NATs FInals results

The top 5 is:

Fancher
Oliver
Fitzgerald
Bajakaine (CAN)
R. Smith

6th Rush
7th Banjock
8th McMillan (no pattern points, second flight)
9th Geiseke (no pattern points, second flight)
10 Buck (crash second flight)
11 Williams (pass second flight)
12 Millet (pass second flight)
13 Urtnowski (pass second flight)
14 T. Lee (crash first flight)
15t - Suarez, B. Dixon, Sunderland, M. Neumann, Delaney (pass both flights)
15t- Rich (2 attempts 1st flight, pass second)

Advanced (partial)

1 Tysor
2 O. Hernandez
3 Haber
4 Goff
5 Nickles
6 Comer
7 Gleason
8 Gruber
9 Mitchell
10 Delgado
11 Dinger
12 Wildman
13 Draughn
14 Richards
15t Hutchinson,Hajak,Hughes, Drindak, Giacobone, McHenry (did not fly)

Conditions - Brutally windy, gusts approaching 40 at times, 20-25 sustained, nearly unflyable. If I count correctly, only 10 people out of 40 made two complete flights with pattern points, 7 Open, 3 Advanced. Numerous crashes and many very close calls. Todd got blown out of his 4-leaf and the airplane is a complete loss. I crashed in more-or-less *level flight* after having to whip to get the airplane past the upwind side of the circle just flying level. Light tension upwind+severe turbulence that rolled the airplane in at me, and it skipped off the ground and zipped off the prop, and broke the LG mount. Bear flew right before me at the worst conditions of the day, and his airplane was essentially stopping as it nosed into the wind. 45 mph airplane -35 mph wind = lots and lots of whipping. The flight was absolutely ridiculous, a magnificent tribute to the pilot but no chance at a good result. He tripped running backwards, flew the airplane lying on his back, etc, etc.

I've been flying an awfully long time, and this is the worst I have ever experienced - much worse than in 2000 or that one really bad day in Pasco. You hardly ever see Top 20 pilots pass, and even less when they are in contention, but that happened a lot today. The really smart ones passed as soon as there was a pit boss!

Richard Oliver looked exceptionally good given the conditions, as did David. Ted had one great flight and one near crash, Randy had one really good flight and one "survival" flight, Konstantine did two solid flights. Howard and Dan Banjock were the only others in Open that managed 2 complete flights. Frank had a great-looking flight until he did two sets of triangles, then just did loops to finish the flight. I had a good first flight and of course crashed in the second, but a 503+225 was good enough for 10th!

Unfortunately, Doug Moon, who had looked absolutely great all week, had to leave Thursday afternoon for a family emergency

I did not see the Advanced class fly, but I heard a lot of those sickening "whumps" from over that way.

Additionally, Gerry Phelps (who had a medical problem on Wednesday) sent a letter saying that he was OK and was being kept in the hospital until Monday. But he looks like he's going to be OK.

Brett,

Sounds absolutely brutal. I've occasionally flown on days like that telling myself that eventually, I would have to fly in a contest that was really, really windy. But after several trashed planes, I sort of gave it up.

Sorry to hear about all the carnage. Man, that's a lot of building effort in the can.

Does this mean we'll see a new plane from you?

There was a time a number of years ago that I flew my Piper TriPacer to Casper Wyoming for a conference. When we were getting ready to leave I checked with the weather bureau. The sky was overcast, ceiling was about 1000 feet, and I was told it was 50-50. I asked "50-50 what?" (He never did tell me.) If it was 50-50 that the clouds were going to lift, that was one thing. If it was 50-50 that we could make the trip or crash, that was entirely another.

Today it looked like survive or crash and Matt was one who decided to bring his plane home and fly another day. In the end it almost became a contest to see if any five could even make it through two complete patterns (since the accumulative score of both flights counts). In the end in expert only seven did. Nine passed either before their first or second flights, one crashed in his first, one in his second, and several more elected to quit after near misses. Even those who made it through were inches away on occasion from total disaster, and the carnage could have been horribly worse. There were many "ohhs" and "ahhs" when planes just missed the ground on bottoms and pullouts, and much applause to any pilot who just made it through. Even Ted Fancher, who I always say flies his plane almost like a statue standing in the middle of the circle, was dancing around trying (successfully) to keep that plane in the air.

When pilots the caliber of Todd Lee and Brett Buck crash because of conditions (and only conditions) and pilots are falling down or running 30 feet out of the center of their circle to keep their planes at the end of the lines (or catch those that aren't) this is no longer a contest off skill. Some made it through because of the luck of the draw. Others seemed to get hit harder or at the wrong times or the wrong places in the pattern.

I feel very bad for Todd who totally destroyed his plane (after a beautifully flown first portion of the pattern) when a heavy wind gust caught his plane in the third loop of the clover. Matt was scheduled 4th in his circle. Todd was 5th. When Matt passed, Todd was flying in Matt's slot.

>
>When pilots the caliber of Todd Lee and Brett Buck crash
>because of conditions (and only conditions) and pilots are
>falling down or running 30 feet out of the center of their
>circle to keep their planes at the end of the lines (or
>catch those that aren't) this is no longer a contest off
>skill. Some made it through because of the luck of the
>draw. Others seemed to get hit harder or at the wrong times
>or the wrong places in the pattern.
>

I understand what you are trying to say, but I think it came out wrong. All five that made the cut worked hard to get there. It has definitely been a contest of skill. All five deserved to advance to the next round, by skill, and not luck. Yes, some got pounded more than others, but two of the harder hit fliers fouund a way to survive and make the cut.

There was some incredible flying today, and there were even a few nice patterns flown.

>I understand what you are trying to say, but I think it came
>out wrong. All five that made the cut worked hard to get
>there. It has definitely been a contest of skill. All five
>deserved to advance to the next round, by skill, and not
>luck. Yes, some got pounded more than others, but two of the
>harder hit fliers fouund a way to survive and make the cut.
>
>There was some incredible flying today, and there were even
>a few nice patterns flown.
>
>Curt

You are absolutely right, Curt, in saying that those who made it through deserved to be there. My comment was that when Todd got hit, there was nothing he or anybody could do. It was not lack of skill that caused his crash. And a number who got blown out of patterns showed a tremendous amount of skill to just save their airplanes even when they didn't save their patterns. Since Windy got many of these on tape, it might be worth it to buy a set of these as there will probably never be another like it. Rumor has it that Bob Gieseke was trying to buy the master tape from Windy that has his flight on it. Did you ever see someone save an airplane from impending disaster while lying flat on his back? How close was it? well, the one wheel pant did touch down. Or how about the Top of Randy's hour glass that was maybe three feet off the ground (over his head)? Or those numerous "overhead eights" that looked almost like wingovers with the plane nearly stopping in the air as it came back into the wind? Howard called on his combat experience when several times the airplane zinged overhead so fast he didn't know where it was. And I saw Ted dancing in the center of the circle. Ted, who has been known to glue his shoes to the pavement with chewing gum, and who stands so still the only movement you can see is his hand and his plane, was actually doing a pretty good jig on several occasions. I don't suppose those 3 inch bottoms that happened on several occasions had anything to do with it. Frank McMillin was so thrilled with flying that he did two sets of outside squares. I think he was really hoping he didn't have to do the rest of the maneuvers that were still coming up. And when he almost lost it for the (how manyieth?) time, he finally did say, "Enough." I do think that Gieseke's and Danny's flights were the most "animated", however, although Brett's attempt at a save comes pretty close.

Yes, there was a lot of skill involved in each and every flight that day, but some succumed to a "luck" factor from which no one would have survived. At Indianapolis every year not every car that finishes the race is the best car driven by the best driver, but all who finish the race deserve their piece of fame.

preliminary weather report for the Nats on Saturday (finals day).

The winds hung on until close to dark. Then a storm came through. Lots of rain (well, we hadn't had any for a day or so) and now, on Saturday morning it is dead calm. (6:30 a.m.) Absolutely no wind at all! I would expect a little as the day progresses, but it looks like nearly ideal conditions (at least for now or until the next storm comes through.)

>Brett,
>
>Sounds absolutely brutal. I've occasionally flown on days
>like that telling myself that eventually, I would have to
>fly in a contest that was really, really windy. But after
>several trashed planes, I sort of gave it up.
>
>Sorry to hear about all the carnage. Man, that's a lot of
>building effort in the can.
>
>Does this mean we'll see a new plane from you?

You will, but not because the other one is dead. It could be back in the air in an hour of there was any need. I looked at it pretty carefully, because it was realistically possible that I could make the fly-off even with the crash. It turns out not, but it wasn't far off. The gear block is split spanwise, the inner gear rib is broken, and it pulled some foam and sheeting off, but otherwise it seems intact. It just glanced off the ground after hitting at about 15 degrees at low groundspeed and buzzed the prop off, then crashed again when I couldn't whip it through upwind with a 4" diameter prop.

I have an idea I want to try that I can get done in a month or so, and I expect I will start work as soon as I get home.

Todd's airplane, unfortunately, was a complete wipe-out, and it looks very marginal for him to make the team trials.

BTW, Simi Valley's Scott Dinger (most of the CA guys know him - he's the guy with the Klotz stickers on his plane) crashed 3 times this week (4 if you count the Impact he wiped out right before he left). He crashed the Impact, threw together a Derringer or derivative with a Moki 51, shipped it here, crashed on the first flight from a pushrod failure, repaired the motor mounts, went out and did 3-4 more flight before he crashed again by having the lines hang up on the handle, rebuilt it again (including removing the top block and replacing the motor mounts entirely, qualified handily in Advanced, only to crash once again in the Finals in the wind. This time it's terminal, because the cylinder got knocked off the engine. Typical "1st NATs" story.

I got off real easy.

Wow! lotsa bad news on all fronts. Sure hope whatever Doug had to run home for wasn't to serious.

It must be terribly discouraging to put that much effort and money travelling to the NATS only to have such bad conditions.

Anyway, we will ignore scores and placings this year.

>It must be terribly discouraging to put that much effort and
>money travelling to the NATS only to have such bad
>conditions.
>
>Anyway, we will ignore scores and placings this year.
>

Oh, don't do that! Those that made it through really earned it. I wouldn't take anything *at all* away from the results. It was hard, but it was hard for everybody. It would have been more fun if it was the usual Muncie "stunt heaven" weather, but this was for stunt's most important goal, and everybody had a choice.

Dr. Spark,

Ditto Brett's comment. Especially as our boy Howard Rush not only made the Top-20 cut, he placed a most commendable 6th.

And, and, AND, my information is that days ago, with the wind keeping everybody else grounded, Rush was out flying in crap conditions. Is Howie prescient? I don't think so. But he was prepared, put in two complete flights and finished in the top 1/3 where I was rooting for him to just get into the Top 20 while flying (distracting himself) a little Combat on the side.

He will be very difficult to live with by the time he gets back to the NW...

Brett,

Those are good old crank the needle in and hang on wind speeds. I hope that it settles down for the flyoff on Saturday morning. Too bad that Doug Moon had to leave. I hope everything works out well for him. Also congrats to our district 4 representative for his fine win in Advanced, um, err, I think that I picked him as a potential winner didn't I. I'm also very sorry to hear about what happened to Todd's Opus P51. I'm glad that your plane escaped serious damage. Well, it's about time to build a new one? I'm working on my Excelsior for next year right now!

Thanks for the report on today's activities, Brett! Let us know the Advanced finals if possible. So sorry to hear about your and Todd's planes. Hope both of you can something to fly before team trials. And also thanks for update on Gerry Phelps. Glad to hear he's better!

Look forward to hearing about Juniors, Seniors, Top Five and Walker's Cup activities tomorrow!

Lyn (aka Kevin's mom)

Brett - thanks for such a detailed report. I felt the pain of the carnage.

Konstantin - from myself, David, John and everyone back here...Congratulations!! Don't feel bad about not being back here in Burlington to fly the demo tomorrow - the way the weather is, I doubt if there'll be much, if any, flying around here tomorrow. Sunday's looking better, though...

I don't know, it sounds like PW's sort of weather. I take he wasn't there?

>I don't know, it sounds like PW's sort of weather. I take he
>wasn't there?
>
>

Randy Powell

He wasn't. It would have been interesting to see how he would have handled it. He is a good wind flyer. He plans to come to the team trials. But, by then, we might be back to normal weather patterns again in this neck of the woods (for the next year or so.)

Brett, Just Wondering if there were alot of 4 Strokes running this year? What Planes/Set-ups were working better in the "Brutal Winds" that were present? What do you do in a situation like that when the wind is blowing as fast as your plane is flying. Pass, Go for it, Pray, All of the above?

It must have been a Real B!^@H

Wow!!!! Howard's a much better Stunt flier than I thought - 6th place??? Lots of unfamiliar names in the top 5.

>Brett, Just Wondering if there were alot of 4 Strokes
>running this year? What Planes/Set-ups were working better
>in the "Brutal Winds" that were present?

Only one 4-stroke in the Top 20 this year - Gordan Delaney's
"Tony". He chose to pass after having some set-up issues with the prop/engine. Steve Moon flew a 56 that spun the bearings, and swapped it out for a 72, but (it think) overran. I didn't notice any 4-strokes in the Advanced class, but I didn't do a close survey. Godzilla of course ran a 72, and it seemed to be just fine, but he missed out on qualifying by a bit.

Just my observation, but the 4-stroke just isn't quite there yet. PW has seemed to have the best handle on them, Godzilla's runs pretty well, but I just don't see it as quite there yet, to the same extent that 4-2 break or TP motors are.

The airplanes that handled the conditions the best were mostly what you would expect. Most people ran the PA61 or 65, Richard Oliver and I ran the RO-Jett 61. I also ran my PA61 on Thursday and Friday, and it worked fine - the engine was certainly not the issue, and I did a really good first flight (only 22 mph with gusts 20 about 28) with a lot of punch. Konstantine used some sort of Euro-style 60 with a muffler, and did quite well. Todd Lee used a Big Art 46SF, and once again, the engine was not a large part of the equation.

I saw plenty of out-of-control flying from a lot of different setups. When Bear and I flew back-to-back, the best choice would have been a fast combat plane. It was pretty much hopeless, and I was thinking of how easy it was going to be to fit it in the car once the wing had folded even before my little problem. If the Bear can't handle it, what chance do I have?

I have no intention at all to go off and do anything different to accomodate these sorts of conditions. It doesn't make any sense to try to push to cover something that happens once every 25 years or so.

What do you do in a
>situation like that when the wind is blowing as fast as your
>plane is flying. Pass, Go for it, Pray, All of the above?
>

I used the go-for-it, then crash, plan.

> Only one 4-stroke in the Top 20 this year - Gordan
>Delaney's
>"Tony". He chose to pass after having some set-up issues
>with the prop/engine. Steve Moon flew a 56 that spun the
>bearings, and swapped it out for a 72, but (it think)
>overran. I didn't notice any 4-strokes in the Advanced
>class, but I didn't do a close survey. Godzilla of course
>ran a 72, and it seemed to be just fine, but he missed out
>on qualifying by a bit.
>
> Just my observation, but the 4-stroke just isn't quite
>there yet. PW has seemed to have the best handle on them,
>Godzilla's runs pretty well, but I just don't see it as
>quite there yet, to the same extent that 4-2 break or TP
>motors are.

Keep in mind that Gordy has only ran a 4 stroke since May. He was Top 20 with it first try. I would say that was a pretty steep learning curve. I think the 4 strokes are progressing much faster than the pipes did when they came out. Who could ask for more?

I didn't qualify, but that was not a real shocker. It was a real eye opener in several ways, that is for sure. I am very motivated to re-define the "program" a tweak.

Also, I am kind of glad I did not qualify this year. Wow... I knew it was going to be interesting when I left the hotel in the morning and it was already blowing almost 20 MPH.

>
>Keep in mind that Gordy has only ran a 4 stroke since May.
>He was Top 20 with it first try. I would say that was a
>pretty steep learning curve. I think the 4 strokes are
>progressing much faster than the pipes did when they came
>out. Who could ask for more?
>

I think what you need to keep in mind is that unless he is flying his Raptor, it is not difficult for Gordy to qualify. There were other examples of four strokes, including Rabe's. Of all the setups, Gordy's was the best. His model had the best performance of the four stroke group, and had solid runs. That was of course until he had a clogged fuel filter and could not recognize the symptoms.

I agree with Brett on this one, although I really liked Gordon's model. His was the only one that had a good corner. It is possible that the four stroke is ready, and there is just a shortage of designs for them.

>I think what you need to keep in mind is that unless he is
>flying his Raptor, it is not difficult for Gordy to qualify.

Seems every time a good flyer brings a 4 stroke and any level of success attained it is immediately due to the flyer ONLY. Conversely any deficiencies of less successful fliers is certainly due the engine. I heard this all last year about Paul's success. It is really getting old as I hear it all the time.

There were other examples of four strokes, including Rabe's.
>Of all the setups, Gordy's was the best. His model had the
>best performance of the four stroke group, and had solid
>runs. That was of course until he had a clogged fuel filter
>and could not recognize the symptoms.
>
>I agree with Brett on this one, although I really liked
>Gordon's model. His was the only one that had a good corner.
>It is possible that the four stroke is ready, and there is
>just a shortage of designs for them.

True, Gordon's corner was extremely sharp, and has an appearance more like a huge slow combat plane (not taking anything away from Gordy, his stuff is awesome). Gordy flies very, very fast and has very sharp corners (and used to be a combat flier coincidentally) and this includes his flights on his Colossus which has a ST 51. His ability to corner or not has ZERO to do with his choice of engine.

Al's BBQB has a beautiful "flop corner" which has always said "stunt corner" to me, as opposed to "slow combat corner". Sadly, it does appear that the days of the "flop corner" may be gone.

I certainly watched the corners myself and plan to reduce my prop diameter in the coming year to accommodated a more "combat like" corner. I would definitely say Gordy's smaller diameter prop is responsible for the sharper corner not the engine. I have a whole stick full of small multi-blade Bolly and Eather props, I am sure one of them will fill the bill.

Also, I have never really flown lightning corners, maybe that has something to do with it. I certainly don't blame the engine for my lack of, what did you call it? "Good corner"? As far as I could tell my engine ran just fine in everything from dead calm misting rain to 15-18 hot wind. I never touched the needle all week and flew the same prop I flew in Texas and never changed nitro. Considering your comments, I think it is very interesting that Gordy wanted one of my props to take home with him because he like the speed of my flights better than his own...

I also think it is very interesting, that all of the challenging conditions faced by everyone at the Nats this year, and all of the setups that did and did not perform in the worst conditions I have personally ever flown in, the first thing you guys want to comment on is the performance of the 4 stroke from a total data pool of THREE, one with a bad bearing.

The reason I bring up the corner issue is that typical of the four stroke models until Gordon's, the diving corners were soft. I never brought up the fact that one of the four strokes went south during the competition, but that is indeed something that people are concerned about.

As for credit going to the fliers and not the motors they use, get used to it.

I do not understand the "flop corner vs combat corner" you describe, maybe you can explain that better. If the corner on the Bearcat is what you feel is a "Flop Corner", it was the first model I have ever seen fly that had one. I do not recall a day when those types of corners were comonplace. Maybe you can give us some examples?

>
>The reason I bring up the corner issue is that typical of
>the four stroke models until Gordon's, the diving corners
>were soft.

Exactly how many "typical 4 stroke models until Gordon's" had you seen? A handfull?

I never brought up the fact that one of the four
>strokes went south during the competition, but that is
>indeed something that people are concerned about.

As a recall Brett shelled his first motor. It was a 2 stroke. Steve's Saito was old, it started out life as an RC motor. The back bearing was rusted I am told and finally locked up. Has nothing to so with the number of strokes.

>As for credit going to the fliers and not the motors they
>use, get used to it.

I have no problem with the credit going to the flyers. I think the pipe guys have done a fine job of promoting that system. A lot of the credit goes to the pipe.

>I do not understand the "flop corner vs combat corner" you
>describe, maybe you can explain that better. If the corner
>on the Bearcat is what you feel is a "Flop Corner", it was
>the first model I have ever seen fly that had one. I do not
>recall a day when those types of corners were comonplace.
>Maybe you can give us some examples?

Sure.

Flop corner-Bob Baron 1996. The airplane would "flip and stick" or "stop and swivel". The airplane would appear to swivel at about the leadout exit, and the tail would effortlessly swing about the wing, starting at some point before the beginning of the turn and end at the appropriate angle. The change of direction appears effortless and smooth.

Combat corner-the tail tracks the angle of attack of the wing and the radius of the turn is sharp but very visible. The airplane appears to look more like a snake wriggling through the radius. The tail never appears to swivel around the wing.

>I never brought up the fact that one of the four
>>strokes went south during the competition, but that is
>>indeed something that people are concerned about.
>
>
>As a recall Brett shelled his first motor. It was a 2
>stroke.

Correct. The engine was my RO-Jett 61 BSE, and it began making a clattering sound in practice flights between the first and second round on Wednesday. It ran perfectly well except for that. As a precaution, I asked Richard if he could replace the bearings, and it was back together later that night. I had been getting it dialed in pretty well (which took a few flight because I had no basis in previous experience), and was extremely happy with the performance. In fact, the "clatter flight" was second on the circle for the day, and only a couple of points behind eventual winner Dave.

I do apologize once again to Richard and Dub Jett for having to demonstrate the problem in front of 50 people. I needed to fly the flight for competitive purposes, I didn't want to fly with a different motor with no practice (I found the "clatter problem" about a half-hour before the official), so I really didn't have any choice. I would have preferred to solve it "off-line" but it just didn't work out.

While the engine was in the "shop" (IOW, Room 132 at the Signature), I pulled the PA61 that ran so well last year out of the bag, bolted it in, and it ran with no adjustment from last year. Excellent from the first flight, really no change in the overall results, although it was significantly different. The change just moved the mistakes around, didn't make them more or less numerous.

After the RO-Jett was fixed, I didn't get any opportunity to test it again and switch back. I stayed with the PA through to the bitter end, and it performed extremely well in the poor conditions on Thursday, and was certainly was only a positive factor in the problems on Friday. I have no doubt, that if I could have made it past upwind, there was not going to be a problem in the maneuvers. It slugged right through in the first flight, and the few issues I had were not due to lack of power! It was pulling very strong in the vertical 8 and even got through the overheads despite me missing the wind direction by a large amount.

With quite a few excellent engines available (like the PA and the RO-Jett), it's really very, very tough to find something to complain about.

>
>The reason I bring up the corner issue is that typical of
>the four stroke models until Gordon's, the diving corners
>were soft. I never brought up the fact that one of the four
>strokes went south during the competition, but that is
>indeed something that people are concerned about.

I even heard that the French guys rebuild at the 200 flight mark. Wow that seems like a very short life to me. But I know Brad has a couple with many more runs than that. The life span in a CL setup is a thing to think about. Startiing the 4s at full tilt like we do is not very good for the motor. They are deigned to run up and down in RPM in an RC app. Run your car this way and I dont think it would last long either.

>
>As for credit going to the fliers and not the motors they
>use, get used to it.
>
>I do not understand the "flop corner vs combat corner" you
>describe, maybe you can explain that better. If the corner
>on the Bearcat is what you feel is a "Flop Corner", it was
>the first model I have ever seen fly that had one. I do not
>recall a day when those types of corners were comonplace.
>Maybe you can give us some examples?
>
>Curt

There is a deffinently an impression that the corner makes. I think the flop corner would be the tail swinging around the nose and then all of sudden it just stops and sticks. It gives the impression of the plane flying along and then stoppong and truning and going another direction. It looks real easy and unforced. It looks very tight yet not jerked.

Combat corner would be more like a plane that turns from the tail forward. I know you have seen it. You will have really hit the corner hard and then the wing appears to fly up to the altitude of the tail. This corner appears hard and jerked and very fast. Yet when it is consistant it will score.

Some 4s planes with a very forward CG and large flaps appear to always be moving forward during the turn. It really "Appears" to have a soft corner, even when it isnt.

IMHO it will take different designs to get the 4 stroke to have the same impression as its 2stroke brothers. I know this from building a plane for the 72 and having it not corner at all like I wanted then going through a whole bunch of hub bub to get it close. I even had to change engines. There was a big thread on it here.

http://clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4388&forum=DCForumID1&omm=0&viewmode=threaded

Anyone thinking about designing around the 72 this is good food for thought. I think this way because of the fact that the engine and prop and spinner(72) is 20 oz. It is all in the first three inches of the plane. MOI is a huge player in this. Dont be fooled into thinking it isnt, dont trick yourself into "it must be the diameter". Diamter is a player but not a huge one in the case of 20oz in the first three inches of the airframe.

There are many ways to tackle the 4s design. Berringer kept the long nose but uses tiny flaps to let the tail do more work and fight the flap less. But less flap means not as much lift. Needs to be built with weight in mind. The tiny flap lets the CG stay at the 15% mark where it wants to be naturally be with a 56 on a 10" moment(17oz first three inches of the model). Howewver he still runs a 21" tail moment with counterbalances to get enough power to rotate the mass with any real authority.

Shorter nose moments coupled with longer tail moments. DUH! However the nose moments will be ALOT shorter than you think if you run full size flaps.

I am going to build another Furias 72. It will have a 7.5" nose and a 19" tail. With about 150 sqr inches of flap this nose moment might make it just right. I will talk to Al some to see how he figures it prior to building a model. This should put the CG in the 25% MAC area. I will even try to run it further aft than that. The 14" 2 blade makes it a very stable beast. With very predictable turns.

As for the fuel load debate. I figure it to be a non issue all the way. I balance my 2s planes dry I will balance the 4s planes dry and trim from there. To say that the fuel laod in the 4s is less than half of the 2s in my case is true. BUT HERE COMES MOI ON A 20oz PACKAGE. Dont forget MOI on a 20oz package!

>Dont forget
>MOI on a 20oz package!

The distance is more important. To the square.

Gordy's Tony had almost the same numbers as my Mr. Hyde. He had a half ounce of lead in the tail.

>Gordy's Tony had almost the same numbers as my Mr. Hyde. He
>had a half ounce of lead in the tail.

Apples and Oranges.

However you could add .5 oz oflead in the tail. You have plenty of room to slidethe cg back before MOI will be an issue. But if you want to run 25% MAC like many of the 2s brothers do you will run into MOI troubles before you get there. I know you remember the Furias and all the stuff we tried on that one. CG moved back with lead and it became very unstable before ever getting close to 25% MAC. It was taking so much lead to balance out the monster in the nose the Barbell effect came into play big time. Remove all the tail weight and 3oz out of the nose, KEEP the same 14" prop, get a 23% MAC and POW good clean unloaded semi flopping corner. I had the cg at 26% MAC on the day of the crash. Flying really good and accurate lightly loaded clean corners.

>>I think what you need to keep in mind is that unless he is
>>flying his Raptor, it is not difficult for Gordy to qualify.
>
>Seems every time a good flyer brings a 4 stroke and any
>level of success attained it is immediately due to the flyer
>ONLY. Conversely any deficiencies of less successful fliers
>is certainly due the engine. I heard this all last year
>about Paul's success. It is really getting old as I hear it
>all the time.
>
>There were other examples of four strokes, including Rabe's.
>>Of all the setups, Gordy's was the best. His model had the
>>best performance of the four stroke group, and had solid
>>runs. That was of course until he had a clogged fuel filter
>>and could not recognize the symptoms.
>>
>>I agree with Brett on this one, although I really liked
>>Gordon's model. His was the only one that had a good corner.
>>It is possible that the four stroke is ready, and there is
>>just a shortage of designs for them.
>
>True, Gordon's corner was extremely sharp, and has an
>appearance more like a huge slow combat plane (not taking
>anything away from Gordy, his stuff is awesome). Gordy
>flies very, very fast and has very sharp corners (and used
>to be a combat flier coincidentally) and this includes his
>flights on his Colossus which has a ST 51. His ability to
>corner or not has ZERO to do with his choice of engine.
>
>Al's BBQB has a beautiful "flop corner" which has always
>said "stunt corner" to me, as opposed to "slow combat
>corner". Sadly, it does appear that the days of the "flop
>corner" may be gone.
>
>I certainly watched the corners myself and plan to reduce my
>prop diameter in the coming year to accommodated a more
>"combat like" corner. I would definitely say Gordy's
>smaller diameter prop is responsible for the sharper corner
>not the engine. I have a whole stick full of small
>multi-blade Bolly and Eather props, I am sure one of them
>will fill the bill.
>
>Also, I have never really flown lightning corners, maybe
>that has something to do with it. I certainly don't blame
>the engine for my lack of, what did you call it? "Good
>corner"? As far as I could tell my engine ran just fine in
>everything from dead calm misting rain to 15-18 hot wind. I
>never touched the needle all week and flew the same prop I
>flew in Texas and never changed nitro. Considering your
>comments, I think it is very interesting that Gordy wanted
>one of my props to take home with him because he like the
>speed of my flights better than his own...
>
>I also think it is very interesting, that all of the
>challenging conditions faced by everyone at the Nats this
>year, and all of the setups that did and did not perform in
>the worst conditions I have personally ever flown in, the
>first thing you guys want to comment on is the performance
>of the 4 stroke from a total data pool of THREE, one with a
>bad bearing.

Oddly enough....and in your defense Brad, I would have to say from my experience with watching you fly locally.....your lack of corner probably has more to do with CG location than prop. Even your old Tiger powered birds were lacking for corner. Try some different trim before you go trim the length of your prop!

Steves plane definitely turns differently and mostly due to design but the corner was fine and did not detract from his presentation until he put in the 72 which probably pushed the CG forward and caused other trim anomallies he probably had no time to even consider before making an official. The fact that the engine had no break in time may also have made it seem to loaf a little above 45 degrees.

Dont even bother taking it personally from a die hard PA enthusiast.
Curt gives no quarter to anyone but his cronies. Whatever bugs Gordon encountered that made his decision to pass on Friday, I feel quite sure his plane was more than adequately powered for the conditions had he felt the engine was in top form for the day. It showed all week long even with your soft cornering that the four strokes penetrated quite well and only one morning of qualification did we have less than about 10 mph winds to work with and precious few looked particularly sharp in all areas with Fridays conditions. The scores showed it. Survival was the name of the game. That is not to detract from the skill of those that elected to fly either. Those that crashed had no real choice in the matter and I doubt whether I would have flown no matter what power package I had under the cowl.

It is arguable as to whether their is an equal footing for four strokes vs some piped applications but it seems clear that they are in fact as good or better than the majority of non piped set-ups to include the big Tigres.

>Oddly enough....and in your defense Brad, I would have to
>say from my experience with watching you fly
>locally.....your lack of corner probably has more to do with
>CG location than prop. Even your old Tiger powered birds
>were lacking for corner. Try some different trim before you
>go trim the length of your prop!

Mostly it's just me. I have always stessed flatness of exit over sharpness of corner or "smoothness". That is my personal preference. I really don't get the whole teeny tiny, super sharp, wiggly looking corner thing, but hey, I guess that is where the brass is going.

The corner debate rolls onward..

Bob G. Didnt have a corner that was as hard as last years corner, not even close. Yet the judges liked the way it(the whole pattern) looked alot better. It was soft but still had that tail around the wing look. Very controlled and smooth. I liked it and he looked so much better this year. I wish I could have seen him save it on his back!

>The corner debate rolls onward..
>
>Bob G. Didnt have a corner that was as hard as last years
>corner, not even close. Yet the judges liked the way it(the
>whole pattern) looked alot better. It was soft but still
>had that tail around the wing look. Very controlled and
>smooth. I liked it and he looked so much better this year.
>I wish I could have seen him save it on his back!

Windy has the video. To tell you the truth, I wish Matt had taped a few flights on Friday. Since he didn't, I, too, might be knocking on Windy's door. Bob's flight is going to be a classic. I wonder if it could be submitted to "America's Funniest Videos". (It is a little funny after you realize he saved the ship and neither he nor the plane got hurt...well, except for the scraped wheel pant.)

>>>I think what you need to keep in mind is that unless he is
>>>flying his Raptor, it is not difficult for Gordy to qualify.
>>
>>Seems every time a good flyer brings a 4 stroke and any
>>level of success attained it is immediately due to the flyer
>>ONLY. Conversely any deficiencies of less successful fliers
>>is certainly due the engine. I heard this all last year
>>about Paul's success. It is really getting old as I hear it
>>all the time.
>>
>>There were other examples of four strokes, including Rabe's.
>>>Of all the setups, Gordy's was the best. His model had the
>>>best performance of the four stroke group, and had solid
>>>runs. That was of course until he had a clogged fuel filter
>>>and could not recognize the symptoms.
>>>
>>>I agree with Brett on this one, although I really liked
>>>Gordon's model. His was the only one that had a good corner.
>>>It is possible that the four stroke is ready, and there is
>>>just a shortage of designs for them.
>>
>>True, Gordon's corner was extremely sharp, and has an
>>appearance more like a huge slow combat plane (not taking
>>anything away from Gordy, his stuff is awesome). Gordy
>>flies very, very fast and has very sharp corners (and used
>>to be a combat flier coincidentally) and this includes his
>>flights on his Colossus which has a ST 51. His ability to
>>corner or not has ZERO to do with his choice of engine.
>>
>>Al's BBQB has a beautiful "flop corner" which has always
>>said "stunt corner" to me, as opposed to "slow combat
>>corner". Sadly, it does appear that the days of the "flop
>>corner" may be gone.
>>
>>I certainly watched the corners myself and plan to reduce my
>>prop diameter in the coming year to accommodated a more
>>"combat like" corner. I would definitely say Gordy's
>>smaller diameter prop is responsible for the sharper corner
>>not the engine. I have a whole stick full of small
>>multi-blade Bolly and Eather props, I am sure one of them
>>will fill the bill.
>>
>>Also, I have never really flown lightning corners, maybe
>>that has something to do with it. I certainly don't blame
>>the engine for my lack of, what did you call it? "Good
>>corner"? As far as I could tell my engine ran just fine in
>>everything from dead calm misting rain to 15-18 hot wind. I
>>never touched the needle all week and flew the same prop I
>>flew in Texas and never changed nitro. Considering your
>>comments, I think it is very interesting that Gordy wanted
>>one of my props to take home with him because he like the
>>speed of my flights better than his own...
>>
>>I also think it is very interesting, that all of the
>>challenging conditions faced by everyone at the Nats this
>>year, and all of the setups that did and did not perform in
>>the worst conditions I have personally ever flown in, the
>>first thing you guys want to comment on is the performance
>>of the 4 stroke from a total data pool of THREE, one with a
>>bad bearing.
>
>Oddly enough....and in your defense Brad, I would have to
>say from my experience with watching you fly
>locally.....your lack of corner probably has more to do with
>CG location than prop. Even your old Tiger powered birds
>were lacking for corner. Try some different trim before you
>go trim the length of your prop!
>
>Steves plane definitely turns differently and mostly due to
>design but the corner was fine and did not detract from his
>presentation until he put in the 72 which probably pushed
>the CG forward and caused other trim anomallies he probably
>had no time to even consider before making an official. The
>fact that the engine had no break in time may also have made
>it seem to loaf a little above 45 degrees.
>
>Dont even bother taking it personally from a die hard PA
>enthusiast.
>Curt gives no quarter to anyone but his cronies. Whatever
>bugs Gordon encountered that made his decision to pass on
>Friday, I feel quite sure his plane was more than adequately
>powered for the conditions had he felt the engine was in top
>form for the day. It showed all week long even with your
>soft cornering that the four strokes penetrated quite well
>and only one morning of qualification did we have less than
>about 10 mph winds to work with and precious few looked
>particularly sharp in all areas with Fridays conditions. The
>scores showed it. Survival was the name of the game. That is
>not to detract from the skill of those that elected to fly
>either. Those that crashed had no real choice in the matter
>and I doubt whether I would have flown no matter what power
>package I had under the cowl.
>
>It is arguable as to whether their is an equal footing for
>four strokes vs some piped applications but it seems clear
>that they are in fact as good or better than the majority of
>non piped set-ups to include the big Tigres.
>
>John

It seems we have only three thousand minutes with which to edit...I would like to retract my comments concerning Curt giving no quarter except to his cronies. It was not meant to be offensive but was taken as such and I do apologize!

John- you are right re the Tigres. This was the last Nats for my SVII and the reliable ST60. It's been in there for 6 or 7 years but this Nats I saw what the pipe ship can do in the wind! The Spanish speaking flyer with the blue-green Impact flew the best pattern I saw that day and he would have completed the 2nd flight no sweat except his engine quit- blown plug, I believe. His name escapes me at the moment but I think he finished 2nd Advanced. Best regards,

'zilla,

Man, it was only a little scratch. Brett is entitled to his opinion. I thought it was interesting. I don't agree, but that's fine.

I've flown with a Saito 56 in some VERY strong winds and had little problem with the motor run. Available power, even in pretty strong winds, hasn't been an issue. My experience in flying in such conditions is certainly suspect, but the engine had plenty of poop.

As far as corner, I suppose it depends on what you're shooting for. I can trim my plane for tabletop corners and have on occasion, but I think the smoothness I like goes away to some extent when this is done. But it has little to do with the engine run or the engine I'm using. It has everything to do with how the engine and plane are trimmed to fly.

Hmm... it is an interesting perception though.

Just to let you know what was going throgh my mind just before my flight,was the thought of todd`s plane. I had fueled my tony up and at the last minute I decided to pass. If I had a practice flight that morning I would have flown. As it turned out I had several people flight it Saturday and it flew just fine. I did fly it earlier in the week in the wind and I felt it handled it very well. As far as soft corners I think because it is so big that it looks soft but it really isn`t. It turns corners as well as most planes that I watch at the nats. After Brett and Ted repitched the prop lap times were down to 5.2to5.3 which is not very fast.Just food for thought here. Thanks again to Brett and Ted for coming to my rescue.

>
>Just to let you know what was going throgh my mind just
>before my flight,was the thought of todd`s plane. I had
>fueled my tony up and at the last minute I decided to pass.
>If I had a practice flight that morning I would have flown.
>As it turned out I had several people flight it Saturday and
>it flew just fine. I did fly it earlier in the week in the
>wind and I felt it handled it very well. As far as soft
>corners I think because it is so big that it looks soft but
>it really isn`t.

Gordy, that Tony turns like a rocket. Don't ever let anyone tell you different.

I like how you can fly fast and still corner like that. Keeps the judges on their toes! I am just not sure I COULD EVER DO THAT. Like Nolan Ryan throwing 100 MPH, it's cool to watch but I am pretty sure my arm would not take it.

When you repitched, did you reduce the tips?

As far as soft
>corners I think because it is so big that it looks soft but
>it really isn`t. It turns corners as well as most planes
>that I watch at the nats.

Gordy,

After flying your Tony in the Palmer contest last month I can attest to the fact that it turns corners extremely tightly and smoothly. In fact, it turns as well as my Impact does and the Impact turns really tight corners. Also, the control force input on your Tony feels light during those tight corners, and stopping the turn requires only neutralizing the controls. The airplane does not overshoot or require any special effort to hit the line.

Another characteristic about the Tony is the great tracking, both in level flight and in round maneuvers...absolutely effortless.

About the only negative comment that I would have about the Tony is that the line tension was uncomfortably high for me (yeah, yeah, I know...we should all have such a problem). That should be handled when you get the leadout slider rearranged to get the l/o's farther forward.

I was amazed at what a truly great flying ship your Tony is (being the prototype of a new design), although I guess that I should not have been surprised, knowing as I do what your design/building capabilities are. Now, about those Tony plans...

As far as soft
>corners I think because it is so big that it looks soft but
>it really isn`t. It turns corners as well as most planes
>that I watch at the nats.

>Gordy

Who told you it had a soft corner at the Nats?

That thing jumped through the corners. It was so fast through the corners. It was quick like lightening yet it never overshot the corners. I bet that has something to do with the guy on the end of the lines. Anyway I thought it looked great and had killer corners.

Good show!

>True, Gordon's corner was extremely sharp, and has an
>appearance more like a huge slow combat plane (not taking
>anything away from Gordy, his stuff is awesome). Gordy
>flies very, very fast and has very sharp corners (and used
>to be a combat flier coincidentally) and this includes his
>flights on his Colossus which has a ST 51. His ability to
>corner or not has ZERO to do with his choice of engine.
>

Gordy was flying a lot faster than he wanted to, as a matter of fact. He went to the NATs with two engines, and only 1 prop - and Eather 13-5.5->4 regressive 3-blade. . When he got there, it was just too fast. He came by and wanted to depitch it to go slower, but with a pitch distribution like that I had no idea where to go. The choices were keeping the severely washed-out distribution and knocking off .25" of pitch, but then the tips end up at 3.75, which sounded like it was going to be pretty gutless overhead (as it already was, to a degree). The other alternative was to put it to something that I understood, like 4.5" helical. With only one prop, and with it being late Thursday afternoon with little chance to practice, I made sure I had witnessess to my many caveats and repeated suggestions that this might end up being a huge mistake since I didn't know what I was doing with the 4-stroke, and then put it to 4.5 helical.

This worked moderately well, I guess, taking the lap times to 5.1 vice 4.8 something, and increasing the overhead tension. But it was still faster than desired, so Ted depitched it further to 4.25 late Thursday night. With no practice flights and disaster-level conditions, Gordan decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and passed both flights on Friday.

Flights on Saturday revelaed that it was just right - 5.25-5.3 second laps, lots of overhead poop, and a very friendly combination. I'm sure he can elaborate as soon as he recovers from his "straight-through" drive from Muncie to SLC.

I would point out, simply as an observation, that Gordan had very similar results with the severely washed-out pitch distribution that Jim Aron had - lots of level-flight speed, and weak overheads. In both cases, the helical distribution seemed to be "better" (whatever that really means). This is also consistent with previous results on 2-strokes in either mode. I'm not taking "sides" in whatever "camps" are developing, but I would suggest based on this that one should probably stick with helical until one really knows what they are doing.

> I would point out, simply as an observation, that
>Gordan had very similar results with the severely washed-out
>pitch distribution that Jim Aron had - lots of level-flight
>speed, and weak overheads. In both cases, the helical
>distribution seemed to be "better" (whatever that really
>means). This is also consistent with previous results on
>2-strokes in either mode. I'm not taking "sides" in whatever
>"camps" are developing, but I would suggest based on this
>that one should probably stick with helical until one really
>knows what they are doing.
>
> Brett

A few comments on what Brett said:

I watched Gordy fly all week and I saw no lack of “poop” upstairs that was a result of the prop. Mostly what I saw was that, as the week progressed, it appeared that his needle setting became increasingly more lean which resulted in very fast speeds at 45 and below and a “going over the top lean” above 45 degrees. This was very evident in the vertical eight when the engine would drastically change pitch from the bottom loop to the top loop. I think that Gordy was using the “over the top” to reduce the wind up in the wind, which is a very reasonable thing to do. It appears that one of the things that appeals to a lot of people is the ability of the 4 cycle to “go over the top”, like being on the backside of the pipe. In this slightly lean condition, the engine has nowhere to go speed wise and simply refuses to wind up. Gordy was simply just a few clicks past the honey spot, most likely in an attempt to slow everything down in the wind. The reduction in pitch would allow the engine to be set more “on the top” without so much speed down at the bottom and more richness to allow better acceleration upstairs.

I have no doubt that with some more time on the Saito, Gordy will be able to “hear” the 4 cycle a little better. After all he has only been running a 4 cycle for a few months. I think it is extremely impressive that he could design a plane, install a totally new power train and turn that many heads at the Nationals with only 4 months of prep. I would say that this is very “plug and play” as far as the motor and prop and very, very impressive airplane design wise.

Jim Aaron’s experience with the descending pitch prop was simply a miscommunication between Brian Eather and myself. Brian gave Jim a recipe for a propeller that came from me that was intended for a Saito 72. Jim installed it on a Saito 56 by mistake and the resulting “fast to slow run” was the result. When the engine is overloaded it appears to make reasonable power in level flight, but quickly falls over the top when the nose is pointed up. The result is the “fast level lap slow maneuver” phenomenon. This is also very evident when using low nitro and props of any size.

My take is that if you don’t have any “poop” overhead with a Saito then you most likely have the wrong tank, venting arrangement, or haven’t hit the needle. All of these factors have much more effect than the pitch at a few stations.

>> Just my observation, but the 4-stroke just isn't quite
>>there yet. PW has seemed to have the best handle on them,
>>Godzilla's runs pretty well, but I just don't see it as
>>quite there yet, to the same extent that 4-2 break or TP
>>motors are.
>
>Keep in mind that Gordy has only ran a 4 stroke since May.
>He was Top 20 with it first try. I would say that was a
>pretty steep learning curve. I think the 4 strokes are
>progressing much faster than the pipes did when they came
>out. Who could ask for more?

I would disagree with the "faster learning curve" part (seeing as how the initial learning curve with a 40VF consisted of about 3 flights to figure out how much pitch to use), but there's no doubting the potential of the 4-strokes.

You're all reading way more into what I said than I intended. What I don't see is a lot of people having a lot of luck right off the bat. There don't seem to be that many tricks to learn, but you had dang well better know them or you won't get very far, as near as I can tell.

I really don't have any agenda one way of the other, I merely point out that there were very, very few 4-strokes in action, and based on what I have seen I can guess why.

>I didn't qualify, but that was not a real shocker. It was a
>real eye opener in several ways, that is for sure. I am
>very motivated to re-define the "program" a tweak.
>

You did pretty good for the first time out, if you ask me (which you didn't). Doug's ascendency was not the norm, and this is a very tough crowd.

I'm just curious - could you elaborate on the "eye-opening" aspects a bit? I think it would be helpful for those thinking of making the leap.

> I'm just curious - could you elaborate on the
>"eye-opening" aspects a bit? I think it would be helpful
>for those thinking of making the leap.
>
> Brett

Sure.

1. I am not that good. Others are better.
2. Others are more devoted and more focused. It would be difficult to say that I would ascend to their level with my level of devotion.
3. Be prepared to fly when you don't want to fly. If you can't do that well, you will never really be consistent.
4. I have no concept of what I am doing, really. Most of the successful fliers are assocaited with a group, or at minimum a pair. Without coaching, and consistent coaching, you are doomed to mediocarity.

>2. Others are more devoted and more focused. It would be
>difficult to say that I would ascend to their level with my
>level of devotion.

Can you elaborate here? There isnt a minute that goes by that you dont think about CL. You always go fly when we get the wheather for it. Devotion isnt a question in your case.

>>2. Others are more devoted and more focused. It would be
>>difficult to say that I would ascend to their level with my
>>level of devotion.
>
>Can you elaborate here?

Sure. I watched practice. Others actually practiced.

I do wonder if we could get Ted to bring his clubs.

I know he has some...

> I would disagree with the "faster learning curve" part
>(seeing as how the initial learning curve with a 40VF
>consisted of about 3 flights to figure out how much pitch to
>use), but there's no doubting the potential of the
>4-strokes.

No offense, but that may be the total understatement of the century. Are you saying that we don't have it "figured out" at the level of flying competitive patterns, or is it necessary to be BETTER than the current popular pipe setup? Are you saying that you had Nats winning runs within 3 flights, Top 20 runs, or maybe today's Intermediate level runs? Are you saying that you had the VF figured out in every condition in every climate in 3 runs? I really, really, doubt ANYONE could say that with a straight face. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I would say Gordy's runs were "in the hunt" for the whole show, and it's a brand new rig.

How many years had the pipe been in use when you started on your first? I remember a well known guy I know struggling with the pipe setup for years, and years, and YEARS before he finally figured it out to his satisfaction, and that guy had about a dozen guys he could call and compare notes with.

My memory is not that short, I remember when running the pipe setup WAS NOT PLUG AND PLAY. I think there is just way too much overstatement of the current pipe successes. It was a very long road to success.

>> I would disagree with the "faster learning curve" part
>>(seeing as how the initial learning curve with a 40VF
>>consisted of about 3 flights to figure out how much pitch to
>>use), but there's no doubting the potential of the
>>4-strokes.
>
>No offense, but that may be the total understatement of the
>century. Are you saying that we don't have it "figured out"
>at the level of flying competitive patterns, or is it
>necessary to be BETTER than the current popular pipe setup?

I mean that I don't see the widespread success among all levels of competitors that I see with TP motors. Not that it won't get there, but it isn't now. One factor is that while it's different, and maybe or maybe not "better" depending on the definition, it's doesn't look like a huge, no-brainer leap in performance like the ST46->TP motor. Thus people aren't converting in droves like they did with piped motors. It took me about 1/4 lap with a piped engine to realize I wasn't going to be using 4-2 break motors any more. I've flown a lot of different 4-stroke models, and while I really like the ability to completely avoid the "explosion" problem that you sometimes get with 2-strokes, it has yet to completely blow me out of the water and make me feel forced to convert to stay competitive.

It looks to me that the 4-strokes are still in the "winnowing out the BS" part of the learning curve that the TP motors were in 1990-91. I could be wrong.

You are getting defensive, and nothing is being attacked. I have no agenda in the "controversy" you seem to imagine. Heck, I have no loyalty to anything, having used two different brands of engine on successive rounds several times, and probably headed towards a third engine that most people will probably consider the result of a mental defect.

>Are you saying that you had Nats winning runs within 3
>flights, Top 20 runs, or maybe today's Intermediate level
>runs? Are you saying that you had the VF figured out in
>every condition in every climate in 3 runs? I really,
>really, doubt ANYONE could say that with a straight face.
>Feel free to prove me wrong.

In my case, at least Top 20 runs, since I ran it in exactly the same configuration on the first flight in 1988 that I did when I qualified at the 93 NATs in my first try. Additionally, I made *no changes* to go from CA to IL. I still run it the same way, and the only difference is I use a Bolly 11.5-3.4 instead of a Rev-up 12-4w (depitched to 3.7). I might also add *it's the same engine* with only a bearing change.

Of course, feel free to doubt my veracity again, but I did pretty much bolt in in and turn it on. I fiddled a lot, and ended up almost exactly where I started.

>I would say Gordy's runs were "in the hunt" for the whole
>show, and it's a brand new rig.
>
>How many years had the pipe been in use when you started on
>your first? I remember a well known guy I know struggling
>with the pipe setup for years, and years, and YEARS before
>he finally figured it out to his satisfaction, and that guy
>had about a dozen guys he could call and compare notes with.

I saw one fly at the Golden State Stunt Championships in October 1988 (Paul Walker's), had an engine and pipe in hand in November, and flew it first in December. I calculated the pipe length based on what I guessed to be the exhaust temperature, and it was within 1/4" of what I wound up with. I can't recall asking anyone how to set it up beyond Ted, and he had no more experience with it than I did. I might also add that there was a lot of *very wrong* information being distributed at the time, and a lot of hype and cheerleading, that led many people astray. So it might have been better off for having not known the "magic numbers".

I would also note that there is still a huge amount of wrong information about many other engine setups, too, and the erroneous TP information is still very much circulating.

>My memory is not that short, I remember when running the
>pipe setup WAS NOT PLUG AND PLAY. I think there is just way
>too much overstatement of the current pipe successes. It
>was a very long road to success.

I would simply have to disagree, as that has not been my experience or my observation of others.

Brett

p.s. edited for dates - I beleive by first piped engine flight was in December of 1988, because I think I flew the Imitiation XL for the first time at the Golden State in my first major meet in Expert in 1989. This was the year it was in Visalia, and they didn't hold it the next year (which I recall from the trophy was 1990).

> I saw one fly at the Golden State Stunt Championships in
>October 1988 (Paul Walker's), had an engine and pipe in hand
>in November, and flew it first in December. I calculated the
>pipe length based on what I guessed to be the exhaust
>temperature, and it was within 1/4" of what I wound up with.
>I can't recall asking anyone how to set it up beyond Ted,
>and he had no more experience with it than I did. I might
>also add that there was a lot of *very wrong* information
>being distributed at the time, and a lot of hype and
>cheerleading, that led many people astray. So it might have
>been better off for having not known the "magic numbers".
>
> I would also note that there is still a huge amount of
>wrong information about many other engine setups, too, and
>the erroneous TP information is still very much circulating.

Out of curiosity, what in your opinion would this erroneous tuned pipe information be?

I would also note that there is still a huge amount of
>>wrong information about many other engine setups, too, and
>>the erroneous TP information is still very much circulating.
>
>Out of curiosity, what in your opinion would this erroneous
>tuned pipe information be?

A few tidbits, several common - incorrect pipe lengths for the VF, "blown front bearing seals" on several different motor. and "required modifications" for VFs.

I judged Advanced Top 20 yesterday. I've never seen anything like it and I hope I never will again. Circle 1 seemed to be the suicide circle. The berm on the west end of the runway made the 40 mph wind gusts even worse. It actually blew the fire out in two engines at the bottom of inside turns and ripped Allen Goff's airplane right off the lines. It was a heartbreaking day.

To all of you who took airplanes home in pieces, my heartfelt condolences. To all who flew in spite of brutal winds, my unabashed admiration. I'll see you all next year.

Randi

From a qualifier that passed point of view, I do believe that those who chose to fly are to be commended for their bravery and skill on what has to be the worst ever Top 20 day I have ever witnessed. You really must want to win and have the confidence that you can survive to even consider flying in the conditions we witnessed on Friday. I was riding the fence all morning as to whether I would pass. After watching Todd demolish his pride and joy just twenty feet from me in steadily worsening conditions I went straight to the pit boss and to the event director to pass. Matt and Dixon had already tossed in the towel when I bailed,...with Gordon shortly behind me. Having lost my best flying plane just ten days before the Nats I wasnt going to risk my marginally powered Nats Advanced winning plane from 98. Older Stalker 61s just dont have the poop and wind up like a top in anything over 10 mph and I pretty much knew that I would be committing suicide. However, survival of two flights on this day might have gotten a possible top five placement. Howard was darn close! Kudos to all no matter what their choice was. Im just glad I have a plane to fly the rest of this season.

John

("I was riding the fence all morning as to whether I would pass.
After watching Todd demolish his pride and joy just twenty feet from me in steadily worsening conditions I went straight to the pit boss and to the event director to pass.")

Smart move. I have a healthy respect for you kind of judgment.

I just wanted to say that, even though my view does not mean much, that what I saw at this Nats was nothing short of a HURCULEAN show of strength from the top fliers.

The abilty of these guys to stay in the shape in the junk left me gawking more than once.

My hat is off. My ears are open. My mouth is shut.

I am merely a mortal among Stunt Gods.

Well done.

Somebody needs to email Floyd the "Stunt Profit" I thought he was really good at "Tarting-Up" a thread. You guys are the "Masters"

Brutally windy
absolutely brutal
survive or crash
incredible flying
no one would have survived
I got off real easy
terribly discouraging
It was hard, but it was hard for everybody
crap conditions
escaped serious damage
Congratulations
a Real B!^@H
go-for-it, then crash
Survival was the name of the game
I wish I could have seen him save it on his back!
heartfelt condolences
unabashed admiration
Kudos to all no matter what their choice was
a HURCULEAN show of strength
I am merely a mortal among Stunt Gods

I am in awe......

John "Darn, I wish I'd been there" Jolley

Thanks, Brad. I appreciate it!

I made a trip to Poland a number of years ago and attended a CL scale contest. The weather was horrible! It was very windy 20mph +, it was very cold, and it was raining. Know what all of the pilots flew, including their entire F4B team. This included the then 2-time world champion and his Lancaster. Think about it these were planes that are marginal on power, have huge wing loadings and have to do things like slow flight, high flight ETC. It was not pretty but they all survived and that is what it was survival. I remember thinking at the time that this was one of the elements that allowed them to do so well at the world championships, they knew how to fly in very bad conditions.