Stuka Stunt Control Line Forum
Archive, 2000–2021 · recovered from the Internet Archive
Forums › Stuka Stunt Main Forum

Nats Results

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 18 of 18 known posts recovered

LNeumann · Jul 14, 2001 08:48 PM

#0 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-15-01 AT 01:59 PM (EST)

David Fitzgerald won the Open stunt competition and Walker Cup.
PA 61 on pipe with 12 1/2 inch 3-blade prop.

Billy Werwage was second in Open
PA 65(?) on pipe with (?) 2-blade prop

Ted Fancher was third in Open.
PA 61 on pipe with 12 inch 3-blade prop

Frank McMillan was fourth in Open
PA 61 on pipe with 12 5/8 inch 3-blade prop

Windy Urtnowski nailed down 5th place for an umpteenth straight year. (I think we ought to name a 5th place trophy after Windy and retire it.)
Saito 4-stroke with a 14 inch 2-blade prop and throttle control.

Paul Walker came in 6th with the bomber
Four OS 15 FP engines on mufflers powered this ship, although he managed to drop a muffler at the judges feet during a qualifying run. It was an impressive sight (the ship, not the "bomb run") and worth the price of admission.

Advanced was won by Dale Berry. (Welcome to "Expert", Dale.)

Kevin Stewart was the winner in Senior

I didn't record the Junior winner's name. Help me out, someone.

Leonard Neumann

Kiiski · Jul 14, 2001 10:26 PM

#1 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-14-01 AT 10:26 PM (EST)

Leonard,
According to the AMA website the winner in Junior was Robert H Gruber of Atlanta, GA.
Kiiski

Larry F · Jul 14, 2001 10:28 PM

#2 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-15-01 AT 08:38 AM (EST)

Leonard --

Didn't get the junior's name either. One question that bounced through my mind driving home -- and I'll bet you do have this written down -- what were the appearance points for each of the top five?

I assume the appearance points are included in all flights, so a two round total includes appearance points twice, is that correct? If so, then a 3 point difference in appearance points would make a 6 point swing in the totals. It would be interesting to know how, or if, the places would have changed without appearance point differences. If appearance points are only included once, how do they do that?

(Edit -- Rereading the above, I may have left a false impression. IMHO, appearance points are a key in making PA a FANTASTIC event. I am sure with the top competitors' pride, stunt planes would still be pretty WITHOUT appearance points. But the truly outstanding examples of the fine art of building and finishing might go by the board without appearance points. The top planes exceed what we saw in scale 35 years ago. The appearance of the top planes was humbling. Few of us could build or finish to that standard, and then risk that work of art on 5 foot bottoms. The B-17 is an extreme example, but my word, the top appearance planes are in some ways more impressive than the flying.)

Larry F

Ted Fancher · Jul 17, 2001 10:20 AM

#12 source
Just got back from Muncie and picked up on this thread.

Yes, it is true that all of the flights...qualifying; semi-finals; and finals...include the appearance points so that seemingly they are additive anytime muliple flights are added together at any stage. Thus, in qualfying the best score from each day is added together, on semi-finals the two official scores are added together and on Open Fly-Off day the two best scores out of three official flights are added together.

At first blush this would seem to magnify the value of appearance points and make them more of an issue than we desire them to be. A closer evaluation, however, reveals it doesn't make any difference. Here's why.

It must be recognized that we are "choosing" to add multiple scores together in the various stages of the competition. This is no more than a choice. We could very well have chosen to add them together and divide by the number of flights involved and come up with an average. No matter in what form the final score of any given stage is tallied on the scoreboard the final impact of any given segment of a score is only as much as it would be on a single flight.

In other words, If Burt has three more appearance points than Calvin (pretty PC names, huh) they could fly a hundred flights and Burt's three point per flight advantage would always be there; never more/never less...just three points. In actual numbers his three points times 100 flights would amount to 300 points but since the 500 +/- flight points are also part of the mixture the percentage will never change. Three points compared to 500 is exactly the same ratio as three hundred to five thousand.

By the way, a three point difference in appearance points versus the total of 650 available is 0.46%, less than one half of one percent! It's real but negligible.

As David proved this year (as well as twice previously and Bob Gieseke proved five times during his career) a deficit in appearance points isn't disqualifying for excellence. These gentlemen have well recognized that a balance between time in the shop and time on the handle is part and parcel of success at the highest levels.

As I've said way more than my fair share of times, appearance points are an extremely important part of our CLPA heritage. The impact of those points, while not inconsequential, are modest and the benefit they bring to the event as a whole are monumental.

Ted

Randy · Jul 15, 2001 02:04 AM

#3 source
Len,

Any idea on how close it was?

Randy

Larry F · Jul 15, 2001 05:27 AM

#5 source
Here are the results (unformatted) I copied down from my tape of the final board --

Fancher: 549.00, 549.25, 546.00, 1098.25 (3)

Fitzgerald: 547.25, 552.50, 555.25, 1107.75 (1)

McMillan: 535.5, 543.00, 546.75, 1089.75 (4)

Windy: 534.75, 542.50, 540.00, 1082.50 (5)

Werwage: 547.50, 549.25, 555.75, 1105.00 (2)


The final scores were second and third flights for all except Ted, who used first and second flights for his final score. Odd, because Ted had a lean second flight, his top score!

I'll check this for typos and edit if I find any.

Larry F

LNeumann · Jul 15, 2001 01:58 PM

#6 source
You caught me with a bad memory and I will have to correct it up above. (I apparently switched second and third place around.) Matt did take a photo of the board, however, that I planned to post as soon as I got it.

On the appearance point issue, appearance points are counted on both flights and are a part of the total. I don't know the exact appearance points, but Windy, Billy, and Paul got 19. Ted got 16 or 17. Same with David. I don't know about Frank.

But, as an example of how appearance points do count, Windy qualified with the 5th highest point score on "top 20" day. He had 19 appearance points. Todd Lee, flying with his ancient Magnum Opus (P-51 look alike made from a Magnum) actually outflew Windy, but with only 10 appearance points, lost out in total points. A year ago Todd was in the finals and lost to Ted on the very last flight of the day. He is a good flyer. Now, what would he do with a "good" plane?

Leonard Neumann

Larry F · Jul 15, 2001 10:39 PM

#7 source
Leonard --

Thanks! The reason I asked the question was that I REALLY liked the appearance of Fitzgerald's plane (looked more like a model), but I assumed the judges would give it a lower appearance score than the others. I am sure the crowd would agree with the judges on appearance points. Billy's P-47 and Windy's Typhoon just drew your breath away, and that is a fair game.

So Fitzgerald made up the appearance deficit by flying better, at least to that day's judges, huh?

Larry F

Dale · Jul 16, 2001 09:43 PM

#8 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-16-01 AT 09:52 PM (EST)

The Junior winner was Rob Gruber,and I am prepared to take my lumps from you guys next year.See you then.

LNeumann · Jul 16, 2001 09:51 PM

#9 source
Yeah, and I spelled your name wrong. Sorry.

Leonard Neumann

Dale · Jul 16, 2001 09:57 PM

#10 source
No problem,Warren got it wrong on the scoreboard ,too.If I'd checked before posting I would have seen that the Junior question had already been answered.I just came over from RCO and it's a little different here,but I think I'll hang out here from now on.

Ted Fancher · Jul 17, 2001 10:51 AM

#15 source
Just a few generic comments about this year's nats and a little specific info on my personal performance.

First, even though the event was held in pretty much "stunt heaven" weather it was nonetheless noteworthy how good the overall quality of flying has become. I've been in all but one of the top twenty fly-offs since they were instituted in 1977 and this is the first time ever that I recall all flyers exceeded a total of 1000 points for the combined two flights. Not just barely, either. If memory serves the lowest total was 1038 compared to the highest total of around 1104. This is outstanding flying in anyone's book and it is also noteworthy that getting to the semis wasn't an easy task...meaning that many flyers were just barely off that high level for the day's flying.

Congratulations to you all and kudos to PAMPA and forums like this that have made the information available to all who desire to excell at our event so that they can be so accomplished.

Especially noteworthy was the performance of our younger flyers. Both Kevin Stewart who won Senior for the second time and Robbie Gruber who performed equally well to win Junior are outstanding pilots who more than held their own in the fly-off against David for the Walker Cup.

And they weren't shoo-ins to win their age level event either. Both faced tough competition from Sean McEntee, Keith Fletcher (Seniors), Ricardo Martinez and Dustin Glosemeyer (Juniors) in order to earn the right to fly off for the Walker Cup. I was especially impressed with the performance of Sean who crashed his number one ship during Advanced and brought out an untested new back-up and brought it up to competitive standards in just two days. He's a talented flyer whose enthusiasm is both infectious and growing as he discovers his potential. I look forward to watching all these young men progress.

Personally:

Someone mentioned in this thread about my lean run on the second flight of the Open fly-off. This was a true statement and although it was a bit tough to fly the ship at the sub five second levels which resulted (some said as fast as 4.5/lap) the speed was consistent and tension was no problem (big surprise, huh). Thus once I adapted to the higher speed the flight itself held together pretty well and I was actually pleased with the quality of the maneuvers...not to say I liked flying on quite so fine an edge!

Turned out to be the result of inadequate preparation on my part. The fuel filter was not properly tightened thus allowing air to leak in and fuel out, plus there was some lint in the filter. I had had evidence of both of these nascent problems for the day proceeding and the previous flights of finals day but chose "not to fix it if it wasn't broken". Well, that was a pretty broad definition of "not broke" and I paid the price.

Actually, the real killer wasn't the second flight (which still had me just a couple points behind David and tied with Billy) but the third flight was dismal due to my inability to adjust the now none-leaking and uncluttered fuel system to provide the same power output of the previous three days. Thus, I knew by the second lap after take-off that the performance required to compete with those other guys simply wasn't going to be there. The flight was slow, soft and unremarkable and got just the results it deserved.

The real wisdom to be gained from this story is from comparing it to the saga of Paul and his bomber. Paul's bomber sortie has been a monument to the importance of the control of details for several years. With four times (at least) the opportunity for problems to arise and need to be solved Paul and Howard never faltered in their determination to mitigate whatever arose. That they fell just short of their goal (to make the finals...if not win the whole thing)is not a failure but a tribute to their tenacity and a lesson in the importance of "details, details, details" to any successful stunt program.

My failure, on the other hand, is a tribute to not doing so. There's probably a lesson for others sandwiched in there somewhere.

Ted

Brett Buck · Jul 17, 2001 11:10 AM

#16 source
>
>My failure, on the other hand,
>is a tribute to not
>doing so. There's probably
>a lesson for others sandwiched
>in there somewhere.


An additional lesson is to not listen too closely to your "helpers". While we'll never be certain what the big difference was, I was the one that went through the bolts (5/6 head bolts a little loose, 1 header bolt a little loose, and one header bolt significantly loose) and tightened them, and also suggest swapping glow plugs. Either of these could easily have resulted in the extremely steady, too steady, run without the blips of power in the corners. It was my idea that the plug might have blown the seal, making it go lean, or that the header leak might have lost enough of the scavenging to make it run leaner at the same revs. Maybe, maybe not, but whatever it was, it didn't work.

It's no consolation for the result, but it's what I would have done had I had the same problems.

Brett

RocketCityJim · Jul 17, 2001 04:12 PM

#17 source
Ted,

I learned a similar lesson in 1997, I had a lean run the last half of one of my qualifying flights. On inspection of the fuel system I discovered that the vent tube in the tank had come loose and it was sucking air into the system during the last half of the flight. It was some epsisode of finding a soldering iron and some solder to fix the problem at the feild before the next round, but thanks to Tom Morris - I barely made it. I was so tired after that, that my flight score wasn't up to mine or the judges standards for that day! So I guess what I learned was that if I experience a leaing during flight - look for it first in the fuel system first!

I will see y'all next year I promise - My son decided to spend the summer in Panama City, FL with $400.00 I had earmarked for the Nats!

Jim Pollock

Larry F · Jul 17, 2001 05:08 PM

#18 source
One little known fact is that the top guys are also gentlemen. In hindsight, I wish I hadn't done so, but I wanted a pic of Ted's handle. He had his plane apart, and was blowing through the fuel system trying to figure out what was wrong after his second run. I asked him for a picture of his handle, and he obliged.

If I had been in Ted's place, and working on a problem during the Nats finals, and some jerk came along with a doofy irrelevant request, I would probably have blown them off. Ted didn't blow me off, but obliged. Sorry Ted, that was indeed rude of me.

Larry Fulwider

Ted Fancher · Jul 17, 2001 07:21 PM

#19 source
>One little known fact is that
>the top guys are also
>gentlemen. In hindsight, I wish
>I hadn't done so, but
>I wanted a pic of
>Ted's handle. He had his
>plane apart, and was blowing
>through the fuel system trying
>to figure out what was
>wrong after his second run.
>I asked him for a
>picture of his handle, and
>he obliged.
>
>If I had been in Ted's
>place, and working on a
>problem during the Nats finals,
>and some jerk came along
>with a doofy irrelevant request,
>I would probably have blown
>them off. Ted didn't blow
>me off, but obliged. Sorry
>Ted, that was indeed rude
>of me.
>
>Larry Fulwider


Thanks a million for the kind comments, Larry. Yup, it probably wasn't the best time for your request but, as my momma always told me, "if you treat people like you'd like to be treated yourself, life will always be a pleasanter place in which to spend your time"! Thanks for recognizing same and apology accepted.

Now that I'm kicked back and licking my wounds, is there anything about the handle I could share with you? As you seem to be aware, it isn't just a handle but an important piece of the total package which makes me competitive.

Ted

Larry F · Jul 18, 2001 06:53 AM

#20 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-01 AT 07:05 AM (EST)

Mr. Fancher

Your handle did impress me, more for what it lacked than what it had. The handle is indeed a key component of the total package that makes you an expert flyer.

First off, your handle has no adjustment that I could see for a longer or shorter up wire. You must build your planes and wires nuts on, and feel no need for a line length adjustment in the handle. Most people aren't that good.

Second, the many holed line attachments suggest that you change line spacing as a control factor.

Third, you have essentially no overhang -- kind of a Hot Rock mentality. The more expensive handles have adjustments for overhang.

Fourth, you have no grip problems, and there is nothing in the handle to increase grip factors (bike handlebar tape, etc).

I have some video close-ups of your hand during flights, and they make it clear that you, your handle, and your plane are all one.

Since you volunteered to answer questions, what are your handle priorities? I can see some factors that are not priorities, but if you were to build a new handle today, what would you do?

Larry Fulwider

Ted Fancher · Jul 18, 2001 10:53 AM

#21 source
>LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-01
>AT 07:05 AM (EST)

>
>Mr. Fancher
>
>Your handle did impress me, more
>for what it lacked than
>what it had. The handle
>is indeed a key component
>of the total package that
>makes you an expert flyer.
>

Good point. I am an advocate of handles that are minimalist in nature...light, reasonably adjustable and as symetrical as possible.
>
>First off, your handle has no
>adjustment that I could see
>for a longer or shorter
>up wire. You must build
>your planes and wires nuts
>on, and feel no need
>for a line length adjustment
>in the handle. Most people
>aren't that good.
>

Aha, Larry, you've got to look a little closer or, perhaps, you only videotaped one side of the handle. Both the up and down attachment "clips" can slide in and out of the handle approx 3/8 to 1/2 inch. They are retained in the desired location by two set screws each that "squeeze" the plywood core onto the snuggly fitted brass "clips". If you look closely you'll see that the amount of "clip" showing is slightly different. The reason for this is a bit interesting.

I work very hard to make my lines exactly the same length. This allows interchanging of lines on the same handle with little or (preferably) no adjustment. I also prefer a very vertical handle position in level flight which should show up in your videos of my flight. The reason that, notwithstanding the prior statements, one clip is longer than the other is that the airplane during the trim process required an adjustment between the flaps and elevators for equal turn rates. Because the control system is quite "slow" this resulted in one leadout being slightly longer than the other although they were originally equal length at neutral. Thus, the handle clips mirror this inequality. Although I would have preferred no difference in overhang the amount is so minor as to have little or no effect on inside/outside feel.
>
>Second, the many holed line attachments
>suggest that you change line
>spacing as a control factor.
>

Yup, exactly.

>
>Third, you have essentially no overhang
>-- kind of a Hot
>Rock mentality. The more expensive
>handles have adjustments for overhang.
>

Both true statements. I have a very modest amount of "overhang" adjustment (I believe I coined that word definition in a column on handles I wrote for Model Aviation a decade and a half ago, by the way.) Large amounts of overhang increase the "load" at the handle for a given amount of control input. I am mostly a finger and wrist flyer and prefer just enough "load" to provide feel, ergo, the modest overhang.

Not only is it reflective of a Hot Rock mentality, it is a scarcely concealed rip-off. The basic handle shape was traced around that nearly perfect control device. IMHO the Hot Rock is the perfect symetrical configuration for a control handle. My only objection to the handle(other than the wear factor that causes the cable to fail periodically) was its lack of spacing adjustability. To give credit where it is due I ripped off the clip idea directly from Bomber Boy after burning his handle configuration into my memory banks during the Shanghai WCs when I often "caddied" for him. In turn, the only thing I didn't like about Paul's handle was the lack of neutral adjustment about which we've already talked.

The ultimate refinement of both Paul's and my handle in terms of flying performance is the use of "hard point" line attachments vice the heavy and sometimes distorted heavy cable for attaching the lines. Going to a hard point handle is roughly the equivilant of going to solid lines in terms of improving the pilot's connection to the airplane...without the worrys of sticking at inopportune times.
>
>Fourth, you have no grip problems,
>and there is nothing in
>the handle to increase grip
>factors (bike handlebar tape, etc).
>

Actually, you should look just a bit closer, Larry. There is some grip tape on the handle. The gauze tape is a long term resident and has soaked up a lot of dirt, sweat and some oil over the years so it probably isn't very prominent in the video. It's there, though.
>
>I have some video close-ups of
>your hand during flights, and
>they make it clear that
>you, your handle, and your
>plane are all one.
>

Thanks, my personal pattern goal is to provide that impression to the judges. A smooth, connnected rule book style pattern that flows from beginning to end. The purest way to that end is a properly trimmed airplane and an interface with the pilot that disappears as an individual entity...sort of a USB port to the mother board. (sorry about that)

>Since you volunteered to answer questions,
>what are your handle priorities?
>I can see some factors
>that are not priorities, but
>if you were to build
>a new handle today, what
>would you do?
>

I think we've pretty much covered that in the discussion to this point. The only thing I would change about new handles (I try to have one for each airplane with which I actually compete) is to replace the brass clips with steel. Making the things by hand using files and saws made steel out of the question. A friend has made some laser cut clips for me that I'll use in the future.

Again, IMHO this is the nearly perfect handle for my style of flying and my physiology. It fits like a glove and once my grip is properly applied (like the golf grip, it must be comfortable, functional and repeatable) it pretty much disappears.

Hope this is interesting and helpful to you.

Ted
>Larry Fulwider