Notes from the *ignorant, stupid and tes

tosterone crazed (* as described in the various threads on top twenty day)

After reading the various opinions on the very challenging conditions during the Friday semi-finals at this year's nats I thought it would be valuable if one of the fools who chose to fly expressed a point of view.

First of all, let me state clearly that I bear no animosity nor do I disparage those who chose not to fly that day. One of the basic tenets of competition is that each competitor must decide for him or her self whether it is appropriate to continue to participate. Reasons for not doing so are varied and go far beyond simply being unwilling to risk one's equipment because of atmospheric conditions.

This is precisely why the ED's decision to continue the competition was totally supportable. Every contestant had an absolute right to determine whether further participation was appropriate for his or her state of preparation.

Unlike some suggestions, flying patterns was not impossible, ignorant or stupid. It was very, very difficult and may or may not have been doable by any and/or all the contestants. That's why they have the choice of not flying. This was, after all, our National Championship. The goal of the competition was to determine who is best able to produce maneuvers as described in our rule book. As they say at the USGA (United States Golf Association) who run the U.S. Open. "Our goal is not to embarrass the best golfers (read flyers) in the nation, it is to identify them." Thus, the conditions under which the Open is competed are noticably more difficult than those encountered at the ordinary PGA Tour event.

Our event directors don't purposely make conditions more difficult for us (although they do utilize a format that makes victory the result of continuing excellence over a period of days and possible conditions rather than a single flight) but when conditions become more difficult the result is more rather than less definitive.

Nobody flew on Saturday who didn't prove himself capable (and willing) to deal with the elements for three days of qualifying and semi-finals. My hat is off to all of them and I am quite proud of the fact that I managed the conditions almost well enough to prevail.

Therefore, I must side with those who applaud and respect the decisions that all the competitors made and the performance they displayed. You can't prevail in competition without accepting the risks inherent in doing so. We must all make decisions as to when the risks exceed our willingness and ability to continue. At that point we should bow out and applaud those who choose to continue. It's not stupid, it's not ignorant, it's not testosterone crazed. It's a decision. Hopefully made with sound reasoning and understanding of just how much adversity one is capable of dealing with.

Probably the only thing about which I am dismayed is that all the talk in these threads has dealt with the wisdom of those who had to make the decision to fly or to retire. A lot of hyperbole and recriminations have been addressed back and forth over what was, quite properly, personal decisions on the part of the contestants.

What wasn't discussed at all was the subject I spent 10 or 15 minutes discussing with a flyer who chose not to fly. That discussion had nothing to do with whether flying was dumb or not. It had to do with methods of dealing with the conditions. Trim and power alterations aimed solely at dealing with what Mother Nature was throwing at us.

Rather than pointing fingers and accusing each other of either stupidity or testosterone poisoning we could have spent the time expended on these threads talking about what, if anything could be done to deal with such adverse conditions. So far, we've chosen not to.

At no point did I suggest to this talented young flyer that he should change his mind and fly despite his aversion to doing so. What I suggested is that he listen to what my years of experience have taught me and to consider practicing the suggestions under progressively more demanding conditions so as to learn what part of what I had to offer might be of value to him when (not if) he ran into similar conditions in the future.

I suggest that our immediate future on this subject would be better spent discussing such useful subjects and not trying to decide who's stupid and who's chicken!

I don't know Ted, using logic and reason on all of us...

How many contests in the Northwest have you flown in that weren't windy? A very few for me. Some are a nice breeze, many, many are a gail. A very few are the tie down the women and children affairs. Heck, my biggest problem around here is, I'm lousy in calm conditions.

I suppose it's also a matter of perspective. What are you used to flying in. My flying buddy and I flew some practice tonight. It's on a field that has 100 foot fir trees on 3 sides. When the wind blows through the trees it gets, well, pretty interesting. We had a 10 mph breeze with gusts to maybe 20 tonight. Nothing like the Nats reports, but tough enough with the turbulence. Because of course, it was coming right through the trees to the east. That meant the wind was, as usual, blowing right into the setting sun sitting just above the trees to the west. Always a good time. But this was the usual conditions. Usually a bit more wind.

So as I say, I suppose it depends on what you're used to. And as you note; what kind of confidence do you have in your ability to fly in the conditions and what is your faith in your equipment. It's a judgement call.

I chose to fly because: 1) the wind gave me a piloting advantage over guys who had practiced more than I in normal conditions, 2) it's about time for a new airplane anyhow, 3)I made a practice flight early in the day and noted that the plane had some margin left for more wind, and 4) had I not flown, there would have been sneers when I went home. I bumped the RPM by 100 over nominal and used a fairly low-pitched prop that had been working well in Muncie in less wind. It had some washout toward the tip recommended for wind by my advisor back home. Saturday, when the weather was perfect, I backed off 100 RPM, but didn't make any other changes, and the plane flew great. More experienced flyers would probably have made more changes, but I'm fortunate to have a plane and engine that are pretty immune to weather differences. At no time did I feel that I was endangering myself or anyone else by flying.

Bravo, Ted!
Although the flying Friday wasn't pretty, you and others proved that you could endure the weather and perform recognizable patterns in the wind.

You flew very well all week and deserved you spot on Saturday!

Good Job!

See Ya

Ted, I also applaud your and others' accomplishments in the wind, and in no way take anything away from the placings or standings in the end. And, as you and others have stated, the decision to fly or not fly was totally the decision of the flyer himself.

I have never called anyone who flew stupid, although I did use that word to describe conditions that day. Had those conditions occured at a regional contest at Muncie I feel the contest would have been called. (The last contest that Matt attended last year in St. Louis was called because of conditions.) Since they occured at the Nationals, however, they went on and that was fine.

Matt has flown in windy conditions and won in windy conditions. His first win in Advanced and his first win in Expert were both flown in severely windy conditions. (At least 20 miles per). And, ironically, both were on circle three at Muncie. Matt has practiced in wind and continues to practice in wind. This is necessary if you are going to fly contests. (Hey, contests are always scheduled on windy days, right?) So, I totally agree that this is something that people need to work with and prepare for, and I would welcome a thread that would help people prepare for and give them confidence to fly in such conditions.

However, we also must know just what the limitations of plane and flyer are, and these need to be addressed as well. And we also need to determine what, for each individual, is an acceptable risk. Even what you consider to be an acceptable risk others may not. And I believe that this is a choice that each must make and not feel that just because he is there he must fly. There is always a contest to fly in the next week and the week after--if you still have a plane to fly. Too many lose their planes because they are not willing to make the decision not to fly--both at contests and at practice. So we need to learn how to better prepare to fly in the wind. And we also need to learn when to quit flying and bring the airplane home so we can fly another day.

Along these lines, Matt has gone out to practice in the early morning on days that are scheduled to be windy. This gives him a chance to work up to the wind rather than merely be thrown out into it. As the wind gets progressively worse, it gives him the opportunity to see how the plane reacts and how comfortable he is in it. One should never fly to the extreme limit--even in practice (maybe ESPECIALLY in practice). Because if you reach the point of a 50-50 chance of survival (or even a 10% chance of crashing) you eventually will lose. Our planes are not expendable just to see how far we can take them in what, to us, are intolerable conditions. We must work up to the point of knowing that we can fly in those conditions, or that there is at least an acceptable risk in flying in those conditions, or choose to put the plane in the car and return another day. There will always be another day. But there will not always be another plane to fly with if we take it beyond the limits.

>But there will not always be another
>plane to fly with if we take it beyond the limits.

What?

Someone once said there are two kinds of model airplanes...

There are those that havent crashed...and there are those that are going to crash.

the only problem with flying in heavy winds is the distinct possibility of parting the lines. I get very leery of flying when the plane is pulling harder than the pull test!!

RIGHT ON TED!!! I agree 100% with your comments. So. a halleleuia (sp) from the front pew and a free beer. AMEN.

I’ll second Denny’s Hallelujah with a big AMEN from the back pew in the far North. But I’d suggest a Baptist beer......a little cream and/or sugar with it is OK, though.

> RIGHT ON TED!!! I agree 100% with your comments. So. a
>halleleuia (sp) from the front pew and a free beer. AMEN.
>
> Bigiron

I say that you did what needed to be done. I would not have done it. Maybe that makes what was accomplished a little special.

All that said I am not sure that maybe the conditions were beyond reason. I was not there, however. I think that the majority might have said "good day". That should count too maybe?

Good job.

>tosterone crazed (* as described in the various threads on
>top twenty day)
>
>After reading the various opinions on the very challenging
>conditions during the Friday semi-finals at this year's nats
>I thought it would be valuable if one of the fools who chose
>to fly expressed a point of view.
>
>First of all, let me state clearly that I bear no animosity
>nor do I disparage those who chose not to fly that day. One
>of the basic tenets of competition is that each competitor
>must decide for him or her self whether it is appropriate to
>continue to participate. Reasons for not doing so are
>varied and go far beyond simply being unwilling to risk
>one's equipment because of atmospheric conditions.
>
>This is precisely why the ED's decision to continue the
>competition was totally supportable. Every contestant had
>an absolute right to determine whether further participation
>was appropriate for his or her state of preparation.
>
>Unlike some suggestions, flying patterns was not impossible,
>ignorant or stupid. It was very, very difficult and may or
>may not have been doable by any and/or all the contestants.
>That's why they have the choice of not flying. This was,
>after all, our National Championship. The goal of the
>competition was to determine who is best able to produce
>maneuvers as described in our rule book. As they say at the
>USGA (United States Golf Association) who run the U.S. Open.
> "Our goal is not to embarrass the best golfers (read
>flyers) in the nation, it is to identify them." Thus, the
>conditions under which the Open is competed are noticably
>more difficult than those encountered at the ordinary PGA
>Tour event.
>
>Our event directors don't purposely make conditions more
>difficult for us (although they do utilize a format that
>makes victory the result of continuing excellence over a
>period of days and possible conditions rather than a single
>flight) but when conditions become more difficult the result
>is more rather than less definitive.
>
>Nobody flew on Saturday who didn't prove himself capable
>(and willing) to deal with the elements for three days of
>qualifying and semi-finals. My hat is off to all of them
>and I am quite proud of the fact that I managed the
>conditions almost well enough to prevail.
>
>Therefore, I must side with those who applaud and respect
>the decisions that all the competitors made and the
>performance they displayed. You can't prevail in
>competition without accepting the risks inherent in doing
>so. We must all make decisions as to when the risks exceed
>our willingness and ability to continue. At that point we
>should bow out and applaud those who choose to continue.
>It's not stupid, it's not ignorant, it's not testosterone
>crazed. It's a decision. Hopefully made with sound
>reasoning and understanding of just how much adversity one
>is capable of dealing with.
>
>Probably the only thing about which I am dismayed is that
>all the talk in these threads has dealt with the wisdom of
>those who had to make the decision to fly or to retire. A
>lot of hyperbole and recriminations have been addressed back
>and forth over what was, quite properly, personal decisions
>on the part of the contestants.
>
>What wasn't discussed at all was the subject I spent 10 or
>15 minutes discussing with a flyer who chose not to fly.
>That discussion had nothing to do with whether flying was
>dumb or not. It had to do with methods of dealing with the
>conditions. Trim and power alterations aimed solely at
>dealing with what Mother Nature was throwing at us.
>
>Rather than pointing fingers and accusing each other of
>either stupidity or testosterone poisoning we could have
>spent the time expended on these threads talking about what,
>if anything could be done to deal with such adverse
>conditions. So far, we've chosen not to.
>
>At no point did I suggest to this talented young flyer that
>he should change his mind and fly despite his aversion to
>doing so. What I suggested is that he listen to what my
>years of experience have taught me and to consider
>practicing the suggestions under progressively more
>demanding conditions so as to learn what part of what I had
>to offer might be of value to him when (not if) he ran into
>similar conditions in the future.
>
>I suggest that our immediate future on this subject would be
>better spent discussing such useful subjects and not trying
>to decide who's stupid and who's chicken!
>
>Ted

Ted,

WELL SAID!!!!

Unfortunately Ted I was in a hospital bed try to fly the TV remote, wishing I was at the NATS no matter what the conditions were. After reading your thread I must agree with Mr. Byles

WELL SAID

>tosterone crazed (* as described in the various threads on
>top twenty day)
>
>After reading the various opinions on the very challenging
>conditions during the Friday semi-finals at this year's nats
>I thought it would be valuable if one of the fools who chose
>to fly expressed a point of view.

Ted;

Actually, you were not the one who was disparaged for having an over abundance of testosterone. Rather, I paraphrased George Patton (the elder), and was acused of having too much of a certain male hormone running through my veins. So, for those who must maintain absolute political correctness, add Patton to your list of unmentionables... .

What prompted the discussion was an attempt to give an objective and balanced view to the events of Survival Friday. They were:

1. If the contest is a go, then you have to fly to win or place high. The flight location and time will be given by the ED/pitboss. The rules are a constant for everyone.

2. Each flyer takes a calculated risk based on the conditions.

3. Those who did not fly should not be considered timid, just as those who did fly be considered foolhardy.

4. Each flyer's decision to fly or not fly should be respected and not second guessed. Some felt a crack at the top five was worth risking a ship and it didn't pan out. For some, it did. Others didn't want to take the risk, and in doing so had to forgo any chance of placing in the the top five. There was nothing wrong with any of the decisions.

5. SAFETY. As there was a parting of lines for one ship, we might want to look at judge/spectator safety in the future in extreme conditions.

Leonard and I have had a spirited yet polite exchange on this topic off line, reaffirming our right to agree to disagree and still remain friends.

As it should be.

Regards - Bob Kruger

PS - Congrats on doing so well.

BK

To get back to the notion that Ted touched on in his original post, in abnormally high wind, what are the trim adjustments that can provide assistance over a planes normal trim. Just cranking in a a few rpm doesn't always work, in fact it can cause more whip in the 4-2-4 set up.

My personal nemesis, the vertical eight in high wind. I get blown down and sometimes out. Direct down wind or bias which way ?

Let's start a new thread so we don't get bogged down on ideas, but, yes, I agree, a good subject.

>To get back to the notion that Ted touched on in his
>original post, in abnormally high wind, what are the trim
>adjustments that can provide assistance over a planes normal
>trim. Just cranking in a a few rpm doesn't always work, in
>fact it can cause more whip in the 4-2-4 set up.
>
>My personal nemesis, the vertical eight in high wind. I get
>blown down and sometimes out. Direct down wind or bias which
>way ?

Directly down wind (no bias) and fly the top of the eight slightly behind your head while raising the intersection of the loops a few feet.

Ted, thanks for jumping in. You did a great job staying with your flights on Friday, and I could swear I saw you clicking your heals when you finished the clover on circle 4.

What I learned was how to get better runs in those conditions. It was about more than just flying in the wind, it was also how well one could adapt what they had.

I know David was running Pipe Pressure, but were you? If you were not, what did you do to deal with going rich in the headwind?

We learned a lesson, fueling in the pits. Bill Rich was really pumped about flying in the wind. He walked his fueled model from the pits to the far side of circle three with the wind blowing the tail up. The model flooded and he took an attempt. On his second attempt he ate a prop.

Curt

..and what's with all the kissy kissy suck suck sounds in here all of a sudden?

>Ted, thanks for jumping in. You did a great job staying with
>your flights on Friday, and I could swear I saw you clicking
>your heals when you finished the clover on circle 4.
>

Hmmm, don't exactly remember the heel clicking but I pretty much don't remember anything about that flight except that it had exactly the right number of insides tricks and outside tricks in more or less the right locations. I knew I had a good first flight on circle three and needed only to complete a flight to have a decent shot at flying on Saturday. That was the only goal for that second flight...make sure I don't give it away. Frank could have used a bit of that attitude and he would have been flying the next day as well. I know, easy to say a week or two later!

>What I learned was how to get better runs in those
>conditions. It was about more than just flying in the wind,
>it was also how well one could adapt what they had.

Yes, yes, yes. Exactly why I suggested we talk about stuff like that rather than pointing fingers and calling names.

>
>I know David was running Pipe Pressure, but were you? If you
>were not, what did you do to deal with going rich in the
>headwind?

Yup, I was running pipe pressure as was David. Brett wasn't and suggested after the fact this might have been a mistake for exactly the reason you suggest. An open vent into the slipstream isn't the only reason the engine richens up going into a strong wind but it is a reason we can deal with. Muffler/pipe pressure mitigates the pressure change at the vent.

What it doesn't help is the natural unloading of the prop as it comes back into the wind. The engine is going to tend to a four cycle as the wind starts to help turn the prop. Brett suggested his PA was 16 cycling back into the wind and I don't hardly dispute that!

>
>We learned a lesson, fueling in the pits. Bill Rich was
>really pumped about flying in the wind. He walked his fueled
>model from the pits to the far side of circle three with the
>wind blowing the tail up. The model flooded and he took an
>attempt. On his second attempt he ate a prop.

That was weird. I went out right after that and found my engine flooded as well. Had to turn it over and flip out the excess fuel. Makes a good argument for the Gieseke method of only filling the tank after you're on the circle(which alway bugged me but now doesn't seem so silly)...
>
>Curt
>
>..and what's with all the kissy kissy suck suck sounds in
>here all of a sudden?

Hi Curt,

Thanks for the opening. I was hoping that somebody would finally start asking questions about trim and power and so forth and finally give up on the back and forth of whether it was right or wrong to continue flying. Kudos also to jdbywire for the same thing. Time to talk about planes and trim and power.

Len started another thread for that purpose so I'll cut this off and spend some time over there.

Ted

p.s. How did it feel to do the appearance judging? Got a better feel for how difficult it can be, I'll bet. You and Charlie did a great job...especially considering it had to be done by the braille method.

>Ted
>
>p.s. How did it feel to do the appearance judging? Got a
>better feel for how difficult it can be, I'll bet. You and
>Charlie did a great job...especially considering it had to
>be done by the braille method.
>

Not enough room
Not enough light
Not enough time

I enjoyed it.