FINAL: Nats Open Top 6

(Yes, "6". There was a tie on Thursday.)

Now that I'm finished judging I can talk about this stuff. Here's how it worked out today in the Finals (edited 7/19 to correct 3rd/4th placings...originally shown reversed):

1) Orestes Hernandez
2) Brett Buck (1.25 points back)
3) Derek Barry
4) Bill Rich
5) Windy Urtnowski
6) Howard Rush

Junior: Ryan Young
Senior: Pat Gibson, Abilene, TX

Weather all week was so superb that we could hardly believe we were actually in Muncie!

Mike Keville

Can anybody talk the WCh team into taking some of that weather with them to France?
We shure could use some to wipe out the memories we have of the WCh 2000 on that same site.
Felt more like mud-wrestling.....

Congratulations Orestes and all of the other top "6". Even with 6 fliers, I see that Windy managed a 5th. Imagine that.
John

>
>Weather all week was so superb that we could hardly believe we
>were actually in Muncie!

It was indeed. Going back, I don't recall *any* NATs where we didn't have at least one day of pretty bad wind. Not this week, nearly perfect all the time - never dead, and never more than about 8 mph, at least during official flying. It got a little breezy for a while for OTS/Classic.

Brett

Congradulations to the top 6.

My congradulations to the top 6 and also let us not forget everyone down to the top 20. Hope you all had a great time and hope to see you all next year.
A special congrats to Orestes for your repeat performance. Good luck to you, Paul and David in France. Hope you bring home the GOLD.

Remaining yours in STUNT,

Champione

Bob Lampione
AMA 605
New York Stunt Team
Flushing, N.

The photo I took of the results were:

3rd Derek Barry

4th Bill Rich

>The photo I took of the results were:
>3rd Derek Barry
>4th Bill Rich

Patrick,
My photo showed the same results. I enjoyed meeting and flying with you at the NATS.
DennisV


[photo not recovered: 29739.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

>The photo I took of the results were:
>
>3rd Derek Barry
>
>4th Bill Rich
============================================

Thanks, Patrick. Guess I was out in the sun too long. You're right: Derek was 3rd; Bill was 4th. The initial post has been corrected.

Mike Keville

Thanks, Mike!!
Would you happen to recall where in the final tally my good friend Dan Banjock finished??
Dennis T.

Dan Banjock finished 7th.

How must it feel to miss out on a Nats win by 1.5 points. Do you second guess yourself wondering, if I would have just twitched a pinch less etc?

Windy has set the record for the most top five placings of any stunt pilot in history and quite possibly the most for any modeler.

How about 1.25 pts?

SK

>How about 1.25 pts?
>
>SK

Not to open a big can of worms - but Brett won 2 out of 3 rounds, and would have won if all three rounds had counted.
But with the throw-away he ended up in second.

On the other hand Orestes dug in and won the last round, which ended up being the difference....


On the other other hand, if you normalized the rounds and left in the drop out then Brett would have won again (2000 to 1991)


Hmmm


Pat MacKenzie

(Of course congratulations to the winner, he won by the rules fair and square)

<>
I appreciate what I think you are trying to do, but I don't think it's appropriate.

If I hadn't had random-angle and altitude bottoms on the square maneuvers, a slightly better vertical 8, a slightly better overhead 8, or about two dozen other places I obviously lost points on the last flight, I would have won, also. It was a very good flight, but far from perfect and far from the best I could do, as typified by my second-round flight (which was about as good as I can do).

We all knew the rules going in. Orestes did what he needed to, when he needed to, to win. I didn't - it's as simple as that. I just screwed up a little, gave him the opportunity, and he took advantage of it. That's the mark of a champion.

Brett

I can do).
>
> We all knew the rules going in. Orestes did what he
>needed to, when he needed to, to win. I didn't - it's as
>simple as that. I just screwed up a little, gave him the
>opportunity, and he took advantage of it. That's the mark of a
>champion.
>
> Brett

Brett, Whether you come in first place or dead last, it doesn't matter, to us, your still the man. You will always be OUR Rocket Scientist.

>
>Brett, Whether you come in first place or dead last, it
>doesn't matter, to us, your still the man. You will always be
>OUR Rocket Scientist.

Glad you said that - I have done both (last 2005, first 2006)!

Brett

>
>>
>>Brett, Whether you come in first place or dead last, it
>>doesn't matter, to us, your still the man. You will always
>be
>>OUR Rocket Scientist.
>
> Glad you said that - I have done both (last 2005, first
>2006)!
>
> Brett

Brett,

May I ask how many (about) training flights did you put in this year to prepare for this contest?

Jukka Juslin from Finland

>
>May I ask how many (about) training flights did you put in
>this year to prepare for this contest?

Oh, based on fuel usage, maybe 100 or so, something like that. A lot of those were associated with running in a new engine. You can run them forever on the bench but you really need 40-50 real flights before they stabilize. Actual flights just to practice were probably around 20-30. Almost all the coaching/training flights were at the NATs - maybe 10 or so with Uncle Jimby watching. The conditions in Muncie are just so different from the Bay Area that it's really not worth spending a lot of time on it at home.


I don't try to really burn in a lot of flights beforehand just for practice. Every time I have done that, I have not managed consistent peak performance at the contest itself. This time, while I came up a bit short, I did perform at a pretty good fraction of my capability all 4 days.

Last year, I practiced a lot more (maybe 150 or so flights), and by the time the end of the NATs week rolled around, I was completely screwed up in terms of concentration. I only did a few flights between the NATs and Team Trials, and mostly recovered by the second day of the Trials. Then I didn't fly at all for about a month before the Golden State meet, and flew very well with full concentration to win that one.


Brett

>
>May I ask how many (about) training flights did you put in
>this year to prepare for this contest?

Oh, based on fuel usage, maybe 100 or so, something like that. A lot of those were associated with running in a new engine. You can run them forever on the bench but you really need 40-50 real flights before they stabilize. Actual flights just to practice were probably around 20-30. Almost all the coaching/training flights were at the NATs - maybe 10 or so with Uncle Jimby watching. The conditions in Muncie are just so different from the Bay Area that it's really not worth spending a lot of time on it at home.


I don't try to really burn in a lot of flights beforehand just for practice. Every time I have done that, I have not managed consistent peak performance at the contest itself. This time, while I came up a bit short, I did perform at a pretty good fraction of my capability all 4 days.

Last year, I practiced a lot more (maybe 150 or so flights), and by the time the end of the NATs week rolled around, I was completely screwed up in terms of concentration. I only did a few flights between the NATs and Team Trials, and mostly recovered by the second day of the Trials. Then I didn't fly at all for about a month before the Golden State meet, and flew very well with full concentration to win that one.


Brett

Somewhere there was a post that said "winning the NATS" would be easy this year because the top guys would be at the World Champs.

Guess Orestes and all the rest of us didn't get the memo in time!

Brett,
I find your comments/answers interesting. I think it is safe to say everyone is different. Questions like these are probably often thought of but rarely asked or answered (I know I am often curious what others who are more experienced do). Thanks for sharing. I am sure some need to burn in 200 flights in preperation for the Nats while others may only need 25. I guess it comes down to physical and mental endurance along with your level of natural talent. This is an entirely diferent aspect of C/L flying that may often be over looked (just one of the many pieces it takes to win).

This makes me think of people like Orestes who must have great endurance (mental and physical) to fly all week at the Nats, practice for several more days for the worlds, then compete at the worlds. I know I have had it by the end of the week, but I don't pace myself like I should. (To many extra curricular activities).

To prepare for the Nats this year I flew about 50 flights half of which were flown at home in completly different conditions. These flights were more trim flights (new airplane/power system) than they were practice flights. I just needed to find a combination I could work with in Muncie. Once in Muncie I stuck with the current trim level in an effort to get comfortable with the airplane. (I have very little experience with trimming, so it is safe to say I have an easy 25-50 more flights before things really start working). This is by far the most I have ever practiced and it gave me the best results.

Mike

>>Thanks for sharing. I am sure some need to burn in 200 flights in preperation for the Nats while others may only need 25. <<

I think it should be said that this is practice for people that have thousands of flights behind them. Once you reach a certain level, it's a matter of determining what you need to bring yourself up to peak performance. How much you fly preparing for a particular contest is different from how much you flew becoming a good pilot.

>
>Brett, Whether you come in first place or dead last, it
>doesn't matter, to us, your still the man. You will always be
>OUR Rocket Scientist.


He's my stunt hero

Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks

><>
> I appreciate what I think you are trying to do, but I don't
>think it's appropriate.
>
> If I hadn't had random-angle and altitude bottoms on the
>square maneuvers, a slightly better vertical 8, a slightly
>better overhead 8, or about two dozen other places I obviously
>lost points on the last flight, I would have won, also. It
>was a very good flight, but far from perfect and far from the
>best I could do, as typified by my second-round flight (which
>was about as good as I can do).
>
> We all knew the rules going in. Orestes did what he
>needed to, when he needed to, to win. I didn't - it's as
>simple as that. I just screwed up a little, gave him the
>opportunity, and he took advantage of it. That's the mark of a
>champion.
>
> Brett

Well Brett,
The above statement proves, in my book, that you also are a True Champion....
Congratulations to all.

Randy C

DennisR
A True sportsman. Brett, I applaud you for your response. No whining about judges, wind, weather or sun in your eyes. You know what happened and acknowledged it as your skill against anothers.

>How must it feel to miss out on a Nats win by 1.5 points. Do
>you second guess yourself wondering, if I would have just
>twitched a pinch less etc?

Well, the good thing is I have 2400 miles to think about it!

Actually, it's not a big problem. I flew pretty well all week long and I ended up getting beat fair and square, so I am not going to go into a decline over it. I was particularly happy with my second-round flight - it was as good a flight as I could have hoped for. Third flight was still pretty decent, too, but not quite good enough.

Last year, I flew very poorly on Top 5 day and was embarrassed by my performance.

With Ted, David, and frequently Paul at local contests, I have a lot of experience with losing stunt contests. I still enjoy the contests. If I didn't, regardless of the results, I wouldn't be doing it.

Brett

>Now that I'm finished judging I can talk about this stuff.
>Here's how it worked out today in the Finals:
>
>1) Orestes Hernandez
>2) Brett Buck (1.5 points back)
>3) Bill Rich
>4) Derek Barry
>5) Windy Urtnowski
>6) Howard Rush
>
>Junior: Ryan Young
>Senior: Pat (forget the last name) from Texas
>
>
>Mike Keville

That's SENIOR NATIONAL CHAMPION PAT GIBSON from Tennessee.

I believe Pat Gibson is from Texas -- same as his Dad Mike. Also he was flying a "Ringmaster +P" designed by Pat Johnston. It is a foam wing variant of the venerable S1. Just some extra info from a "Ringmaster" Lover. Way to go Pat Gibson.

"Billy G"

>That's SENIOR NATIONAL CHAMPION PAT GIBSON from
>Tennessee.
===========================================================

Not quite. Pat Gibson and his dad are from Abilene, Texas.

Mike Keville

>>That's SENIOR NATIONAL CHAMPION PAT GIBSON
>from
>>Tennessee.
>===========================================================
>
>Not quite. Pat Gibson and his dad are from Abilene, Texas.
>
>Mike Keville

Whoops, my mistake.
I was fooled by the licence plates and the lettering on the trailer.

Windy seems to OWN 5th place!

Congrats to all the winners.

And Unca Mikey, I hope you are having a good time.. ;->

[photo not recovered: 29334.gif]

"The reason so little is done, is generally because so little is attempted." -Samuel Smiles

well done

OJ???? That is a "tongue in cheek" comment??? Don't you recognize JFK??? Or is it WJC???
Norm

Its hard to believe Windy has not won the open Nats. Man has paid his dues big time. Proves good old boy's event.You make waves suffer the results. This turned me off to so called Pro stunt. Many great folks in UC stunt and others just plain *&%#$@ a--h---s. For what its worth Windy is amoung the best thing that happened to UC teck !!

Dan

>Its hard to believe Windy has not won the open Nats. Man has
>paid his dues big time. Proves good old boy's event.You make
>waves suffer the results. This turned me off to so called Pro
>stunt. Many great folks in UC stunt and others just plain
>*&%#$@ a--h---s. For what its worth Windy is amoung the
>best thing that happened to UC teck !!
>
>Dan

Dan,
You're a good guy so please don't take this as a big criticism, BUT you should consider rethinking that last comment. At this level of competition there is no "good Ol Boy" in effect. Certainly there is some subjectivity in judging and that may play a part in the order of final standings where only a very few of points separate several places.
Windy is a great modeler and terriffic flyer and I think after all this time he has proven that he is probably capable of winning....but it just hasn't happened for him and I for one am completely unwilling to believe that it is because of any prejudice. Furthermore I would be surprised if Windy didn't agree with that!
Like UNCA' Mikey said S(tuff) happens.


Randy C

It's a tough competition. You need a good plane, a good coach, and plenty of practice to do well. I didn't notice you standing behind the judges Thursday, but if you had been there, you would have seen Windy flying a lot better than I did on the third flight, but not as well as the other guys.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

OK,
I guess it was not his time to win it. I once asked about his Nobler tape and he sent me a custom canopy for one. He didn't know me from Adam. Sure hope he wins a Nats sometime. Like I said before some great folks in Stunt. I will keep an open mind about results.
Cheers,Dan

Dan:

Are you suggesting that "Paying Dues" is the criteria for winning any contest, let alone the NATS? Would you not agree that flying perfection (or, in the case of the NATS, building, finishing and flying perfection) should be the sole determining factor? Have you flown at that level? Have you judged at that level?

Perhaps you need to pay some dues by checking off a few boxes in the big show before you characterize it as an Old Boys Club.

I've judged at more than 10 NATS and/or FAI Team Selections, have been the Assistant Manager of a NATS and two FAI Team Trials and have flown in more of each than I care to count. I think I've certainly "paid my dues" by that service and by publishing dozens of helpful articles, producing many How-To video programs, and by helping countless modelers to learn to build and fly. But I would hate to think that I received my Walker Trophy, my Walker Cup and my FAI Gold and Silver Medals because of any of that. I'd like to think I earned them by flying better than the other competitors. If that isn't the case, then what's the point of holding a flying contest? Perhaps you are suggesting that we hold a popularity contest instead.

You might want to re-think your post here.

Bob Hunt

>Are you suggesting that "Paying Dues" is the
>criteria for winning any contest, let alone the NATS? Would
>you not agree that flying perfection (or, in the case of the
>NATS, building, finishing and flying perfection) should be the
>sole determining factor? Have you flown at that level? Have
>you judged at that level?
>

Of course, I agree, and in fact if "paying one's dues" WAS a criterion that would *make it* an "old boys club".

Many people who don't attend or don't know what to look for assume that you just show up, get your name recognized for a few years, and then you just start doing better. When in fact, those years you learn how many mistakes you are still making, go back, correct them, come back again, do better, etc. It's not "paying your dues", it's "learning how to be competitive at the National level".

I don't think anyone who hasn't tried it truly appreciates how difficult it is to even make the Top 20 in Open, much less the top 5, much less making a good show in the Top 5. Every year, there are fliers who I would consider true masters of the event who *don't* make it even to the Top 20.

My own case might make for a good example. I was a very accomplished local Expert flier when I first went to the NATs in 1993 - 10 years past my first legitimate 500-point flight, and competing with decent success in the very competitive local scene. But, while I qualified and narrowly missed out on Rookie of the Year, I was in no way competitive with the serious fliers. I thought I was pretty close - but I was *very very wrong*.

And it wasn't just a matter of making it to the next plateau - it was the next *3* plateaus. It took me another 5 years of very hard work to get the Top 10 level ('98), another few years to get to "maybe" be competitive for getting in the Top 5 ('01-'02, 2000 was sort of a fluke), and another few years before I really became competitive for winning the thing (2004, although David was on a mission and nobody was beating him then). Point being, from my perspective of a very competitive local expert with 20 years of experience, I *still* grossly underestimated how much better you have to be to be competitive in Open at the NATs.

But I would like to add- Windy flies *exceptionally well* by anyone's standards. One thing that has been amazing has been his run of making it to the Top 5 so many times. No matter what anyone says, usually Top 20 day is the hard day. At least in the Top 5 you get a throwaway, on Top 20 one even slightly-off flight and you are gone. To make the Top 5 as many times as Windy has is a truly remarkable acheivement.

Finishing 5th is no shame (unless you do it like I did last year, by coming completely unglued and not recovering until the second day of the team trials...). It's lot better than 99% of the people who have ever flown this event have done!

Brett

Everyone,

Pay plenty of attention to what Brett says. It used to be that Jr and Sr was just as competitive as Open. For example: In 1972 my good friend Mike Thompson was flying Sr at the open. He had built a copy of Bob Gieseke's 1968 Nats winner. It was light at 42 ounces and would corner like lightning. Mike could take that plane to a WAM contest and fly a 600+ point pattern whenever he liked. However, at the Nat's he was a contemporary of Dennis Adamisin. Mike tried so hard and was so nervous on his final attempt that he forgot a maneuver and that cost him being at least a competitive second place behind Dennis. You will remember that Dennis won the Walker Cup that year beating Al Rabe in the flyoff. Good going Dennis, glad to see that you are back flying again. Are you ready for you name on that cup again?

Jim Pollock

>Its hard to believe Windy has not won the open Nats. Man has
>paid his dues big time. Proves good old boy's event.You make
>waves suffer the results. This turned me off to so called Pro
>stunt. Many great folks in UC stunt and others just plain
>*&%#$@ a--h---s. For what its worth Windy is amoung the
>best thing that happened to UC teck !!
>
>Dan

It never fails to amaze me why someone just can't say "congrats" to the winner without bringing up this same old BS every year.

>>Its hard to believe Windy has not won the open Nats. Man
>has
>>paid his dues big time. Proves good old boy's event.You
>make
>>waves suffer the results. This turned me off to so called
>Pro
>>stunt. Many great folks in UC stunt and others just plain
>>*&%#$@ a--h---s. For what its worth Windy is amoung
>the
>>best thing that happened to UC teck !!
>>
>>Dan
>
>It never fails to amaze me why someone just can't say
>"congrats" to the winner without bringing up this
>same old BS every year.

Bill,
Amen to that.
In reality anyone who makes finals day at the Nats is a Winner in my Book, and deserves respect and congratulations.

Randy C

I did say I will keep open mind. You guys say I'm wrong fine.It was just my feeling. Either right or wrong so lighten up.Congrats to the winner for sure. Great that all placed and are amoung the best at Stunt. If I offened anybody sorry bout that. I have a good respect for many in Stunt circle.
Cheers,Dan

that.
>In reality anyone who makes finals day at the Nats is a Winner
>in my Book, and deserves respect and congratulations.
>
>Randy C

He11, I'd be happy to make the "Top Five" at one of our local meets.
A lot of big dogs in that pack.

Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks

"...I'd be happy to make the "Top Five" at one of our local meets..."
====================================================================

Ya' beat me to it, Larry!

Mike Keville

Mike,

Very good points made. I don't have real comment because I've never flown at the Nats, but I know that I've been thrilled on the few occasions when I'm within 30 points of guys like Paul and Brett. Only happened a few of times (since I'm about as inconsistent a flier as there is), but when it does, I'm pretty happy.

Larry,
Yeah, we don't have any shortage of "Big Dogs" in our pack here in Tucson either. I feel the same "pain" every contest!

Randy C

Windy and I have talked on many occasions about his Nats career. Windy is a builder\flyer. That is, he flies ALOT BETTER than some hardcore builders and he builds ALOT BETTER than some hardcore flyers. He is in essence, a hybrid.

Building at the very top echelon of stunt in and of itself is not enough for Windy. There has to be the element of top class competition. Also, just racking up big time wins without the element of world class model aviation construction just doesn’t provide enough challenge for his off-the-chart skill set.

Windy was groomed from a very early age, (Harold Price) to ascend to the very top of the sport. His innovative and ground breaking work in "taking you inside the shop" of high end stunt building and later acceptance into the AMA Hall of Fame ultimately confirmed that destiny.

I personally consider his Strega series, where he takes you from initial concept, through all of the construction, into total finish work, and final flight trimout and ending with his battle in the top five Walker Cup flyoff at the Nats, one of the absolute best model aviation instruction series of all time.

>I personally consider his Strega series, where he takes you
>from initial concept, through all of the construction, into
>total finish work, and final flight trimout and ending with
>his battle in the top five Walker Cup flyoff at the Nats, one
>of the absolute best model aviation instruction series of all
>time.

In that Strega series, what finishing materials is Windy using? Is he still using dope as in earlier tapes or is he using the automotive base coat clear coat system that a lot of guys are using now?


Allan Perret

>
>>I personally consider his Strega series, where he takes
>you
>>from initial concept, through all of the construction,
>into
>>total finish work, and final flight trimout and ending
>with
>>his battle in the top five Walker Cup flyoff at the Nats,
>one
>>of the absolute best model aviation instruction series of
>all
>>time.
>
>In that Strega series, what finishing materials is Windy
>using? Is he still using dope as in earlier tapes or is he
>using the automotive base coat clear coat system that a lot of
>guys are using now?
>
>
>Allan Perret

Dope.

Whatever happened to Robbie Gruber?

BTW, is this the picture of the winner?
http://myy.haaga-helia.fi/~jusju/kuvat/nats2008/arles_gallery/imagepages/image193.html

I am not sure about who was who.

It was interesting to have once in the life to have a chance to visit one day the nats.

Jukka Juslin from Finland

Jukka:

Yes, that is two-time Walker Cup winner and current member of Team USA, Orestes Hernandez.

It was very nice to meet you at Muncie. I do hope you enjoyed your visit.

Mike Keville

[photo not recovered: 29810.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

He's playing baseball at Yale.

Dale,

He needs to play/pitch for the Braves after he graduates, boy do they need him!

Jim Pollock