Comparing the "Old" to the "New"

The threads on the Nobler, my "questions" (favorite design, fav. flier)got me to thinking.
Having/had several approx. 50 year old designs (Nobler, Smoothie, '52 Still Stuka) I am amazed at how well these planes have stood the test of time. They can still be QUITE competitive on the Advanced and lower levels, even local Expert contests. And they are my "favorite designs", and my among my "favorite flyers". Part of that, I am sure, is of a Nostalgic nature.
What I do see, however, is that these designs take a little more "care" in flying an accurate pattern.
IMHO, the "modern" designs seem to be a little easier to fly well. Tracking through manuevers, level flight, etc., just appear much more effortless.
Of course, to fly in the upper eschelons of competition, the "modern" planes do get the "extra attention" to the manuevers that the top experts possess.
I would venture to guess that my, personal, observations are based on the ease of trim, modern powertrains, control systems, and the past 50 years of design evolution that the modern planes benefit from.
I did not include Al Rabe, Ron Burn, John Hill, etc., of the Scale Stunt crew, because they are in a class of their own! To get those designs so close to scale and still fly with the best "stunters" is a testament to those pilots design and flying abilities.
What do y'all think?
Bill <><

I agree, the older designs are harder to fly. They seem too sensitive. By comparison, the newer designs seem smoother in each maneuver, not "jerk, snap, bounce" like some OTS planes. But then it could be just my tendency to over control, too many flights in combat.

>I agree, the older designs are harder to fly. They seem too
>sensitive. By comparison, the newer designs seem smoother
>in each maneuver, not "jerk, snap, bounce" like some OTS planes.

Some of that could be caused by using 3 inch belcranks with too wide of a handle spacing. A lot has changed in control systems over the years.

The Mackey Lark and the Cavalier are design cousins, the Cavalier from the Lark. Both can, and the Cavalier has flown well at the highest levels of Nationals competition. John Simpson and Kenny Stevens have both won Advanced with a Cavalier and John flew his into the top 20 the next year (I think? 1998). I think that if this/these designs were updated to today's desing criteria they could and should do even better. However, John say that his Cavaliers can still fly better than he can. Maybe someday he will realize that's true of most if not all airplanes.

>What do y'all think?

Engine, engine, engine, engine engine, trim, controls. In that order.

I would think that "props" (be it better understanding or spreading the word) ....somewhere in amongst the "engine"?

See Ya

Using the right prop for the particular engine is definitely required criteria.