of PAMPA PA, AND a Judging Clinic, administered by Professor Don McClave. I went to a Judging Clinic Don did with the Fireballs, along with Dirt and some others. A judging clinic WILL help your FLYING, if not find you fame and fortune as a Stunt Judge. Everyone is invited, with AMA or MAAC membership being required, natch. IF we can make this come together and work as hoped, I would urge all of you to consider a similar event instead of the typical contest.
3) LARRY FOSTER is going in for back surgery. Hey, that's usually not a nice experience...let's all wish Larry well, and a speedy and full recovery. I don't know Larry, but I know back pain, so I'm pullin' for you, ya big lug!
4) Sorry for the long post. It's a curse...I can touch type.
Steve
What thread are you reading? Please point me to the post number so I can read the B.S. that you are reading.
I re read every post and didn't see anywhere that someone claimed to fly 40 point manuevers every time.
Looks to me like you read like you might judge...
I've never hit a 40 point anything and it's easy to see even from inside the circle that I'm a long way from even flying 35 points.
You are right about one thing though, Steve knows more about judging than you do. Then again you don't have to know much about judging to recognize a 40 point landing.
regards,
Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship
The point I was trying to make was that a 40 point reverse wingover is one very tough maneuver. A lot more so than a takeoff, with a ground roll (of at least 15' but less than 1/4 lap), climbing to 4'-6' in one lap, then merely two perfect level laps at that altitude. Note that those level laps should be level to the World, not level to the flying field (contour flying not good!). Landing is easier yet, with a smooth descent to touchdown without any bouncing or balloon. Heck, anybody can do that! No? Steve
(from dictionary.com 
as·ymp·tote ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sm-tt, -mp-)
n.
A line whose distance to a given curve tends to zero. An asymptote may or may not intersect its associated curve.
I suppose this means that scores tend to approach 40 but never actually get there. It might take twice the effort to get you from 20 to 38, but twice as much again to get to 39.
You need not be a techie to make some good info work for you nor do you have to completely understand all the jargon...just use it.It is also important for the novice not to try every tid bit they read. Every article published is not necessarily written or endorsed by those that excel at this hobby.
John
Of course I am not putting Johns column down. I try not to ever do that. My point was whatever you fly, using some standard well known trim techniques etc. is not necessarily a lot of work or trouble nor unusable for the novice...takes only a few minutes in many cases and can also be done at the field. Further, I have seen some under powered planes and many were not in fact to heavy for their size...just underpowered....to include my own this past week. Never saw one that was to light but have seen some light airplanes that had trim problems. I am saying that everything published does not necessarily come from an Expert or even one with a great track record of success. So pick and choose what you use. Contest results are posted all the time I try to use whats working and proven. A sport flyer enjoys a great flying airplane as much as a competitive expert one would assume..... so get what you can from those with practical experience. I can get as easily lost in the jargon and math as the next guy and often times the guy doing all that math comparison doesnt fly worth a poop!
John
"Uncle Mikey"
I've been fighting lower back problems for the last 15 years. Went to a Neurosurgeon and an MRI discovered some pretty major problems. 7 hours of Surgery, five days in the hospital and I now I'm at home. Everything went textbook during the surgery and I have no pain in my legs and feet for the first time in 15 years. Should be fully recovered in about 2 to 3 months.
Thank you, Dr. Foster. Since they finally figured out what was making your foot go numb were they also able to figure what causes you to go numb from the neck up?
Your pal,
Your OT Buddy
Larry
13.1. Takeoff. A correct takeoff consists of the
model rolling smoothly along the ground for a distance
of not less than 4.5 meters (14.8 feet), but not
greater than one quarter of a lap. The model then
rises smoothly into the air with a gradual climb and a
smooth level off to normal flight level over the point
at which the model commenced its ground roll. The
model continues on for two (2) smooth laps of nor-mal
level flight to point of original level off.
Maximum 40 points. Minimum 10 points.
Errors: The model bounces or becomes airborne too
soon, or too late. Takeoff, climb or level off is not
gradual and is smooth. Level off occurs too soon, or
too late. Level off and normal flight level are not
within a height of 1.2-1.8 meters (3.9-5.9 feet).
13.4. Inverted Flight (Two (2) Laps). Correct
inverted flight is judged when the model makes two
(2) smooth, stable laps at normal flight level.
Maximum 40 points. Minimum 10 points.
Errors: Height is not 1.2-1.8 meters (3.9-
5.9 feet). Height varies more than 0.6 meter (2 feet).
(Nice dissertation here about "real" aviation)
>Okeedokee. Ground school's over! 
>
>Ted
Hi Ted.
Now, it is my turn to say something. I am going to talk about "real stunt model" aviation.
There have been comments in this thread that perhaps some elements of our rules could be clarified. On the other hand, perhaps the rules explain more than what has so far been quoted here. But first, a few comments on Ted's ground school.
I think Ted mentioned that "QNH" and "QNE" might have no relevance to our models. I will also challenge that the "QFE" he discusses also has no relevance for how level flight of our models should be flown, if indeed QFE refers to a specific location ("point of touchdown"?) at an airfield. It is not a matter for the ED to "select a point on the circle above which level flight will be defined." I am fairly certain that level flight consists of the path the plane follows as it traverses the circumference of the circle (as in going around the flight circle). This flight path consists of essentially an infinite number of points around the circle, some of which may not be the same distance from the center of the earth. This flight path above the ground has nothing to do with any "point of touchdown" reference.
In post #66, Mr Stunts enlightened us by quoting certain parts of the rule book that define the maneuver description for "normal level flight" after take-off and "normal level flight" for the inverted flight. What Mr Stunts failed to provide was the definition from the rule book for "normal level flight" which is given in paragraph 11.1: "Level flight at an altitude of from 1.20 to 1.80 meters (3.9 to 5.9 feet) will be considered normal level flight..."
To me, this says that the "normal level flight" that is to be judged for the laps after take-off and inverted flight is to be from 3.9 to 5.9 feet above the ground, not some imaginary point designated by the ED located somewhere on the flying field that might or might not be a "point of touchdown". The rulebook also states that "The contest site shall be reasonably level..." (Paragraph 14 in General, sanctioned events.) Unfortunately, sometimes the flying circle is not "reasonably level" nor is the rule book any more specific about what "normal level flight" really means if the flying field is not "reasonably level". I think that the comment that Jim Thomerson made in post #63 makes a lot of sense. Jim suggested that flyers should fly as level that was comfortable to them and that judges should judge accordingly. If it looks good, there should be a good score. (Basically, this is what most flyers are trying to do anyway which is to make their various maneuvers look as good as possible while the judges should be judging accordingly.) To me, what would look best is some degree of "contour flying" to accommodate a sloped flying surface to give the appearance that "normal level flight" of 3.9 to 5.9 feet above the ground is being maintained. To require level flight as in maintaining an elevation at a constant distance from the center of the earth could result in some rather startling consequences, depending on the orientation of the slope with the prevailing wind. For instance, say there is as much as four foot difference in the elevation from one side of the circle to the other. (This is not out of the question -- I have flown at sites with this much or more differential.) Then, on the reverse wing over, the pilot would be required to start the vertical climb at an elevation of 2 to 4 feet above the ground, then be required to pull out at an elevation between 6 to 8 foot. Or if the wind is in the other direction, the climb would have to start at 6 to 8 feet with the pullouts between 2 to 4 feet. These would be required if "contour flying" is not allowed because the level half lap between the two wingover segments must be at "normal level flight". Also, the bottoms of most of the maneuvers are defined as "normal level flight". Again, "normal level flight" is defined as an altitude of 3.9 to 5.9 feet. This can almost only mean above ground level at any given point around the circle. Otherwise, over a sloping flying field, the bottoms of the maneuvers would all be at different altitudes above the ground depending on where the maneuvers are flown. As a pilot, I would not know how to consistently and place these maneuvers because they would be at different altitudes. As a judge, there would not be a consistent reference to judge the bottoms of the maneuvers. And I do not think you can apply one standard of "normal level flight" for one portion of the pattern (as in the level laps and level portions of certain maneuvers) and another standard for other portions of the pattern for the bottoms of other maneuvers.
Perhaps the rule book is best to be somewhat vague in this regard. It would be one thing to define how the pattern should be flown if the entire flying field is sloped in one direction. But, at what degree of airfield slope would a pilot be expected to fly at some constant elevation above the center of the earth instead of flying a fixed distance above the contour of the flying circle surface. Then, there is the situation, like when the circle is positioned on a runway of an airport and there is a crown down the middle of the runway. (That is the toughest to fly and judge. For the most part, it has been my experience that flyers and judges ignore the crown.) Or the situation that Ted (and all of the other competitors) encountered in Sweden in 82 where one side of the circle was over a hill side with a fairly significant slope. (Not a good thing, either for the flyers or the judges.) Or the situation on the L-Pad in Muncie where the circle surfaces are far from being level (they are fairly flat, but they are not level).
Again, to repeat Jim Thomerson's idea. Fly it to make it look as good as possible. The judges should judge accordingly. This is vague at best, but it works.
An interesting discussion. There is no simple explanation or resolution. This is something for the rules committee to think about during the next rules cycle which will not start until 2005.
This issue was "resolved" (or more accurately, decreed) at the 2002 NAT's pilots meeting. The level flight is defined by the takoff altitude. The plane at which you fly the bottoms was said to define the plane at which you flew your level flight laps during your takeoff.
I've heard this several times, and I could find no reference to this in the rule book, but that's what was done to resolve the question of what to do on circle 3 where the "corner" of the "L" is a foot or a little more lower than the average. I might also add that it seemed to go out the window as soon as it was said, and "lower was better" as usual once it came to flying.
I think the use of the word "level" means "level", i.e. not tilted to refer to the ground. I also think that flying level during level flight (takeoff and inverted) is what I will probably continue to do, and then refer 5 feet to 5 feet (but level) where the maneuver starts. This seems to be the way to get the most points, regardless of NATs pilot's meeting discussions.
I can't hit any bottom more than about +- 3 feet anyway, so it's probably moot, but I like academic arguments...
Brett
Jim Thomerson
Way to go John.
Marvin Denny aka Bigiron13
Gotta go find that rule book. If it says that there I'll have to change my ways. But, heck, it wouldn't be fun for me anymore!
What am I going to do? 
Ted
p.s. Bigiron, if I ever said you had to take it as seriously as you think I take it, I apologize. Can't remember ever telling anyone that but if I did...
At this point, I have no intentions of competing for a National or World Championship, so it doesn't bother me very much to fly or judge a contest on a less than perfect field. I'd rather be there than sitting at home wishing I could be at a contest. As John Ashford pointed out, you can have a good time with less than perfection, if you try hard enough.
Jim
Hi Marvin,
I think you missed what Ted said. Different people aspire to different levels of building skills, different levels of flying ability and different levels of competition. Each individual can derive whatever degree of enjoyment he wishes from this sport/hobby of ours. I do not recall ever being a witness of some "ace" flyer or some "ace" builder putting down the flying or construction abilities of any other model enthusiast. (I am putting aside the attitudeds that come from that segment of the RC crowd who know little or nothing about the art of design, construction and flying of any other kind of model aircraft other than their ARFs.)
I consider myself a serious competition flyer. I enjoy building complex airplanes that offer a challenge to keep weight under control. I enjoy the regiment it takes to prepare for a contest. Overall, I enjoy flying in all levels of competition. And I enjoyed the years it took to build an airplane that would last more than one flying session. And I enjoyed the years it took flying in contests before I won my first trophy. That is what I chose to do then and choose to do now and truly enjoy doing it. I have an idea that any serious competition flyer will say much the same thing (though I am sure there are many who enjoyed much more success in their early efforts). I will repeat that I have not seen any serious builder/competition flyer put down the work or abilities of any other enthusiast.
If there is any berating as you commented, it is the put down by the "less serious" builder/flyers of those who do aspire to build better airplanes and to fly better patterns as being too serious, not happy, and beating their "brains out". It is a real possibility that those really serious builders and flyers really enjoy what they do.