Ted, the floor is yours...continued

Boy has there been a lot of good and provocative stuff on the thread that led to the above title. I'd love to respond to it all but don't think it's possible...but, of course, I'll try!

Not surprisingly, I'm going to agree with a lot of what Brett and Len and a few others have said and disagree at least in part with my good friends Larry and Claus. I precede my comments with the caveat that every one has opinions...these are just mine.

Brett is absolutely right (as was Larry when he first broached the possibility) it is entirely possible for someone to beat another flyer with demonstrably inferior equipment. This can be done by simply overwhelmingly superior talent (Bart Klapinski whipping all the best OTS ships in the country at VSC flying his little Travel Air bipe with a really, really old K&B .29) or a combination of exceptional talent and a lot of practice flying a pretty ordinary airplane (discretion being the better part of valor I'll let each of you pick your own examples).

The fact that a particular individual won a given event is evidence...but not proof...of the possible superiority of his "stuff". I've flown a number of "OPPS" (other people's planes) over the years and can state without reservation that a few of them were superior to my own on that day...notwithstanding the fact that I may have beaten them on that day with my own "stuff".

A couple particular examples. Brett's Infinite is almost the closest thing to a perfect stunt ship I've ever flown...and that opinion is shared by many others who have flown it. He's never beat me at a "major" comp with the ship yet but, there is no question it is a superior airplane. Bobby Hunt's Saturn was a close second in my personal ranking of OPPs I've flown. I flew it after I won the '95 Walker Cup and Bobby came in, I think, fourth. Still counting my blessings for coming out ahead of a truly great pilot and a fantastic airplane.

The beat goes on. The point is that winning or losing is, once again, not proof of superiority of "stuff". I think we can put that canard to rest.

Yes, once again, you can fly stunt with a stiff arm and a biased handle. Happens all the time and some very good flyers have done very well with the biased handle. Not so common is the stiff, straight arm.

My feeling is that flying an exceptional pattern on a regular basis would be extremely difficult with the straight arm pumping up and down in the fashion in which many have learned to fly. I think that approach is flawed not only for flying the pattern but also for even learning to fly. The awful truth is that once learned, flawed techniques are almost impossible to overcome once they've become ingrained. My "palm up" inverted flight being a perfect example. Nobody taught me to do that but that was the way I learned. Alas, there is no doubt in my mind that if I tried to fly inverted with my hand upright tomorrow I would crash! Fortunately, although I fly inverted that way I've no similar tendency during maneuvers...thank heaven. Inverted flight is pretty simple and I can and have lived with flawed technique in that regard without great detriment to my "career".

On the other hand, I have seen (as we all have) pilots who somehow have taken this handle position thing right on into their maneuvers and have endless trouble trying to do things like outside squares and square eights with their arm and hand all distorted trying to keep the palm "up" or "down" or even, in cases almost painful to contemplate, with the down line "up", their hand twisted as close to 180 degrees as anatomy will allow to somehow keep "up" "up". Awwwk!

Dougie Moon mentioned the pencil analogy and I just loved it because that was precisely my thought process when I read of the relative acceptance of the stiff armed, biased handle method. We are, in fact, drawing pretty pictures on our spheres and, because our art is "reality based" rather than abstract, we pretty much have to do our figures as Mother Nature invented them...no allowances made for "creative" embellishments! My funny way of saying we're flying "precision aerobatics", not stunt.

Let's take that pencil analogy a step further than Dougie did. Pencils are used for writing stuff. Now, you can, I suppose, write stuff with a pencil by holding your arm straight out and moving it up and down and sideways and, with enough practice, your penmanship might work its way up to a gentleman's "C" but it will be darn hard to keep it that way and almost impossible to get really good at it...especially if you're a Doctor and you've got to write prescriptions in that tiny script so popular with the MD set.

The point is that penmanship is a nuanced task requiring adept usage of fine motor and muscle skills. Flying a stunt pattern makes much the same demands on our neuro-muscular skills. Sure, you can make the ship go up and down by moving your arm up and down and you can do some tricks by biasing your wrist down to "equalize" the up and down movement available. You can do the equivilant of block letter printing that way.

If, on the other hand, you want to do a little calligraphy on the sphere with a few nuanced seriphs and some subtle punctuation, you're going to have to utilise the same sort of fine motor skills the expert penman needs to use. The good stunt flyer does this with nuanced finger pressures, excellent balance, very fine movements and the avoidance of large motor inputs such as raising and lowering the entire arm for any up and down control input.

Several reasons for avoiding the large motor inputs. First of all, every time you move your arm up or down or left or right in gross fashion (emanating from the shoulder)you alter the airplane's perception of "where" the control is coming from. Every such gross movement moves the inboard wing and all attached to it in the direction you dragged the handle. All the fine tuning of yaw and roll trim is negated by such inputs.

Second, time. It takes time and a large range of motion to input the control necessary for a square corner when moving the entire arm. A square corner is measured in modest parts of a single second of time. To suggest that a refined and controlled corner of the proper radius can be accomplished repeatedly by such gross inputs is not a likely prospect.

Note, by the way, that I limited my negative comments about arm movement to left and right and up and down. Left something out, didn't I? The only arm movement you'll see from the vast majority of top twenty flyers is movement away from and toward the airplane. The equivilant of adding or subtracting energy from the airplane. Moving the handle toward you adds energy by accelerating the airplane, a form of whipping. Very useful in many parts of the pattern especially when flying in adverse conditions.

More rare but also of occassional value is moving the arm toward the airplane (or stepping toward it). This takes energy away from the airplane and can be used to unload it a bit to take some of the "surge" out of corners. Gene Schaeffer, one of the finest flyers to ever come out of the east coast (and, yes, I'll readily admit there were and are a bunch of them) would routinely step into his ship at the last bottom corner of the hourglass, effectively slowing and unoading the airplane enough to make the corner sharper and flatter.

Finally, let's put to rest the belief that the handle must be biased down because, after all, if the arm is held straight out with the fingers parallel to the ground there is very little "up" movement available and much more "down", ergo, neutral must be located somewhere half way between...biased down.

Now, if we were place in a strait jacket with our flying arm and upper chest in a cast out to but not including the wrist, there would be some ligitimacy to this position. But, for the most part we simply don't dress that way to fly our toys. Lacking such constraints we quickly learn that we've got a multitude of available source with which to apply "up" control and we can use and and or all of them depending on the demands of the moment. Available and useable sources for down control are much more limited.

For "up" control we can use: 1. fingers; 2. wrist; 3. *elbow*; 4. shoulder joint; and our feet (moving back to transmit energy and increase our mechanical advantage..did you think of that one?) For "down" control we are practically limited to: 1. fingers; 2. wrist; 3. (in an emergency) the shoulder and, yes, the feet.

For practical purposes our down control is limited to what we can achieve with our wrist and fingers. Let's examine why this is true.

The overwhelming difference between up and down control is the elbow. The unfortunate reality is that the elbow only bends one way and for us, that's "up". It's a huge advantage for the following reasons. Not only does it give us an additional "hinge" for up inputs, it also satisfies the criteria of not moving the handle significantly up or down when it is flexed. In the "preferred" (by some)vertical handle, slightly bent elbow neutral position control inputs achieved by bending the elbow results in the hand merely moving toward the pilot thus adding energy to the airplane and not inputting an usettling roll that would be caused by raising the whole arm for the additional input.

Further. In the event that even more control is needed the shoulder can be employed to the point that the handle has turned a full 90 degrees giving absolutely maximum deflection available and the hand still only raises a few inches above its position at neutral.

Pretty good stuff for the insides, huh!

The outsides on the other hand are a great wasteland!

The problem with inputting outside control is the inability to use the elbow. After we've got all the down wrist and finger flexes into the deal there is nothing left that doesn't include some bad stuff. Since the elbow don't go that way we must resort to the next joint which is the shoulder. Down inputs from the shoulder require by physics that the entire arm be moved down. We can't bend the elbow that way and move our hand back in a more or less straight line the way we can with up control. This inputs a roll to the aircraft due to dragging the handle down, requires a lot more muscle since the input is made at the end of a long "arm" ... your arm ... and (because you've got to move the entire arm a long ways to achieve the same handle deflection that comes from a much smaller movement by the elbow in up control) requires a whole bunch more time to accomplish. Lastly, fine control of that outside corner becomes very problematical because of all the foregoing use of large muscle groups and long period amplitude movements. It just isn't a very good way of making precision maneuvers.

All of the foregoing is my way of trying to explain why, from a purely physiological standpoint, there is very much a good way and a not so good way (not to say right or wrong)to hold the handle.

This has gone on way too long and I've got to get to bed. Next time I get a chance to yammer on a while I'll discuss the issue that started all of this, why there is a good argument for a handle of a certain configuration.

TED… What you say is true. HOWEVER, I think one point is missed. Pilots are individuals. They fly the way it’s comfortable. You cannot teach inter skill. You can teach comfort and knowledge. AS a control line flyer I know my comfort zone. I know the “today limits” of stunt. Keep in the envelope. I’ll keep saying KEEP in the envelope of one’s self. I watched you fly Don McClave’s Oriental this spring. YOU PUT THE PLANE through its paces far better then DON…. WHY? YOU fly in your comfort zone which far above DON’S. Read Chuck Yeager’s Book… any “PLANE CAN BE BEAT” it’s the pilot. NO IF’S no BUT’S. Once you feel comfortable BANG!!!! It’s pure magic. You know that you could fly a brick with wings.
Control line flying is the same way. Once you achieve building a plane straight and light you will learn flying at it’s best. And it will be fun FUN!!!!! FUN remember FUN. I could go into more realms of reality, but each pilot has to come full circle with their own comfort zone. You can teach comfort but not inter skill.

Scott (a student of stunt) Riese

Although I breached the original discussion (Ted's handle design) with points about other handles, I didn't mean to detract from this fine piece in any manner.

I'm VERY glad to see Ted making this item available to everyone at such a reasonable price. And I truly value the technical discussion; I count on Ted in particular for quality information. The open sharing of information (and equipment) is characteristic of CL stunt - look at this forum! Great stuff. (Thank you again, Len.)

Now, in spite of acknowledging all the fun and competitiveness which are possible with simple and modest equipment and raw skills, I have to agree with Ted and Brett that there is a huge difference with the quality stuff.

That fine attention to detail, every small aspect of the entire stunt flying experience, is what separates this class of flyers from the rest. It's all rather obvious when you watch them fly. The "package" is truly impressive.

Stunt flyers know the pleasure of interactive control and feedback from the model. There are levels of quality of that experience: all these elements of the package add up! What could be a more immediate part of that experience than the HANDLE?

Yes, I *could* drive my old 84 Nissan pickup to VSC (I have before), but for some reason, I'd prefer taking my new 300M!

[photo not recovered: 3f2f9f9d7c50a92b.jpg]
(well, maybe not anymore..) It still runs fine!

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"History repeats itself. That's one of the things wrong with history." -Clarence Darrow

Ted,

I see there is little misunderstanding. You use very slow controls. I think it is as slow as it limits controlling by WRIST ONLY, what you say limits down control. Claus wrote his input from another point of view. He uses little quicker response and so he do not have problem with limiting of maximal deflection by little bias, as his maximal deflection is smaller.

I think the point is to keep the handle in position where difference in line tension does not change the deflection – means the pivot (wrist, where the handle rotate about) is in middle of direction of incoming lines with relaxed muscles in wrist AND still have symmetric line throw as a response to angle of deflection of handle (means the line pivots - connectors are at the same distance from pivot point – vertical connecting bar or holes for connectors).

I think there are TWO solutions – yours is symmetric vertical handle and arm coming to handle little crooked. It makes little bias in wrist and pivot is little higher than on straight arm. It also allows equivalent handle deflection to both directions.

Another solution was mentioned by Len I think. If the handle has vertical and symmetric bar for connecting lines, but its HANDLE meeting fingers has little bias (again, moves the pivot point to middle of lines), while the arm comes straight (it can – everything is solved on handle). If done well, it is pretty symmetric, but it must match pilot’s hand, so it is difficult to make for first time. Perfect handle of such type needs to be adjustable in two ways – line length and handle bar to connector bar angle.

Ted, whilst watching you fly your late, lamented Nobler at the VSC, I noticed that you flew inverted and outside maneuvers with your hand held horizontal, palm up. What is the advantage of this?

Jim,

Palm up is the way Ted learned, and the way his brother Gary taught me to (finally) learn, inverted flight. After watching me stuff several airplanes trying to get those three level inverted laps ("Up is down, Down is up,etc, ad infinitum....Oops! Getting a bit too low. I need to go up.....SMASH!!), Gary suggested that I try flying inverted with my palm up. That way I didn't need to remember which control moves the plane away from the ground. If I became disoriented, all I had to do was stop my hand and the plane would automatically move in that direction. It works, but does make the other outside maneuvers a lot tougher.

If I were to start learning again with what I know today, I'd stick with Larry Renger's Top and Bottom control, rather than Up and Down. That way the controls don't, at least in the pilot's mind, become reversed. Top and bottom in this case relate to the plane, not the handle. Top is always toward the top of the plane and Bottom is always toward the bottom of the plane. That way, when getting low while inverted, one needs to apply control toward the bottom of the plane. I think that this method would work very well for those who don't have a lot of old, ingrained habits and thought processes. If beginners were taught to think this way from the get go, they may never need to suffer through the often long learning process for the second and fourth maneuvers in the pattern.

Nice, I fly palm down, just to have less work in second corner of wingover

>Ted, whilst watching you fly your late, lamented Nobler at
>the VSC, I noticed that you flew inverted and outside
>maneuvers with your hand held horizontal, palm up. What is
>the advantage of this?
>
>Jim Thomerson

While Ted is still napping, I am going to stick my neck out here and answer your question, Jim. I think Ted is going to tell you that there is no advantage to this. It is how he learned. He mentiones (above) that nobody taught him to fly this way, he just did it.

But it does have disadvantages. However, now he is "stuck" in this "rut" and has learned to live with it. It is like learning to fly clockwise and then trying to "convert". Unless you pick up the handle inverted, you will crash. It is hard to unlearn these bad habits and that is why some flyers continue flying that way and merely perfect what they have to the best of their ability. (And some have a lot of ability.)

In the late 50's/early 60's (somewhere in there) there was a bowler (I believe) by the name of Don Carter. He was one of the wierdest bowlers I have ever seen. He held his hand palm up, cradling the ball in his hand that way, bent his elbow badly, did not have a high swing at all...I mean, it was like watching your high school sweetheart picking up a bowling ball for the first time on your first date. You would say, "He can't bowl like that." But he did. And he was the dominant bowler of his time (for a while). It was bad technique for anyone to copy (I tried. Didn't work.)

Yes, you can overcome bad habits, and most everyone has one somewhere. The point is, don't copy the bad habits. Learn to copy the good ones. And learn to tell the difference.

Oh, and you can teach an old dog new tricks. We have a (near) ten year old Pug that was too stubborn to learn to sit up and beg. (We gave in. It taught us.) We "inherited" a second dog from our daughter that learned the sit up technique very quickly. Now the old dog looks at the new dog and say, "Hmmm, there seems to be some advantage in doing this. That dog is getting all the food." I told the old dog to sit up and it reached out its paw for me to brace it. A couple of times and it had it down all by itself.

If you have bad habits, it is never too late to change. (But some things are harder than others, like flying the "wrong" direction.)

>In the late 50's/early 60's (somewhere in there) there was a
>bowler (I believe) by the name of Don Carter. He was one of
>the wierdest bowlers I have ever seen. He held his hand
>palm up, cradling the ball in his hand that way, bent his
>elbow badly, did not have a high swing at all...I mean, it
>was like watching your high school sweetheart picking up a
>bowling ball for the first time on your first date. You
>would say, "He can't bowl like that." But he did. And he
>was the dominant bowler of his time (for a while). It was
>bad technique for anyone to copy (I tried. Didn't work.)

It was from Don Carter's book I tried to learn to bowl. It was horrible style to emulate but the guy was a champion pro so his technique "must" be good, right? Fortunately, I found some other alternative styles which felt more comfortable and I eventually became a reasonably proficient bowler.

What works for one person may not necessarily work for anyone else.

Hi Jim,

Me fears that whilst watching you failed to detect what I talked about in my novel that began this thread. Yes I do, in fact, fly inverted with my palm up but I think a closer examination during outside maneuvers will show that my hand goes back to vertical during maneuvers. (At least i think it does! Now you've done the equivilant of asking your golfing competitor whether he inhales or exhales on the backswing. I'll probably never be able to do another outside maneuver without watching my hand instead of the airplane! )

I don't see a thing wrong with palm up during inverted flight.

What's the big "disadvantage" again? You have to move your hand back? Wooo!

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"I have a great diet. You're allowed to eat anything you want, but you must eat it with naked fat people.."

I don't know much about handles, angles of deflection, and so on, but I know a little about saxophone playing. After all, that's how I earn the $$$ to spend on airplanes (not to mention food, clothes, etc).

There is a so called "best" way to lay your fingers on a saxophone's keys, so your technique will not be hampered, etc., etc.

Surprisingly, one of the "fastest" (read technically proficient) saxophone players I have had the pleasure to listen to and the honour to have as a fried, a guy called Michael Brecker, is a "sax playing rules" delinquent.

First time I saw him playing his horn I wondered how could someone play in such a "wrong" way.

Same thing with trumpetist Dizzy Gilespie, he used to blow his horn in the "wrongest" possible way. And could he play!!

Where I'm trying to get is that some things in performing (music or stunt) are very personal.

Some rules are *sacred*, like using oil in your fuel, you guys know what I'm talking about, but some are strictly personal.

I wouldn't dare to say there is a "right" and a "wrong" way of setting your handle.

Ted has his way, Igor has his, and as long as the guy (as we say in Brazil) "kills the snake and shows the stick" i.e., can fly a beautiful pattern, I don't care if he's using (with all due respect and asbsolutely convinced that Ted is making a helluva handle) a "Control Right", a "Precision Pro" or a piece of broomstick (I'd personally choose Ted's handle).

Ion,

Thought we talked about that already. If you're born with the name Mozart you make beautiful music in spite of your lack of formal training or a Steinway in the parlor. If you're not Mozart but want to play like him you'll probably do better to learn the techniques and use the best instruments available.

For what it's worth, there aren't many Mozarts but there are a lot of Joe Bellcranks. If you don't think optimized equipment is necessary why do you want to fiddle with pipes, flaps and state of the art airplane design? Isn't a Ringmaster and a Fox .35 good enough? (By the way, with Bart Klapinski...a control line Mozart...it almost is). Is the mechanism on the other end of the lines of less importance? I don't think so.

Great discussion going on here. I think perhaps one person's "quarter tone scale" is sometimes another person's "out of tune." This reminds me of a 7 hour "road" discussion I once had regarding the concept of playing "on top of the beat." You can lead a horse to water but...

>You can lead a horse to water but...
>
>Dave

Dave, dave, that is an obsolete saying, and way wrong. Horses love Jello. Feed that horse a bit of Jello and it will make him thirsty. And guess what? He will take a drink.

For our discussion there are a number of good handle designs (and a lot of less desireable ones) just as there may be be several ways of standing in the center of the circle and holding your hand (your spare hand). There are also right ways and wrong ways to hold your hand that is holding the handle. Now some may get away with doing things "differently", but the key is to adapt to what is going to make it easiest to be consistent in flying well (rather than consistent if making mistakes.)

Remember Floyd C (Cummins)? He argued vehemently on this board once that the "correct" way to hold your handle was down by your side.

Funny, I don't remember him standing in the winner's circle. I would rather see what the top 20 guys are doing and try to learn from them. There may be differences in style, but there are a lot of similarities as well. And once in a while there is that "aha, that's what I need to do to solve this particular problem."

Leonard,

YES! That's it, JELLO! I just need some jello and I can fly just like Ted and David and Brett and Paul, well maybe not like Paul...

I'm one of those "contestants" who do most of their practicing in front of judges and a gallon of fuel lasts a long time for me so progress is much slower than for some. I usually refer to myself as a participant rather than a competitor. But, two things have had an immediate positive effect on my flying: holding my handle higher and a more vertical neutral. If I remember to fly the manuvers in front of me they're actually recognizable. I haven't saved up enough lunch money yet to try one of Ted's "hard point" handles but you can bet it's on my wish list. Now, if I could just get more serious the judges would stop yelling at me to, you know, "now get serious Dave!"

Dave(Mr. Alice to John & Pete)Royer

Ted, I got interested and specifically watched your hand on the outsides. Don't think, just fly. I learned to fly the wrong way and so fly with the handle upside down. People tell me it is interesting to watch.

My wife, an organist with perfect pitch, tried the violin a little while, and could not stand the sounds she was making. My son, who has no musical talent, took Suzuki violin for a while. They start out with a ruler taped to a cigar box. They teach standing right, holding the violin right, holding the hands right, holding the bow right,etc. When my son finally got to play a violin, he produced notes that were right on pitch.

This makes me suspect that there is, in fact, a best way to fly, and anyone who does not fly this way, regardless of how well they do, is not up to their full potential.

All theoretical for this old dog, however.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-05-03 AT 01:44 PM (CDT)
 
>This makes me suspect that there is, in fact, a best way to
>fly, and anyone who does not fly this way, regardless of how
>well they do, is not up to their full potential.

Now wait a minute.

I am having a real hard time swallowing this whole thing. Why is this conversation any different than any other conversation that has ever been had about equipment?

Let me give you an example.

I will substitute "way to fly" with "piped engine".

"This makes me suspect that there is, in fact, a best engine to
fly, and anyone who does not use a piped engine, regardless of how
well they do, is not up to their full potential".

Sound familiar?

No offense to Ted. Ted's a great flier and has many, many, major wins to prove it, but to say that one method for holding the handle is correct and all others are not? Might as well say only Trivial Pursuit airplanes are correct, or Eather props, etc, etc.

The Eastern Europeans fly with their arms straight out all the time.
Konstantine flies with that style. Is that wrong?

Not to say that I am not interested in what Ted does, or Brett or whatever. Copying one system that is used successfully is certainly a good idea. Adopting a "program" in toto is always a good idea. Not shortcutting that system is imperative.

I just can't swallow the using the word "correct" to describe one person's system.

>Now wait a minute.
>
>I am having a real hard time swallowing this whole thing.
>Why is this conversation any different than any other
>conversation that has ever been had about equipment?
>
>Let me give you an example.
>
>I will substitute "way to fly" with "piped engine".
>
>"This makes me suspect that there is, in fact, a best engine
>to
>fly, and anyone who does not use a piped engine, regardless
>of how
>well they do, is not up to their full potential".
>
>Sound familiar?

Sure does, I probably said something like this a hundred times. Until 4-strokes came along, it was (IMO) almost undeniably true, too, assuming objectivity. Now, it's probably still true, although in some hands the 4-strokes are clearly a player in the argument. Lots of people said this and things like it, and still stand by it, because that's genuinely what they think. The fact that statements like this were attributed to a deep, dark, personal, and I might add, baseless, conspiracy theory has no bearing whatsoever on their accuracy.

I'll make it 101 - I think that piped systems are technically superior to ST46/60's. I think that, as a result, essentially everyone flying ST46s/60's could improve their results if they used them and learned to understand them. That doesn't mean that ST60's can't win, it just reduces the odds. Not because of the judges, not because of impression points, but because they will make the airplane fly better and thus produce technically superior patterns in most conditions. A few people probably still disagree (very few, apparently) and I have no problem with anyone thinking otherwise,as long as everybody plays fair. I'll argue the point, and I see nothing wrong with arguing about it.

Same with the handle. I genuinely, with no malice towards anyone, think that using posture and handle techniques described here are indeed objectively better, and that essentially everyone would benefit from using them. I think there are "right ways" to hold your hand, or at least there's very narrow range of optimum. I think Ted believes the same, and posted accordingly, with pretty complete reasoning.

If you disagree, then post something with counter-reasoning. Associating it with a past controversy is not a counter argument, since the controversy is tangential to the issue. 'I don't like it' is also not a counter-argument.

Brett

>Ion,
>
>Thought we talked about that already. If you're born with
>the name Mozart you make beautiful music in spite of your
>lack of formal training or a Steinway in the parlor. If
>you're not Mozart but want to play like him you'll probably
>do better to learn the techniques and use the best
>instruments available.
>
>For what it's worth, there aren't many Mozarts but there are
>a lot of Joe Bellcranks. If you don't think optimized
>equipment is necessary why do you want to fiddle with pipes,
>flaps and state of the art airplane design? Isn't a
>Ringmaster and a Fox .35 good enough? (By the way, with
>Bart Klapinski...a control line Mozart...it almost is). Is
>the mechanism on the other end of the lines of less
>importance? I don't think so.
>
>Ted

Ted,

For starters, I still haven’t congratulated you for your victory at the NATS.

Well, I guess it’s still time.

Winning the NATS is a big deal, and with the “nice stunt breeze” I read about it becomes a BIG deal.

You accepted the challenge, went for it and...I don’t think it was “luck”. “Quem sabe sabe” (who knows, knows), like we say down here. You know.

About my posting, it was not my intention to heat up the discussion. I just wanted to (now I know I got late) stress the importance of talent and practice, and make it clear that...how can I put it? Well, lets put it this way: even if I buy five of your handles no way I’m goin’ fly like Ted Fancher.

Of course I believe in “using good stuff”. My saxophone is a Selmer Mark VI, the best instrument money can buy.

You should also know that , like any C/L flier, I’ve got “big eyes” on your handle. Just let my new CD start selling and I’ll be ordering one, rest assured.

Just don't fool yourself: Mozart prtacticed, and a lot.

Einstein, if my memory does not betray me, said once that "Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration".

God bless you!

In Christ,

Ion

>>Ion,
>>
>
>For starters, I still haven’t congratulated you for your
>victory at the NATS.
>
>Well, I guess it’s still time.
>
>
>
>God bless you!
>
>In Christ,
>
>Ion

Hi Ion,

Not that I don't appreciate your kind words of congratulations, I've got to think my little buddy David Fitz would take serious exception to them...since the little bugger finally overcame my gargantuan 0.6 point lead on the final flight of the day.

I just knew I shoulda stopped helping him a year earlier!

Ted

p.s. Oh gosh, I'm sure Mozart probably practiced a lot, too. The point was that he was doing things musically as an infant that 60 year old adults such as myself can only dream about. The genes for genius do exist and can show up in the most surprising places.

This has been an enlightening dicussion. Now, how does one train a cat or let alone herd cats???

"Now, if I could just get more serious the judges would stop yelling at me to, you know, "now get serious Dave!"

Dave, if I've told you once, I've told you a hundred times. Precision Control Line Aerobatics is serious business and not to be taken lightly. You don't see Alice wearing a big goofy grin when she's flying. We expect nothing less from you.

Dave - can we be serious for 5 and 1/2 minutes!!!

Not only that, but I've seeen you put up some very "competitive" flights when I remind you immediately before flying, "now get serious Dave!"

Chris

LAST EDITED ON Aug-05-03 AT 04:19 PM (CDT)
 
Very neat discussion, with a lot of small but interesting diversions as well.

I've yet to try a hard point handle. Teds design sounds and looks, from what I saw posted here, like a good, simple, and elegant , answer to what a stunt handle can be.

For years, I've used a handle of my own design. RSM sells a earlier version of it, but it has a slightly relaxed grip. My own handles maintained the vertical grip, and was my preferred handle type for many years. Gordy has been using one of these for his Tony, I believe he likes the size and heft for the tension the Tony is capable of.

Recently, I started using a lighter and thinner handle that made a difference in my flying. These handles still use an adjustable cable set up.

I'm convinced that after seeing what the new handle has done for my flying, that using a hard point style may be even more beneficial. At least it's worth the try.

As for biased, or relaxed grip, I've tried it, used to like it, but found, after getting used to the vertical grip, that it's much easier to get equal radii on the round manuevers such as the round eights. I can tell when my handle is off just by watching these manuevers. too much "relaxed" grip, and my outsides seem to move up, making the bottoms, and tops, too high. When the handle is right, the insides and outsides will be much easier for me to get right. It also seems to affect my upright and inverted flight altitudes to a degree.

When I was a youngster, teaching myself the pattern, I also developed the habit of flying inverted palm up. At least that was the only major, "bad", way to hold the handle I developed, unlike some of my flying buddies.

I had one buddy who flew with his palm down upright, and palm up inverted. When he first started flying, (A ringmaster) he looked on the box and saw the illustration showing the pilot holding his hand that way. He figured that was the way to do it because it didn't put any half twist in the lines.

Another buddy held his handle upside down. I still don't know why, but surmise that it was because pointing the top of the handle towards the plane made it climb.

Several years ago, I made the consious effort to begin holding my hand upright when flying inverted, and believe that is what I do most of the time these days. In my case, it didn't take more than a dozen flights to get used to it.

Gordy and several other top pilots hold their free hand up in the middle of their chests when flying. I kid Gordy that it looks like he's trying to keep his heart beating, but I know he does that to keep that free hand from doing wierd things that might take away from his concentration while flying the pattern.

I used to keep my free hand in my pocket. It worked good for me, but I was told by a couple of judges that it made me look too relaxed, like I wasn't taking this stunt thing very seriously. They said that some judges would reward this, apparent, attitude with lower scores. I always thought that the judges were supposed to be watching the airplane, not me, so I didn't make any changes regarding the free hand for about a year. Finally I just took that hand out of my pocket and let it go where it wanted to. Actually I think it helps me with my balance in some parts of the pattern. I haven't seen any huge differences with my pattern scores in either case, but I think next year, I'll try clutching my chest, and see if the points go up.

Now, I am realising that I'm not centering the handle on my body during the manuevers. Thanks to Bart for pointing that out to me. I think learning to do this will help a lot with the interstections and shapes. I tend to either move slightly, by shifting my weight, a little bit ahead of the manuevers. I guess it's one of those fine points for perfecting a manuever, so I'll be trying to keep the handle more centered on my body, with the manuever directly in front of me.

Over the years, I've found I fly with the elbow bent a lot more than when I was learning, but without the handle centered, I don't think I'm getting the full benifit of that flying style. I know my elbow isn't bent as much as Ted's though.

One thing about the slight digression on human ergodynamics, the amount of up verses down the wrist is capable of, at least one item seems to have been overlooked. The wrist can also pivot to the right or left, at the same time, greatly increasing the range of motion.

As has been said, the speed of the control system itself will decide how much motion is required. Slow systems require more deflection at the handle. Slow systems help in level flight though. Finding the best system speed for you could well be worth exploring.

Handles with a lot of overhang, such as the Jim Hunt handle, were designed to offer a sort of exponential throw to speed up the handles deflection effect, on the plane, while maintaining a lot of the benifits of the slower system speed in level flight. The trade off was more resistance, or effort required, to deflect the controls. Fred Bachle's expocrank, and Igor Burgers, Logrithmic systems try to make this adjustment at the bellcrank rather than at the handle. A better way in my mind, but still not sure if it is warrented, what with the brains ability to adjust.

I have seen that adjustable cable handles are fine in many ways, and better than a lot of other types that have been out there from time to time, but, they do seem to soften up the control a minute amount. To me, this softening is almost imperceptable, but I believe that the better I get, the more I'll be able to feel this effect.

Ted's design, as well as some of the others using hard points is likely the best answer to a pilot who is ready for that kind of control system. I don't think everyone is ready for it, but that it will help when they are.

Some of the points that I believe are really great with Ted's handle is the adjustable overhang, the ability to adjust for minor differnces in line legnth, and the weight. Don't overlook the last point, it's important in my mind and experience so far.

The handle that resembles a bellcrank with a handle attached at it's center point. Is light, able to make small adjustments for differnces in line legnth, but don't seem to have any adjustment for overhang.

Then there's the ultimate in light weight, hard point, handles, a ring on each line. I saw a photo of such a system being used once. One ring went around the index finger, and the other was on the little finger. I've often wondered about the quality, or advantages of such a system.

Like Brett and others have said, the entire combination, plane, engine, prop, fuel, exhaust system, control system, lines, and handle, are all part of an inter-related system. These must be considered in total, if you want to have your best shot at the top.

Is it always necessary? Nope. But, it may prove to be helpful.

And for you Mr,Alice, I think it's great that you've got that silly grin when you're flying. If the judges are noticing that, they might not notice your flying.

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

>Like Brett and others have said, the entire combination,
>plane, engine, prop, fuel, exhaust system, control system,
>lines, and handle, are all part of an inter-related system.
>These must be considered in total, if you want to have your
>best shot at the top.

This, in my mind, has always been something that is not taken advanatage of. I guess if a flyer wanted to improve very quickly he could adopt an ENTIRE system. Like Paul's, Ted's, Brett's, Randy's, Curt's, Windy's, Doug's (whoever) but adopt it from stem to stern. The whole thing, with nothing left or omitted, right down to the line clips. This would include airplane, engine, engine setup (compression, venturi, etc), pipe, fuel, prop (exact), RPM, tank, tank venting, line type, length, handle, flying style. There are more of course.

I suppose a smart man would do that. Some have chosen to do that to a degree (Howard Rush seems to use the PW Impact/OS VF data pretty effectively, for example). I myself have a conglomeration of stuff that has been taken from all manner of sources, and most likely this has affected my ability to improve at a faster rate. The more I examine this fact, the more I see the truth of it. A good example is control speed. An airplane could be designed for slow controls or fast controls, and work well with a handle type. The unsuspecting flyer goes off and builds the airplane per the plans with 1.5 horns, forward CG, and flies said airplane with a huge overhang handle. Completely negating the feel of the original plane.

I guess part of the fun of CLPA is thinking that maybe you can create a system that works as good as a National Champion's, maybe better. Maybe that's true, maybe not. Look at Al's "go for broke". We all want a little "go for broke" don't we? Problem is that innovation does not necessarily bring success.

I guess it would be smart to copy a successful system in its entirety at first and then innovate. Next, is choosing who to copy.

>I guess it would be smart to copy a successful system in its
>entirety at first and then innovate. Next, is choosing who
>to copy.

Brad, your entire last post should be re-read by a lot of us on the forum, who want to improve our skills. I'm only quoting a small part as it illustrates something I have some strong feelings about.

When I wrote the PathFinder article for FM, I was already aware of the changes some builders want to incorporate into a design to "improve" it. Many of the local pilots who built prototypes, before the article was written, had already done this. almost none of them performed any better than the original. Some had problems.

I made the plea, in the article, that builders at least build the first one right to plans, without modifications.

This establishes a baseline. Something to compare the "improvements" too.

Back in the 50's, through the 60's, and into the early 70's, information, such as we are now priveledged to recieve, was not readily available, and often a closely guarded secret. As examples, slow controls, prop mods, geometrically corrected control systems, were all known about, some clear back into the 40's.

Todays systems, have been worked out by some very competent pilots, and proven on the field of battle, so to say. Pilots such as Ted, Paul, Windy, and many others have spent years sharing their findings with us lessor pilots, in the selfless task of trying to bring those of us who want to make the trip, up the ladder.

You're absolutly correct when you mention the "go for broke" attitude, or desire to create the ultimate system. But as many of us are finding, trying to do this in a vacume, is, almost impossible, time consuming, and often frought with failures. Still it is a human desire, and can be accomplished when using the valid findings of others as a base to work from.

I believe that the surest way to move as rapidly as you can up the ladder, one should first duplicate, as close as possible, one of these great pilots system, whomever that is for you, in it's entirety. You have now established a performance baseline, to judge your own ideas and improvements.

The Bear is still flying a Nobler. I know it's a far field removed from the original, but it's been a lifetime of small imprvements, and I'm sure, dead ends, that have resulted in this seasons plane.

Many of the fine nuances we love to discuss on the forum are the findings, or results realized by great pilots over years of flying. We can choose to use them or not, but we should, at least, consider them, even if all we want to do is "sportfly". Some of these nuances are so subtle that it's hard to detect a difference at the level we may currently be at.

Handle design and utilization is a personal thing. But when a pilot of Ted's stature, OK, he is physically short, but, not when it comes to flying, offers something like he has here, I for one am willing to consider it, If I go for it, the first thing I'll do is copy his system completly. as I want to establish the baseline. I don't think this means I'll have to build a Trivial Pursuit, and paint it purple. I do think I'll have to use the handle on a plane of known ability, and compare the differnces.

Yes, there are cases where pilots utilizing parts or systems way out of what we would consider optimum, who do fine. Each to his own, but I believe guys like Ted have only one agenda by offering their nuggets. It is to help those who want to make the trip up the ladder. Some choose to use the information, others choose to go their own way.

But, I'm beginning to wander a bit.

Baseline, baseline, baseline, it's the rightthing to do.

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

EXACTLY! I spent most of my flying life fiddling around with sick engines, poorly designed or built, or just plain faulty equipment. Result? Early last year, AT 49 YEARS OLD, I finally learned the pattern, poor as it is. At that point, I decided that C/L equipment is like buying shoes. The expensive ones are often the cheapest in the long run. The big change was, I started finding more ways of LISTENING, this forum being one of the best, along with getting back involved with other flyers in the area. Ted, 'Zilla is right. Your package, in toto, ain't bad! Brad, yours is pretty darn good, too, along with a lot of others I strongly desire to learn from! At this point in my flying, I need solid, reliable performance, so the wierd stuff doesn't get in the way of learning. Did I enjoy dropping the bucks on that RO-Jett? Not until I found out that my hunch was right. Like those shoes, it turned out to be the best thing in the long run (same with PA's and other quality engines). All this is to say that the knowledge we can glean from others is essential not only to success, but its just plain fun!

LAST EDITED ON Aug-05-03 AT 10:28 PM (CDT)
 
Interesting discussion.

Back when I started flying Combat competitively, I was told by many, many people that you're "not supposed to use your wrist". I kept using my wrist, and despite all the advice they were giving, most of the others were using their wrists as well.

These days, the hot F2D fliers use ONLY their wrists. The Russians hold their hands up above their foreheads, and this makes it much more difficult for the other guy to chase and line up properly. This, of course, calls for pretty fast controls.

I've been back flying for about 4 or 5 years now after a 14year lay off. (called got married and a job) When I came back, I could do loops and inverted flight etc. right away just like the old days, like riding a bike. BUT, I thought I would try to get off on the right foot and unlearn what I was told were some bad habits, so I tried to go from flying inverted palm up to the "right" way and dorked the airplane almost immediately. Funny how long muscle memory and coordination can last! I then decided to stay with palms up inverted, and at the level I am currently flying, I don't think it's a factor. I suppose if you want to challenge Paul, Dave or the like, you might be loosing a slight edge, but there are SO MANY other places in the pattern to make up those tiny points, I'd find it hard to justify re learning habits for someone already set in his ways and probably do more damage than good. Might have to save it for teaching the new kids...too late for me anyways.

As to Brett and Zilla's analogy on Pipes/Vs ST60's/4strokes...that to me is kinda of funny, seeing how the Chinese keep...well, you know... with old ST60 technology...well let's leave that one alone.

EricV