World's and Nat's final 5 videos, and some of my thoughts

LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-04 AT 09:57 AM (CDT)
 
I have been reading the reports on the worlds and nats and wanted to let everyone know that if you want to see for yourself who flew and how they flew I will have videos of both the World's and the Final 5. I have about 18 hours of the worlds to go through and edit and after looking at the final 5 last night I do not think it will need any editing and it is 2 hours. I also took several hundred photos in large file format and will have a CD for anyone interested. Mixed in all this filming was my own attempt to compete. Did not get the job done but I sure had a great time seeing and talking to the world competitors and seeing some of the neat stuff they were flying.
The composite planes were "awesome" and the motor/power train and products they make are equally awesome. I have them on tape, also as some of them are putting the planes together. Some footage of processing and a little speed and racing. The opening ceremonies was fun and you can see the march of the teams and hear some of the national anthems.
We had every kind of weather you could imagine over the 2 weeks I was there! Hot, humid, rain, cold, windy, very windy, fog, very cloudy, very clear and bright sunshine, and some of this was all on the same day! Both finals ended up in good weather conditions. The hard part for me was the thin air even in the best of conditions. We flew fast lap times and still had lethargic maneuvers. The drive and authority was just not there and can be seen in the videos. You can see the French planes peter out in the tops even though the lap times are fast. I also read in other posts that some were discussing the lap times of certain people. In the video you can time them yourself. I caution you not to think you will need to copy this unless you are flying in the same thin air as we had in Muncie. This thin air was for the whole 2 weeks except for Saturday morning for the Final 5 and it went away by the time I flew the warm up flight for the judges at 7:30 am. Thin meaning air density for those wondering what I am talking about. On my meter it was 80 to 85% for 98% of the 2 weeks I was there. 100% is 70 degrees at Sea level. 80% is about the same as 2500 to 3000 foot altitude. I know I was flying a 5.1 lap and Ted Fancher was at 5.0/5.1, others were much faster with very few slower. While this may seem fast lap times the maneuvers were still slow as can be seen in the videos.
I am sure you will hear lots more and here memories from some's opinions but see it for yourself on tape and draw your own conclusions. I film as if I were judging. I stand behind the judges on a ladder for the most part (unless the wind changes and the judges move in a flight) and I want to see shapes, size, intersections. The camera gives you boundaries and if you are so inclined you can grease pencil the screen on your TV to follow the maneuver. I use the felt tip chalk board pens that wipe off with a rag. It will be a week or 2 before I get all the editing done and get on the web site.
Richard Oliver
RO-Jett Engines
www.US-AERO.COM

Richard,

Very cool. I look forward to seeing the videos.

Any chance of a DVD format?

LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-04 AT 11:39 AM (CDT)
 
Very Possible! I will buy the hardware this week!
RO

Richard,

Nice pics. Please tell me where to call or email to order the videos.

You do good work and man can you fly a stunt ship!

Hawk
Hoyt D. Hawkins
Hawk's Hobbies
34 Arledge Drive
Attalla, Alabama 35954
256-538-0110

LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-04 AT 03:59 PM (CDT)
 
Hey Hawk, Hice to hear from you. Thanks for the complement! Right now the final 5 from the Nat's will be the first to get out because it is only 2 hours. The World's, based on the tapes I have, is 24 hours and will take a while to edit. I would assume that I will try to edit it down to no more than 6 to 8 tapes of 2 hours each. I just got back from buying DVD hardware from Best Buy and will offer DVD's almost immediately. Tapes are 14.95 ea. and DVD are ? the same, I think, but not sure, so stay tuned.
Thanks,
Richard Oliver
12530 Millscott Rd.
Houston, TX 77070
[email protected]

Richard,

You bet. Put me down for the DVDs. My old VCR died and I haven't replaced it yet...but I 3 DVD players available (2 TVs and one computer).

Richard Oliver said…

>… The hard part for me was the
>thin air even in the best of conditions. We flew fast lap
>times and still had lethargic maneuvers. The drive and
>authority was just not there and can be seen in the videos.

There was plenty of drive. We changed very little all week, and discussed dropping Nitro down from 7.5% to 5%. There was indeed power to spare all week long, and so much drive and bite in the air that you had to be conscious not to hit corners too hard. The wind did blow, but the air stayed cool, never loosing power.

>You can see the French planes peter out in the tops even
>though the lap times are fast. I also read in other posts
>that some were discussing the lap times of certain people.
>In the video you can time them yourself. I caution you not
>to think you will need to copy this unless you are flying in
>the same thin air as we had in Muncie. This thin air was for
>the whole 2 weeks except for Saturday morning for the Final
>5 and it went away by the time I flew the warm up flight for
>the judges at 7:30 am. Thin meaning air density for those
>wondering what I am talking about. On my meter it was 80 to
>85% for 98% of the 2 weeks I was there. 100% is 70 degrees
>at Sea level. 80% is about the same as 2500 to 3000 foot
>altitude. I know I was flying a 5.1 lap and Ted Fancher was
>at 5.0/5.1, others were much faster with very few slower.
>While this may seem fast lap times the maneuvers were still
>slow as can be seen in the videos.

Most of the models you are describing did not have to power to sustain constant speeds through the maneuvers and slowed down considerably when loads were placed on the model. In short, they lacked vertical performance. With only three maneuvers not requiring vertical performance (take-off, inverted flight, and the landing), these models needed to fly fast in level flight just to obtain the speeds required to climb.

There were indeed many models with fast level lap times and slow maneuvers, the French being the most extreme example. Their models resembled Bi-Slobs as their planes followed their propellers around, slowing as they climbed and speeding coming back down hill. I agree with your assessment of your own model’s performance and I too witnessed it dropping out of corners all week. I even heard the discussion you had with a foreign judge on finals day regarding the same. There were many models that were down on performance, kudos to the pilots who overcame their shortcomings.

I hope the people who purchase your videos pay particular attention to how Rob Gruber’s model drove around with authority, and how David Fitzgerald did not have any problems in the “thin air” either.

>I am sure you will hear lots more and here memories from
>some's opinions but see it for yourself on tape and draw
>your own conclusions. I film as if I were judging. I stand
>behind the judges on a ladder for the most part (unless the
>wind changes and the judges move in a flight) and I want to
>see shapes, size, intersections.

I was at the base of your ladder and heard your opinions on what you saw. We all have opinions on what we saw and flew through.

>Richard Oliver said…
>
>>… The hard part for me was the
>>thin air even in the best of conditions. We flew fast lap
>>times and still had lethargic maneuvers. The drive and
>>authority was just not there and can be seen in the videos.
>
>There was plenty of drive. We changed very little all week,
>and discussed dropping Nitro down from 7.5% to 5%. There was
>indeed power to spare all week long, and so much drive and
>bite in the air that you had to be conscious not to hit
>corners too hard. The wind did blow, but the air stayed
>cool, never loosing power.

I am not sure what planet you were on but seems as though you always find a way to contradict yourself. The reason you could not hit the corners hard was the thin air. Air was never cool. I think you went to a different place than the rest of us. I have gauges to back up what I am saying. The bite you refer to was not bite at all but thin air offering no resistance to the turn. If you hit it hard it would drop the tail and sink due to lack of lift. In your world I guess lack of lift is due to thick air. I talked to many of the people running your set up and they were all reducing the spacing at the handle and/or adding nose/tip weight and nitro. If this is a attempt to mislead people then stop hiding behind innuendo and say what you mean.

>
>>You can see the French planes peter out in the tops even
>>though the lap times are fast. I also read in other posts
>>that some were discussing the lap times of certain people.
>>In the video you can time them yourself. I caution you not
>>to think you will need to copy this unless you are flying in
>>the same thin air as we had in Muncie. This thin air was for
>>the whole 2 weeks except for Saturday morning for the Final
>>5 and it went away by the time I flew the warm up flight for
>>the judges at 7:30 am. Thin meaning air density for those
>>wondering what I am talking about. On my meter it was 80 to
>>85% for 98% of the 2 weeks I was there. 100% is 70 degrees
>>at Sea level. 80% is about the same as 2500 to 3000 foot
>>altitude. I know I was flying a 5.1 lap and Ted Fancher was
>>at 5.0/5.1, others were much faster with very few slower.
>>While this may seem fast lap times the maneuvers were still
>>slow as can be seen in the videos.
>
>Most of the models you are describing did not have to power
>to sustain constant speeds through the maneuvers and slowed
>down considerably when loads were placed on the model. In
>short, they lacked vertical performance. With only three
>maneuvers not requiring vertical performance (take-off,
>inverted flight, and the landing), these models needed to
>fly fast in level flight just to obtain the speeds required
>to climb.
>
>There were indeed many models with fast level lap times and
>slow maneuvers, the French being the most extreme example.
>Their models resembled Bi-Slobs as their planes followed
>their propellers around, slowing as they climbed and
>speeding coming back down hill. I agree with your assessment
>of your own model’s performance and I too witnessed it
>dropping out of corners all week. I even heard the
>discussion you had with a foreign judge on finals day
>regarding the same. There were many models that were down on
>performance, kudos to the pilots who overcame their
>shortcomings.
>
>I hope the people who purchase your videos pay particular
>attention to how Rob Gruber’s model drove around with
>authority, and how David Fitzgerald did not have any
>problems in the “thin air” either.

Once again you mislead people by talking only about 4 strokes as if they were all of the planes other than the ones running your set up. I watched Bruce Perry suffer in dead air from lack of power at the tops of the loops due to THIN AIR. I know you are trying to indicate that certain brands were superior to others but this would be a deception on your part. I also know that Power Master sold out of their 20% nitro fuel early in the week. Must have been to speed flyers or something, wait, no, they have rules prohibiting nitro! I have to say Rob did fly well in spite of his power. His plane was charging quite hard and Rob showed really good reflexes to keep up with it, something you were not able to do.

>
>
>>I am sure you will hear lots more and here memories from
>>some's opinions but see it for yourself on tape and draw
>>your own conclusions. I film as if I were judging. I stand
>>behind the judges on a ladder for the most part (unless the
>>wind changes and the judges move in a flight) and I want to
>>see shapes, size, intersections.
>
>I was at the base of your ladder and heard your opinions on
>what you saw. We all have opinions on what we saw and flew
>through.

>
>Curt Contrata

I see you like to eavesdrop as well as make self-serving comments. Again you are deceiving the readers. You only heard my comments on the last day of the Nat's which I already stated was the best air of the 2 weeks. During Dave's 3 flight the air density was 89%, which was much better than the previous 2 weeks of near 80%. This is something you would not know of course. Instead of trying to discredit me on this forum(not the first time) why not speak to me Man to man in person next time we see each other. Maybe you would like to tell me what is on your mind instead of wasting these good people's time here, although I suspect most of them can read between the lines. I do apologize to the good people who read through this tripe but once again you have forced me to defend myself from your uninformed comments. Once again I assume Leonard will have to delete your attacks on me and my responces.

Richard Oliver
Ro-Jett Engines

....WOW....!!

Richard,

Put me down for all of the DVDs of everything once you get it all edited. I knew you would be recording the whole thing. I asked Steve if you were right from the start. He said you were and I was glad. I know I will be paying for the DVDs but thanks for filming it all. I know that can take away from the fun. I cant wait to see it all..Thanks again.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-04 AT 11:12 PM (CDT)
 
Thanks Doug, Sorry you could not make it as the results of the Nat's was diminished from your not being there. As suggested to me by email from others I will probably do a condensed version of just the finals for the ones that do not want all of the footage of both the World's and Nat's, which was only 2 hours anyway for the final 5.

Richard Oliver responded…
> I am not sure what planet you were on but seems as though
>you always find a way to contradict yourself. The reason you
>could not hit the corners hard was the thin air. Air was
>never cool. I think you went to a different place than the
>rest of us. I have gauges to back up what I am saying. The
>bite you refer to was not bite at all but thin air offering
>no resistance to the turn. If you hit it hard it would drop
>the tail and sink due to lack of lift. In your world I guess
>lack of lift is due to thick air. I talked to many of the
>people running your set up and they were all reducing the
>spacing at the handle and/or adding nose/tip weight and
>nitro. If this is a attempt to mislead people then stop
>hiding behind innuendo and say what you mean.

CC…
I don’t understand why you get so hostile. First of all, there were only four PA 40’s at the contest, with only one other flier running the same set-up. You did not speak with him, and his experience was just like mine with lots of corner and drive using just 7.5% nitro. When I hit a corner too hard, it was overturned with a hop or crooked bottom. It did not fall 2' and it did not drop the tail. The only adjustment our team made was to increase overhang at the handle, loading the controls to help control the feedback and turn we were getting with all the bite that was in the air.

Richard continued…
>>>You can see the French planes peter out in the tops even
>>>though the lap times are fast. I also read in other posts
>>>that some were discussing the lap times of certain people.
>>>In the video you can time them yourself. I caution you not
>>>to think you will need to copy this unless you are flying in
>>>the same thin air as we had in Muncie. This thin air was for
>>>the whole 2 weeks except for Saturday morning for the Final
>>>5 and it went away by the time I flew the warm up flight for
>>>the judges at 7:30 am. Thin meaning air density for those
>>>wondering what I am talking about. On my meter it was 80 to
>>>85% for 98% of the 2 weeks I was there. 100% is 70 degrees
>>>at Sea level. 80% is about the same as 2500 to 3000 foot
>>>altitude. I know I was flying a 5.1 lap and Ted Fancher was
>>>at 5.0/5.1, others were much faster with very few slower.
>>>While this may seem fast lap times the maneuvers were still
>>>slow as can be seen in the videos.

CC:
>Most of the models you are describing did not have to power
>to sustain constant speeds through the maneuvers and slowed
>down considerably when loads were placed on the model. In
>short, they lacked vertical performance. With only three
>maneuvers not requiring vertical performance (take-off,
>inverted flight, and the landing), these models needed to
>fly fast in level flight just to obtain the speeds required
>to climb.
>
>There were indeed many models with fast level lap times and
>slow maneuvers, the French being the most extreme example.
>Their models resembled Bi-Slobs as their planes followed
>their propellers around, slowing as they climbed and
>speeding coming back down hill. I agree with your assessment
>of your own model’s performance and I too witnessed it
>dropping out of corners all week. I even heard the
>discussion you had with a foreign judge on finals day
>regarding the same. There were many models that were down on
>performance, kudos to the pilots who overcame their
>shortcomings.
>
>I hope the people who purchase your videos pay particular
>attention to how Rob Gruber’s model drove around with
>authority, and how David Fitzgerald did not have any
>problems in the “thin air” either.
>

Richard again…
>Once again you mislead people by talking only about 4
>strokes as if they were all of the planes other than the
>ones running your set up. I watched Bruce Perry suffer in
>dead air from lack of power at the tops of the loops due to
>THIN AIR. I know you are trying to indicate that certain
>brands were superior to others but this would be a deception
>on your part. I also know that Power Master sold out of
>their 20% nitro fuel early in the week. Must have been to
>speed flyers or something, wait, no, they have rules
>prohibiting nitro!

CC…
You are reading way too much into what I said, I was not simply talking about the four strokes. There were both good and bad examples of each set-up. Paul’s four stroke powered through everything, but the French were down on power. Gruber and David’s piped PA’s worked great, Bruce’s program had problems. The Yatsenko’s had things working while Konstantine struggled.

Richard …
>I have to say Rob did fly well in spite
>of his power. His plane was charging quite hard and Rob
>showed really good reflexes to keep up with it, something
>you were not able to do.

CC…
Ouch! Here, you are guilty of your own accusations. Rob Gruber’s model was the finest example of an honest flying model in the entire World and National competitions. It never, not one time, bobbled, sped up, or slowed down. It had not one bad characteristic and flew consistently in all weather, all week. It never charged, not once, and had a perfect 4-2-4 break throughout both competitions. It powered through the wind and held back from winding up perfectly, with predictably and repeatability.

>>I was at the base of your ladder and heard your opinions on
>>what you saw. We all have opinions on what we saw and flew
>>through.
>
>>
>>Curt Contrata
>

Richard replied…
>I see you like to eavesdrop as well as make self-serving
>comments. Again you are deceiving the readers. You only
>heard my comments on the last day of the Nat's which I
>already stated was the best air of the 2 weeks. During
>Dave's 3 flight the air density was 89%, which was much
>better than the previous 2 weeks of near 80%. This is
>something you would not know of course. Instead of trying to
>discredit me on this forum(not the first time) why not speak
>to me Man to man in person next time we see each other.
>Maybe you would like to tell me what is on your mind instead
>of wasting these good people's time here, although I suspect
>most of them can read between the lines. I do apologize to
>the good people who read through this tripe but once again
>you have forced me to defend myself from your uninformed
>comments. Once again I assume Leonard will have to delete
>your attacks on me and my responses.
>
>Richard Oliver
>Ro-Jett Engines

CC…
When the wind shifted before Brett’s first flight, you positioned your ladder directly behind my chair. I would have had to leave not to hear what was being said. I have attacked no one in this thread and I have simply given my opinion. Your comments here have been much more pointed than mine. As I have told you in the past, I have no agenda; I have nothing for sale, no tapes, no motors. Approach me anytime you like, or feel free to write to [email protected], or call (407) 886-2112.

>Richard Oliver responded…
>> I am not sure what planet you were on but seems as though
>>you always find a way to contradict yourself. The reason you
>>could not hit the corners hard was the thin air. Air was
>>never cool. I think you went to a different place than the
>>rest of us. I have gauges to back up what I am saying. The
>>bite you refer to was not bite at all but thin air offering
>>no resistance to the turn. If you hit it hard it would drop
>>the tail and sink due to lack of lift. In your world I guess
>>lack of lift is due to thick air. I talked to many of the
>>people running your set up and they were all reducing the
>>spacing at the handle and/or adding nose/tip weight and
>>nitro. If this is a attempt to mislead people then stop
>>hiding behind innuendo and say what you mean.
>
>CC…
>I don’t understand why you get so hostile. First of all,
>there were only four PA 40’s at the contest, with only one
>other flier running the same set-up. You did not speak with
>him, and his experience was just like mine with lots of
>corner and drive using just 7.5% nitro. When I hit a corner
>too hard, it was overturned with a hop or crooked bottom. It
>did not fall 2' and it did not drop the tail. The only
>adjustment our team made was to increase overhang at the
>handle, loading the controls to help control the feedback
>and turn we were getting with all the bite that was in the
>air.

I am not sure what you mean by "Our Team" as it would be misleading to people reading this into thinking the USA team. I can only think you mean "your team" and I am not sure which ones of these flew at the world's, unless Rob is "your team". It would scare most people to know what nitro Billy runs. I also did not see any planes drop 2' anywhere from any pilot at any time. If you saw this from any competitor I would like to know who it was. I wondered how long it would take for you to "advertise" the true meaning of you posts. Lets talk about lots of corner. Thin air will leave the impression of lots of corner and will be read incorrectly by some pilots leaving them to think they have corner from power. Just the opposite is true. Thin air will cause overturn from lack of air to stop the turn once it is started. The only cure is more speed and power. Larger venturi is one way but is tricky to get right and not get punchy in the corners. The air for the 2 weeks that I was there was so thin that the only way to get more power is with nitro which has a byproduct of more speed at a richer setting. The problem with lowering the nitro as you suggest is that the needle has to be leaner to get the power and moving the engine out of it's stunt needle range. I also heard flyers complaining of not using as much fuel as before they got there. You can only burn as much fuel as the ratio of air will allow. As the fliers leaned out the needle settings to get the power back the consumption went down. This is why people like you were thinking they needed less nitro. After you lean the needle settings on your engines to get power you move out of the stunt needle range and you think you need less nitro to calm down the power. I also do not think you have a clue what David Fitgerald was running or how/what his set up was. I can promise you this he was not lowering his Nitro! All of the west coast guys have learned from the past that they have to come with higher nitro fuel when they come to Muncie, which nearly always has thin air but this time it was even thinner than normal. Again this is something you would not know or have knowledge of as this does not figure into your set up.

>>>>the French planes peter out in the tops even
>>>>though the lap times are fast. I also read in other posts
>>>>that some were discussing the lap times of certain people.
>>>>In the video you can time them yourself. I caution you not
>>>>to think you will need to copy this unless you are flying in
>>>>the same thin air as we had in Muncie. This thin air was for
>>>>the whole 2 weeks except for Saturday morning for the Final
>>>>5 and it went away by the time I flew the warm up flight for
>>>>the judges at 7:30 am. Thin meaning air density for those
>>>>wondering what I am talking about. On my meter it was 80 to
>>>>85% for 98% of the 2 weeks I was there. 100% is 70 degrees
>>>>at Sea level. 80% is about the same as 2500 to 3000 foot
>>>>altitude. I know I was flying a 5.1 lap and Ted Fancher was
>>>>at 5.0/5.1, others were much faster with very few slower.
>>>>While this may seem fast lap times the maneuvers were still
>>>>slow as can be seen in the videos.
>
>CC:
>>Most of the models you are describing did not have to power
>>to sustain constant speeds through the maneuvers and slowed
>>down considerably when loads were placed on the model. In
>>short, they lacked vertical performance. With only three
>>maneuvers not requiring vertical performance (take-off,
>>inverted flight, and the landing), these models needed to
>>fly fast in level flight just to obtain the speeds required
>>to climb.
>>
>>There were indeed many models with fast level lap times and
>>slow maneuvers, the French being the most extreme example.
>>Their models resembled Bi-Slobs as their planes followed
>>their propellers around, slowing as they climbed and
>>speeding coming back down hill. I agree with your assessment
>>of your own model’s performance and I too witnessed it
>>dropping out of corners all week. I even heard the
>>discussion you had with a foreign judge on finals day
>>regarding the same. There were many models that were down on
>>performance, kudos to the pilots who overcame their
>>shortcomings.
>>
>>I hope the people who purchase your videos pay particular
>>attention to how Rob Gruber’s model drove around with
>>authority, and how David Fitzgerald did not have any
>>problems in the “thin air” either.
>>
>
>Richard again…
>>Once again you mislead people by talking only about 4
>>strokes as if they were all of the planes other than the
>>ones running your set up. I watched Bruce Perry suffer in
>>dead air from lack of power at the tops of the loops due to
>>THIN AIR. I know you are trying to indicate that certain
>>brands were superior to others but this would be a deception
>>on your part. I also know that Power Master sold out of
>>their 20% nitro fuel early in the week. Must have been to
>>speed flyers or something, wait, no, they have rules
>>prohibiting nitro!
>
>
>CC…
>You are reading way too much into what I said, I was not
>simply talking about the four strokes. There were both good
>and bad examples of each set-up. Paul’s four stroke powered
>through everything, but the French were down on power.
>Gruber and David’s piped PA’s worked great, Bruce’s program
>had problems. The Yatsenko’s had things working while
>Konstantine struggled.

Paul was reportly running 20% and or 30% nitro. Maybe Paul will chime in to say. Paul had some of the most accurate flights I have seen done by anyone and he was not flying slow by any strech of the imagination. How he did not place much higher is a mystery to me! I saw no problem with Bruces set up at all except he needed drive in the tops of manuevers. Bruce did an excellant job of finessing his plane into good shapes to get him to the finals. There you go "advertising" your intentions.
>
>Richard …
>>I have to say Rob did fly well in spite
>>of his power. His plane was charging quite hard and Rob
>>showed really good reflexes to keep up with it, something
>>you were not able to do.
>
>CC…
>Ouch! Here, you are guilty of your own accusations. Rob
>Gruber’s model was the finest example of an honest flying
>model in the entire World and National competitions. It
>never, not one time, bobbled, sped up, or slowed down. It
>had not one bad characteristic and flew consistently in all
>weather, all week. It never charged, not once, and had a
>perfect 4-2-4 break throughout both competitions. It powered
>through the wind and held back from winding up perfectly,
>with predictably and repeatability.

Careful of your bragging it may prove to be wrong by the camera! Robby is very talented and deserves is World Champion status but to say his motor does not do the things all 2 cycle motors do is misleading. They can be minimized but for anyone to suggest in 15 to 20 mph winds there would be no wind-up is dreaming.

>
>>>I was at the base of your ladder and heard your opinions on
>>>what you saw. We all have opinions on what we saw and flew
>>>through.
>>
>>>
>>>Curt Contrata
>>
>
>Richard replied…
>>I see you like to eavesdrop as well as make self-serving
>>comments. Again you are deceiving the readers. You only
>>heard my comments on the last day of the Nat's which I
>>already stated was the best air of the 2 weeks. During
>>Dave's 3 flight the air density was 89%, which was much
>>better than the previous 2 weeks of near 80%. This is
>>something you would not know of course. Instead of trying to
>>discredit me on this forum(not the first time) why not speak
>>to me Man to man in person next time we see each other.
>>Maybe you would like to tell me what is on your mind instead
>>of wasting these good people's time here, although I suspect
>>most of them can read between the lines. I do apologize to
>>the good people who read through this tripe but once again
>>you have forced me to defend myself from your uninformed
>>comments. Once again I assume Leonard will have to delete
>>your attacks on me and my responses.
>>
>>Richard Oliver
>>Ro-Jett Engines
>
>CC…
>When the wind shifted before Brett’s first flight, you
>positioned your ladder directly behind my chair. I would
>have had to leave not to hear what was being said. I have
>attacked no one in this thread and I have simply given my
>opinion. Your comments here have been much more pointed than
>mine. As I have told you in the past, I have no agenda; I
>have nothing for sale, no tapes, no motors. Approach me
>anytime you like, or feel free to write to [email protected],
>or call (407) 886-2112.
>
>Curt Contrata

To say you have no agenda is insulting to anyone that knows you or reads your collum or posts here on SSW. You are a walking billboard. I am not saying there is something wrong with you advertising your loyalty, just insulting to think we are all to stupid to see it.

Richard,
Perhaps you should take your own advice from post number 7:

“Instead of trying to discredit me on this forum (not the first time) why not speak to me man to man in person next time we see each other. Maybe you would like to tell me what is on your mind instead of wasting these good people's time here, although I suspect most of them can read between the lines. I do apologize to the good people who read through this tripe but once again you have forced me to defend myself from your uninformed comments. Once again I assume Leonard will have to delete your attacks on me and my responses.”

In this entire thread, I have never attacked you. Since you started visiting SSW, it has never been possible for me to disagree with you without it getting ugly. I have an opinion and a program that is different than yours. So what? I thought the intention of these boards is to exchange ideas and discuss things. With you, this is not possible.

It is a real shame this all happened, especially since had your original post appeared in the classified section where it belonged, I would have never seen it in the first place.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-04 AT 09:03 PM (CDT)
 
>
>In this entire thread, I have never attacked you. Since you
>started visiting SSW, it has never been possible for me to
>disagree with you without it getting ugly. I have an opinion
>and a program that is different than yours. So what? I
>thought the intention of these boards is to exchange ideas
>and discuss things. With you, this is not possible.
>
>It is a real shame this all happened, especially since had
>your original post appeared in the classified section where
>it belonged, I would have never seen it in the first place.
>
>Curt

In all of the threads regarding the World's and Nat's you chose mine to berate. Several people have posts talking about different items of interest but you choice mine to point out that you have superior equipment. Now that you point out the classified comment I would agree if you followed your own suggestion, then your column and postings would all be in the classifieds. Your agenda is very transparent to everyone but you. I have never commented on the pabulum that you spew with your superior attitude until you attack me personally. Lets call a truce and you stay off my threads as I have yours.
RO

>... Lets call a truce and you stay off
>my threads as I have yours.
>RO

I don't think so. If I see something I don't agree with, it is my right to take exception to it. Be accurate and I will have nothing to say.

Richard, if by not insulting you I come off as having a "superior attitude", I am sorry, I think. I am not sure; it gets very difficult sometimes to follow your arguments and to know what I am responding to.

I think everyone knows where we each stand, and it is obvious how we both feel about each other.

I believe you two are mixing up the "time" of the "Thin air".

Certainly, during the World Champs, the air was extreemly thin. I heard that the density altitude was over 4000 feet. No sooner than the Worlds ended, the air cooled and got much better. I suspect that this is the air Curt is refering to.

Trust me, the air for the Worlds was VERY thin.

If Curt was flying during the Worlds, where were was Curt flying?

>I believe you two are mixing up the "time" of the "Thin
>air".
>
>Certainly, during the World Champs, the air was extreemly
>thin. I heard that the density altitude was over 4000 feet.
> No sooner than the Worlds ended, the air cooled and got
>much better. I suspect that this is the air Curt is
>refering to.
>
>Trust me, the air for the Worlds was VERY thin.

But I can confirm that the situation Richard described above was true. I did a few practice flights on the morning of the flyoff, and the controls were very poppy. Richard flew the warmup flight and told me "wow, the air really got thin, watch out". I said to myself, "oh, yeah, sure, it couldn't have changed all that much in half an hour" and then pretty much ignored it. Then I did my wingover and WOW, hey, that came out a lot different than I expected! The engine was almost the same, propulsion was pretty much the same, but the control response went noticably softer than it had been shortly before.

I suspect it had a lot to do with local humidity effects. For those who weren't there, it started off in a pretty heavy but spotty fog, and I imagine that if you flew when a fog bubble was present, it made the air locally soft. Later on, the air stabilized, and except for a dead spot in the second round (that I missed, but Paul and Bobby felt the full effect of) the air was moderatly soft but consistent.

I used to wonder why more humid air was less dense. Didn't make sense intuitively. But I figured out it was because a molecule of air weighs something like 29 units (nitrogen = 28, oxygen = 32, 20% oxygen) while a molecule of water vapor only weighs 18. And they take up the same amount of space.

>I believe you two are mixing up the "time" of the "Thin
>air".
>
>Certainly, during the World Champs, the air was extreemly
>thin. I heard that the density altitude was over 4000 feet.
> No sooner than the Worlds ended, the air cooled and got
>much better. I suspect that this is the air Curt is
>refering to.
>
>Trust me, the air for the Worlds was VERY thin.
>
>If Curt was flying during the Worlds, where were was Curt
>flying?

Correct, I flew after the worlds.

Since you
>started visiting SSW, it has never been possible for me to
>disagree with you without it getting ugly. I have an opinion
>and a program that is different than yours. So what?

Funny, it seems to be big deal when it comes up.

>CC…
>You are reading way too much into what I said, I was not
>simply talking about the four strokes. There were both good
>and bad examples of each set-up. Paul’s four stroke powered
>through everything, but the French were down on power.

What?

How can you compare the two. The French kid was CRAWLING through the manuevers, even in dead air. Paul was not crawling.

The French kid flew many UNDER 45 degree patterns, one in totally dead air. Try that with NO POWER.

This whole recall of the event leaves me puzzled. I guess us Texans don't know what we are looking at, because everyone I know saw it the same way.

PUZZLING. Truly.

>
>The French kid flew many UNDER 45 degree patterns, one in
>totally dead air. Try that with NO POWER.

I said "down on power", should I have said no drive? You have taken this quote out of context, it was a valid point in my argument.

Brad, You woud be happy to know that I felt the most impressive set-up in the wind at the Nats was Gordan's Tony. Now HE had lots of controlled power! Gordy's model neither slowed nor sped up in the wind. It was awesome. See, I can be objective.

I guess
>us Texans don't know what we are looking at, because
>everyone I know saw it the same way.
>
>PUZZLING. Truly.

Hey, wait just a minute there partner...We know what we are looking at just as good as anyone out there.

I have heard many times here in the forum that Paul should have gotten better scores on this and that and so on.

However I have also heard from other people watching the VERY SAME flights that Paul was WAY to fast it looked rushed and it hurt his accuracy and his bottoms(too low, FAI kills for too low). I AM NOT KNOCKING PAUL!!!! DONT TAKE THAT THE WRONG WAY! I was not there so to hear these things is amazing. I heard he wasnt scoring as well so I was wanting to know why and those were possible reasons given. Without video there is no way to know if he was good or bad or otherwise. I hear so many different things how in the world can you really know unless you watch it yourself? I was just using this as an example of how there is so much difference between what people see when they are watching the very same thing at the same time. And how they perceive it, process it, and judge it, wether that be on paper or just an opinion on-line.

On another thread there was talk of Remi's plane rolling and pitching and all this out of trim stuff and no corner. And then Others see the same pattern and think it is smooth as butter with an automatic robotic same everywhere corner. What gives?

I have seen it myself. 02 Nats, Bill's plane had these weird rolling tendcies in the eights and on the down leg of the hourglass. Did it on all three flights. I saw it on every flight. I dont see how he didnt see it.(maybe he did but it just flew best in that trim I dont know I didnt get to talk with him about it and I find it VERY unsportsman to tell someone their equipment is out during the competition unless they ask you to tell them what you see. I have had it done to me and can lead to doubts about your stuff) Then I hear others at the Flyoff(where I saw these things) talk about how "in trim" it was. People are people and we will always see things differently

Yes Brad it is very confusing. We fly together and we would probably have "seen" it much the same way. But Curt lives across the country and "sees" it totaly different. But that doesnt mean we or he doesnt know what we are looking at. Just looking at it differently...

>
>However I have also heard from other people watching the
>VERY SAME flights that Paul was WAY to fast it looked rushed
>and it hurt his accuracy and his bottoms(too low, FAI kills
>for too low).

I had a few conversations with foreign fliers, and yes, they commented on the Americans' fast and agressive style. There is nothing in the rules that mentions the speed of the model, however it is very specific about shapes and flight path.

It is my opinion that Paul flew extremely well. Paul had the best wind flight, and possibly the best single flight. Werwage had an accurate wind flight, however is was less spectacular for the slightly slower speed, and the presentation (growl) Paul's model made.

With that said, Werwage burned them in when it really counted to win the contest.

>I had a few conversations with foreign fliers, and yes, they
>commented on the Americans' fast and agressive style. There
>is nothing in the rules that mentions the speed of the
>model, however it is very specific about shapes and flight
>path.

Rules? What does that have to do with anything? Truth is the Europeans actually fly alot faster than the majority of us here in the states. Thier motors are quiet and it appears to be slower. The impression(growling also) is that it is slower when it really isnt. But when you go 4.6-4.8 you cant help but notice it. I flew a YS 63 at 4.6 while we were testing it. I could do it but it didnt look to good. Accurate but not very nice to look at.

>
>It is my opinion that Paul flew extremely well. Paul had the
>best wind flight, and possibly the best single flight.
>Werwage had an accurate wind flight, however is was less
>spectacular for the slightly slower speed, and the
>presentation (growl) Paul's model made.
>
>With that said, Werwage burned them in when it really
>counted to win the contest.
>
>Curt

I have heard many say that Billy's was the best they have ever seen. Cant wait to get the DVD.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-04 AT 05:22 AM (CDT)
 
Whats the sound of 2 cats fighting??

Ive reviewed all my tapes from the World champs and US nats.

Needless to say.. my opinion of the event, hasnt altered. I did however miss some of the errors the "greats" were making.

Camera doesnt tho!

In my opinion there are 3 things that a judge needed to be looking for..
1: shape
2: interesections
3: bottoms.

Im not CONVINCED they were looking for any of those.

Those who were THERE know what Im refering to.

great competition tho.. Met TONS of great people.. Richard oliver was one of the nicest guys you will ever meet. I spent a long time with him filming flights for my video. He never spoke ill of anyone.

You guys are in serious need of learning to play well with others!

We are dangerously close to an R/C pattern contest breaking out here!

Fly Safe John

>We are dangerously close to an R/C pattern contest breaking out here!
>
>Fly Safe John

Yeah! And the one who dies with the most airplanes wins!

> This thin air was for
>the whole 2 weeks except for Saturday morning for the Final
>5 and it went away by the time I flew the warm up flight for
>the judges at 7:30 am. Thin meaning air density for those
>wondering what I am talking about. On my meter it was 80 to
>85% for 98% of the 2 weeks I was there. 100% is 70 degrees
>at Sea level. 80% is about the same as 2500 to 3000 foot
>altitude. I know I was flying a 5.1 lap and Ted Fancher was
>at 5.0/5.1, others were much faster with very few slower.

I might note that this is not significantly different from previous years, overall. I have learned over the years to either set up the engine at home so aggressively that it almost can't be flown, on the expectation that it will soften up once we get there, or set it up for best performance on 10%, then switch to 15% or more in Muncie. I have calculated wet density altitudes in the 5000 foot range at times (2001 Team Trials being the worst at 100+ degrees, humid, and also dead calm). This time was actually not as bad as many previous years.

It should surprise no one that has sufficient experience that there is a huge difference in the setup between 100 (or more) deinsity and 85% density. I can set up the engine to run well on the same fuel in Muncie, but it will be hopelessly over-aggressive here. The problem is that it makes it much more difficult to practice before I leave because you just learn a bunch of bad timing habits because the engine doesn't run the same.

Ted and I hit on the 10/15% thing a few years ago, and problem solved - set the engine up at home the way you like, practice with it, all on 10% - then add enough nitro to get the same needle/run time at Muncie, and it will be pretty darn close. We all ended up using this, David included, to get the engine right. We don't even bother with 10% anymore. Phil tried it most of the week, but it just didn't work, and he switched to 15 on Thursday morning and got immediate improvement to the point he came close to qualifying.

The fast lap times had more to do with aerodynamics and trim than with engine power. I can't speak for anyone else, but I flew much faster than necessary for line tension purposes, just to give the airplane the right feel. When I first arrived, I was flying 5.45 laps and couldn't fly two in a row without losing the circulation in my fingers, it was pulling so hard. I made some trim changes to improve the wind performance, and I was pretty happy with it. My flight in the heavy wind on Wednesday was at a mistake on the needle - 5.53, but it was going to be the highest or second-highest on the circle until it got cancelled. The airplane worked better at higher speeds than needed for line tension purposes, so by the end I was running about 5.15-5.2 in light air. with some tip weight taken out to keep it from hinging in the wind.

Ted's situation was similar. It had plenty of power and "drive" at far slower lap times than he ended up running. But the airplane didn't like flying that slowly - too slow and it was prone to "hopping" . I think we found the key trim change the day before the crash. It flew much better with the elevator slowed down relative to the flap. I suspect that the speeds could have come down with more practice. But then it crashed, and rendered the point moot.

I would add that the power delivery was exactly as I wanted it - lots and lots, but not much variation. This is very similar to a 40/46VF and 20FP. It was moderately fast in the maneuvers if you timed it, but since it was so just the perfect delivery, it did not seem rushed at any time. It had plenty of "drive" - but not so much to get the "jato-bottle" corners. David's was set up very similarly and appeared to me to have a very similar net effect.

I'm not going to get into the rest of this - I pay my way and I use whatever I think gives me the best chance to be competitive. I used a PA in 2000 and a RO-Jett in 2004, and finshed third both times, and I switched from RO-Jett to PA *between rounds* at last year's NATs. I use the RO-Jett bar-stock motor because I found it easier to get the kind of run I was looking for on a consistent basis. As repeatedly and pointedly noted over the years, that's not necessarily the same run someone else might want. I encourage everyone to use whatever engine they feel more comfortable with.

This ain't a cult, nor are there, as far as I am concerned, "camps".

I'm quite happy to have all three competitive TP motors available (PA, RO-Jett, and VF) and encourage everyone to do the research necessary to come up with the best system for their own personal use. We are all VERY LUCKY to have the choice.

I don't normally get involved with these threads as it serves no purpose for me, however,Since a lot of this is being directed at and about me and my products, here are a few of my thoughts

Richard ,You have many times had negative things to say about my products, I would suggest to you that it would be better to tell people what you feel is good about your engines rather than take jabs at mine.

Aero engines have been winning and setting new standards since 1989.
So far this year has been:
VSC Winner plus 1,2,3 sweep
KOI Internats winner plus 1,2,3 sweep
Senior World Champ winner 1st place
Jr. World Champ winner 1st place
Open NATs Champ 1st place
Sr. NATs champ 1st place
Advance NATs champs 1st place
NATs Classic 1st place

I can go on and on but I think I have made my point.

Other things that need to be corrected is :
""" I watched Bruce Perry suffer in dead air from lack of power at the tops of the loops due to THIN AIR. """"

This is NOT correct , Bruce switched from his 65s to the 61s and had trouble getting the correct pitch props on his plane, when he did it wokrd very well and had plently of drive. unfortunaly he kept breaking the props and had to do new ones all over again. So this was not an under powered motor but was a prop issue.

you also hinted that ROB Grubers setup was not working well

""I have to say Rob did fly well in spite of his power. His plane was charging quite hard and Rob showed really good reflexes to keep up with it, something you were not able to do.""""

ROB's plane and engine performed as well as anything on the field the entire 2 weeks, It worked exactly like he wanted by just going up or down on nitro. Rob use higher nitro to alway be a little on the high power side just to be safe in the very strong winds we had. This was very smart on his part and if he felt it was charging too hard for him, it was no trouble to take alittle power away.

as far a Curt's plane and 40, it worked very well also. He also played it smart and had a little more power than he needed to use. As you your self very well know, you do not want to get caught short when the wind exceed 20 to 25 in Muncie.

I have other observation about the NATs and worlds, and we saw many differnat setups work very well, and some work not so well.
We saw planes that went thru the winds and weather , and those that did not.
I would encourage anyone who seriously wants to know to watch all the tapes. not just an edited version of what one wants to show. (this is not a knock on what you are selling, I assume you will sell all of the tapes???)
and talk to people who were there.

All in all it was a very enjoyable World Champs and I had a very good time meeting other flyers and seeing the combinations they bought and meeting friends that i have only talked to in emails ,letter, and over the phone

Regards

Randy Smith wrote:
>
>Richard ,You have many times had negative things to say
>about my products, I would suggest to you that it would be
>better to tell people what you feel is good about your
>engines rather than take jabs at mine.

This is simply not true. I have many times on this forum said great things about your products. I after all awarded you the Tech. achievment award. If you can show me other wise I would like to see it. Sometimes people assume what they do is naturally being done by others.

>
>Aero engines have been winning and setting new standards
>since 1989.
>So far this year has been:
>VSC Winner plus 1,2,3 sweep
>KOI Internats winner plus 1,2,3 sweep
>Senior World Champ winner 1st place
>Jr. World Champ winner 1st place
>Open NATs Champ 1st place
>Sr. NATs champ 1st place
>Advance NATs champs 1st place
>NATs Classic 1st place

The real reason for your post.

>
>I can go on and on but I think I have made my point.

I think everyone can see that. I am glad to have created the opportunity for you to advertise this fact, most people were
unaware, you owe me.

>
>Other things that need to be corrected is :
>""" I watched Bruce Perry suffer in dead air from lack of
>power at the tops of the loops due to THIN AIR. """"
>
>This is NOT correct , Bruce switched from his 65s to the
>61s and had trouble getting the correct pitch props on his
>plane, when he did it wokrd very well and had plently of
>drive. unfortunaly he kept breaking the props and had to do
>new ones all over again. So this was not an under powered
>motor but was a prop issue.

If you take words and use them the way you want instead of the way the were written then your statement has nothing to do with a reply. Power had NOTHING TO DO WITH BRAND, ONLY THE AIR. Regardless of brand I am still amazed you and your team insist the thin air did not exist or have any bearing on power. The laws of physics does not recognize brand.

>you also hinted that ROB Grubers setup was not working well

Again I said no such thing, wishful thinking maybe? I discribed what I saw, only, and through the camera lens. I can only image that saying a motor charged in a corner would be considered heresy.
>
> ""I have to say Rob did fly well in spite of his power. His
>plane was charging quite hard and Rob showed really good
>reflexes to keep up with it, something you were not able to
>do.""""
>
>
>ROB's plane and engine performed as well as anything on
>the field the entire 2 weeks, It worked exactly like he
>wanted by just going up or down on nitro. Rob use higher
>nitro to alway be a little on the high power side just to be
> safe in the very strong winds we had. This was very smart
>on his part and if he felt it was charging too hard for
>him, it was no trouble to take alittle power away.

I believe this is what I said early on was needed and Curt 's comment was no thin air effect exsisted and lower nitro is what was needed, disagreeing with me. Again no brand was ever mentioned or implied on my part.
>
>as far a Curt's plane and 40, it worked very well also.
>He also played it smart and had a little more power than he
> needed to use. As you your self very well know, you do
>not want to get caught short when the wind exceed 20 to 25
>in Muncie.
>
>I have other observation about the NATs and worlds, and we
>saw many differnat setups work very well, and some work
>not so well.
>We saw planes that went thru the winds and weather , and
>those that did not.
>I would encourage anyone who seriously wants to know to
>watch all the tapes. not just an edited version of what one
> wants to show. (this is not a knock on what you are
>selling, I assume you will sell all of the tapes???)
>and talk to people who were there.

To answer your ???, yes. I also encourage everyone to watch the videos/DVDs. My intention is for people to learn from them and use this knowledge to fly better whatever "BRAND" they chose. This is not to make money on my part, it is for the hobby. If I sell a hundred(not likely) I will still loss money. There was so much I missed by having my eye in the viewfinder for 2 weeks. I was surprised when I got into stunt and wanted to see tapes of the World's and found that none existed. I wanted to make sure this world's was documented.
I have never told someone running a PA that I can not help them, can you say the same, I know for a fact you can not.
I know this has gone on to long and I regret that it came to where it has but things left unsaid are things left to the imagination of people with an agenda. The only mistake I made was entering the sacred monopoly and becoming a target. Do not confuse me with someone that needs to be here or that my red neck is in check.
I to enjoy the people as much or more than anything else and have made many good friends. I look forward to the hobby side of this event and visiting people with like interest.
This Whole discussion started with a comment about thin air and Curt made it about brand, go figure.
RO

Wow did this get torn apart.I almost forgot what I wanted.I would like to get a DVD of the final 5 Richard.Thanks so much for your effort in making something like this available to those of us that cannot make it to these great events.Appears the air has really thickened up around here?Thanks again Richard, I will email you later in the week with details ect

>To answer your ???, yes. I also encourage everyone to watch
>the videos/DVDs. My intention is for people to learn from
>them and use this knowledge to fly better whatever "BRAND"
>they chose. This is not to make money on my part, it is for
>the hobby. If I sell a hundred(not likely) I will still loss
>money.

I am sure this is true.

WE SHOULD ALL THANK RO FOR HIS EFFORT AT THE WORLDS!!!

He worked his butt off and recorded the whole event in a manner that should be befitting a World Championships. I am sure his own practice suffered.

Maybe you all do not realize how many hours out in the hot sun it takes to record an event like the World Championships STANDING ON A LADDER no less.

Thanks Richard. I would like a DVD. I would also like one of those air density meters. That is brilliant idea to have one all the ime. I told Doug, if I were going to keep a journal it would be for density. Just so you would not be stabbing in the dark.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-04 AT 08:31 PM (CDT)
 
Boy, there is a lot of good stuff in this thread. It's just too bad that all the vituperation crept into it. Here's a couple of thoughts on the subject which caused the cross words.

One of the beauties of our plethora of modern powerful stunt engines is that they can be tuned to perform in a variety of ways ... one speed or 4-2-4 being the most talked about choices although the variations are infinite. They are tuned to the pilot's preference through a combination of factors including but not limited to: head clearance, pipe tuning length and volume, prop choice, plug heat range, mixture setting, venturi size and configuration, normal air density and humidity, etc.

Like any complex mechanism, a change in any one of the variables can and probably will change the character of the run.

The one variable we can't control is the characteristics of the air in which we fly. The facts are that air simply isn't the same everywhere. Density (how much "air" in a given volume)and humidity (how much of the space of that given volume is full of water molecules instead of oxygen) effect the way an engine runs in a predictable fashion and must be taken into consideration when flying in a different environment from that for which the powertrain was previously developed.

If you're lucky, the air at the contest of the day will be similar or identical to that in which you do your day to day flying and you will have to make zero adjustment or compensation for the fact you've driven hundreds or thousands of miles. The powertrain just doesn't care about zip codes!

It is entirely possible that Randy and Curt encountered that lucky happenstance and, thus predictably, their equipment performed pretty much as it did at home. Because they come from parts of the country where heat and humidity are notoriously high it is reasonable to predict that the humid thin air of Muncie would result in similar performance.

The opposite of that predictable condition is the one faced by those of us on the left coast. As Brett as ably pointed out we have found a very sound and predictable means of adjusting to the almost certain difference in air between our home base and Muncie. We simply plan to use 50% more nitro to simulate the air density in which we normally fly. This has worked extremely well for a number of years now.

I would only add that the talk about who is using what amount of nitro and so forth is of interest but is not germane to a discussion of whose set-up is "better". Along with all the other variables addressed in the opening paragraph of this note, nitro percentage can be acceptable in pretty much any combination as long as the other variable are used to adapt to the power thus generated. Thus, if somebody uses "X%" nitro at home and finds conditions at the contest identical to home, that percentage of nitro will be perfectly adequate for the contest. I suggest this is likely the case with Randy and Curt.

If, however, the air is more or less dense the nitro percentage is one of the variable which can be adjusted to adapt to the predictable increase or decrease in power which results from the different air.

Our group in California has standardized on 10% nitro for many, many years and adjust and trim our aircraft and powertrains for that standard. We could as easily have chosen a higher or lower percentage as our standard and adapted the other variables to achieve our ultimate run characteristics.

Regardless of what we use as a standard, when we go to a site where the air density is lower (it is seldom higher than the sea level cool conditions of the San Francisco peninsula) the simplest means of regaining the power and run characteristics we desire is to simply pump up the nitro. It works great.

The whole point of this long winded post is to try to throw some oil on the raging waters. There is no inherent superiority of one engine vice another in terms of the way they react to atmospheric conditions. The effects are measureable and predictable. If you're lucky its the same as at home. If you're not, you've gotta do something.

I'd prefer that readers listen to the wisdom of the discussion of the effects of air density on the trim of our stunt ships and the powertrains that make them go. There is a lot of good stuff here and if the testosterone level could be lowered about a quart or so it would be enjoyable as well as educational reading.

RO wrote "" Regardless of brand I am still amazed you and your team insist the thin air did not exist or have any bearing on power. The laws of physics does not recognize brand. ""

Go back and reread my post!!!

This is just one example of twisting things around and trying to say things I never even mentioned

Richard you need to reread my post, I NEVER said anything at all like that in it. I did not say the air wasn't thin or thick.
This is just an attempt by you to put words in my mouth, for you to use .
My comment was directed about the 2 flyers usings Motors that you stated were not perorming well. I could care less about an arguement about thin air.

I also have Not told anyone that because they use a RO Jet I will not help them, that is a false statment on your part or you have been missinformed by someone or they have intentionally lied to you. I constantly help people using all brands of engine if it is possible for me to do so

OK, I just got back from watching the worlds and the Nats and then taking a couple extra days of vacation and get in on the middle of this.

May I suggest we just put this to bed. I guess we all see things differently, but, be that as it may, we should never be taking pot shots at one another.

In the area of seeing things differently, I observed Richard taking humidity measurments. For some these may prove useful. We have never bothered. We do have a temperature and humidity guage. But we always felt temperature was more important than humidity.

We saw and felt the humidity, but not the thin air. Maybe we just live too close to the area, but Matt never ran over 5% nitro at any time--didn't even bother to bring any other up. He had needle problems at the very beginning day of practice due to a clogged filter. He changed that the first evening, set the needle, and then never bothered to touch it after that--not in practice, not for the officials. Used the same prop throughout, and it worked fine even in the 20 mph winds and gusting.

I did take wind speed measurements during practice and officials all day long. I caught a 31.7 mph gust while Billy was flying the first day of qualifying (at the Nats) when they shut things down. Generally it was 15-20 that day with gusts measuring up to 25-28. It was probably worse on top. No, I don't climb ladders, so didn't check.

Still, 5% nitro was all Matt needed or wanted. It is all a matter of how you set things up according to your style or preference. A multitude of styles work. Let's leave it at that.

Now, let's smile and be friends. Enough animosity.

>In the area of seeing things differently, I observed Richard
>taking humidity measurments. For some these may prove
>useful. We have never bothered. We do have a temperature
>and humidity guage. But we always felt temperature was more
>important than humidity.

Because you have very tiny variations in conditions. If it's the same (or very close), like it *is* where you live, it really *doesn't* matter. That's not a general case, and generalizing from the very small data set is not valid. We've had many cases at Muncie where the *dry* density altitude matched or was lower than here. It gets FAR hotter here than it usually is in Muncie - I've flown in temperatures of up to maybe 107 degrees. But that wasn't nearly as power-robbing as Muncie at 85. Humidity is the difference. When it's 107 degrees here, the humidity is below 10%.

Read Ted's post - you set up for what you are normally going to encounter. If you set up your motor for good performance in Indiana/Georgia/Florida. etc, conditions (which as far as I am concerned are essentially identical for our purposes), you *would not* very likely like it in Northern California air. I'm sure I could standardize on 5% and get something that would work. But I bet I would have to switch to 10 when we went to Muncie. Same in reverse; that's almost certainly why Midwest-style setups are sometimes close to unflyable here.

This stuff is not magic.

Why are there so many secrets??

Noone knows what engine "so and so" uses. Maybe he ran more nitro? maybe he didnt, maybe he repitched a prop maybe he didnt?

My god.. For the record ,those who care, I was at both the US Nats and WORLD champs, and travled from Australia, where the air isnt thin and power is plentiful.
Munice WAS THIN, If you dont agree you weren't there.

I was told in advance I would be wise to raise compression, increase nitro and maybe think about more pitch.

I made all of those changes and had a setup VERY close to what i run back home.

I went from 10 % - 17% Nitro.
I went up 1/4" in Pitch.
I raised compression a little.
I added 7 grams more tipweight.

No secrets, then again, I placed WAY down the order, but I see no need to hide what changes I made. Also, I was the only person running a Stalker .61 So i couldnt copy anyone or there setups.

Quit moaning and complaining about what products works best. Try going out and practicing more and complaining less, im sick of reading the next script for Bold and the Beautiful on here.

I met MOST of the guys arguing on here and I was under the impression you were all GREAT MEN, Dont shatter my view becasue you can hide behind a computer screen. Act like the professionals we are. Please, for the sake of the sport.

Thanks, PJ. Again, I think it is a matter of where you come from, and what set-up you are using. For some there may be drastic changes needed. Others will find no difference (we "always" fly in this stuff--uh, without the wind, that is.) Since this is what we are used to, we didn't see it as particularly "thin". Matt will complain of no "bite" on occasion, but this is where you make adjustments in your flying.

Matt will gladly share his set-up. No secrets here. But it is for sharing only, not a "my set-up is better than yours". And that is why we don't go into details a lot. It fell into place after a lot of testing, a lot of patterns, and a lot of missing. Still, it works well for him around here. It might be different if he were to go to Australia or New Mexico. We know that if it gets "really hot" (like 100 degrees or so) he will need to add nitro (7 to 10%) or go to a larger venturi. But that is basically the only changes he feels necessary to make. Still we will continue to experiment with props, etc., for that ever elusive bit of improvement. If we find it, then that becomes the new "square one".

Each person has (or should have) that. And just as airplanes differ, so our engine choices and set-ups differ as well. And whether we feel the air is "thin" or not, well, that, too, may depend on where one comes from or what one is used to. When one flies in this area. well, that is what we get. We didn't consider it any major problem.

But the wind, now that is another story. For those who came from other countries, this was not a typical weather pattern for this time of the year. I always figure there will be one day out of the week that it will be windy. Here it seems we had one day out of the week when it was not.

>I have been reading the reports on the worlds and nats and
>wanted to let everyone know that if you want to see for
>yourself who flew and how they flew I will have videos of
>both the World's and the Final 5.
>www.US-AERO.COM

Thanks for the effort Richard. Please send me a copy of the DVD when finished.

Ya know, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I do think it worth mentioning that while I do not know Richard--a.k.a. Maverick--well, I do know of him through a number of friends he and I share.

The man has an extremely solid reputation, not just in CL Stunt but in other hobby-related disciplines of which many of you know very little.

Anyone contemplating going head-to-head with him ought first make sure those ducks are in a very nicely defined row, that you have all the facts before sticking it out far enough to get it whacked off.

I would further like to relate the obvious: Increased competition in any venue results in better service to the consumers. I am currently flying four-strokes simply due to the fact that at the time I was switching to "something better," the desired piece was literally months and months away from delivery, pre-paid or not.

Richard came along, hooked up with Dubbie, had the goods on the shelf, ready for immediate shipment. To his credit, Randy stepped up to the plate in order to more effectively compete.

All of us in CL Stunt gained. Thanks to both Richard and Randy.

On another topic, Richard mentions having what sounds like the equivalent to a portable weather station at both the Worlds and Nationals.

While I have forgotten where to view them, once when looking for anemometers I stumbled across just such a very compact device, and the price was not staggering. We don't seem to need such a thing here in the NW, but those travelling to far-flung contests may well see a need.

Please add my name to your list for the videos and DVD. I'm sure it will help in the recovery prpcess... Please excuse the typinh goofs, I'm still re-learning to type...