How would GMA finish today at the Nats?

A friend, Big Mike the Pied Piper of control line, and I were discussing some control line history recently. Noting that most of the current stunt designs owe something to the Nobler, Big Mike said that if George were here today with his Nats winning Nobler/engine combination he couldn't make the top twenty at today's Nats. I think George, as I knew him, could could at least make a podium finish. Your thoughts?

>A friend, Big Mike the Pied Piper of control line, and I were
>discussing some control line history recently. Noting that
>most of the current stunt designs owe something to the Nobler,
>Big Mike said that if George were here today with his Nats
>winning Nobler/engine combination he couldn't make the top
>twenty at today's Nats. I think George, as I knew him, could
>could at least make a podium finish. Your thoughts?


Nope. It is all hypothetical, of course, but things have changed dramatically in airplane design, power plants, and skill level of the pilots. The Nobler/Fox combination is competitive today in classic, provided that conditions are right. Give it a little wind, however, and you are in trouble. Remember, George put one hourglass in the modern pattern because airplanes at the time were not capable of doing consecutive hourglass figures with any degree of precision.

Also, George was the best at that time in that event on that occasion, but he would not be competitive today against the top flyers even with the best of equipment.

Things have changed. It is a new world today.

Well at least give George a chance by giving him a few "young" years! My guess is that he was a competitor, probably not too dependent on what era he started in.

It's always unfair to compare todays "giant's" to yesteryear's --the "youngsters" ( ) are all standing on some pretty tall shoulders. If you allowed everyone to begin at the same starting point today's or yesteryear's style and equipment, it wouldn't be obvious who would come out on top.

>It's always unfair to compare todays "giant's" to
>yesteryear's --the "youngsters" ( ) are all
>standing on some pretty tall shoulders. If you allowed
>everyone to begin at the same starting point today's or
>yesteryear's style and equipment, it wouldn't be obvious who
>would come out on top.

It's a lot like asking how Babe Ruth would do against Tim Lincecum - it kills time until something better comes along, but don't ever expect to get a real answer.

I would however say that George certainly had his opinions on the matter. He once said that he watched a tape of the 2000 NATs Fly-off and said none of them would have stood a chance against Jim Silhavy since we were not smooth enough. That made my first-ever appearance in the Top 5 extra-special!

Brett

p.s. but since we are going to do it anyway....

This is strictly my opinion, as a avid observer. I have been privileged to extensively see and compete against 3 of the best ever to fly this event - Ted, Paul, and David. They would be in *anyone's* Top 20 of all time, and most people's top 5 of all time. On their best day, I find it very improbable to see anyone outside the Top 5 of all time beating them. I have also seen at least a few of the older aces fly, past their prime in most cases, and that did nothing to alter that opinion.

Of course, the reason you can't really answer the question is that you have no idea how the stars of the past would react with the modern conditions. The only reason GMA was stuck on the Fox 35 was because that's what he understood. If he had been a pup in 1988, who knows, he might have been the world's biggest 40VF booster. If Babe Ruth came to 2008, he would have to learn to hit a splitter and slider. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't but you won't ever know since they didn't exist when he was playing.

If Babe Ruth came to 2008,
>he would have to learn to hit a splitter and slider. Maybe he
>could, maybe he couldn't but you won't ever know since they
>didn't exist when he was playing.

Also, Dont forget, the Bambino and all hitters of that era, had the luxury of hitting tired pitchers in late innings. Todays hitters will face the starter maybe twice then the middle relief guy then the set-up man and finally the closer. It cracks me up when the sports media will praise a pitcher who works 200 innings as a workhorse.

Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks
>
>

>Also, Dont forget, the Bambino and all hitters of that era,
>had the luxury of hitting tired pitchers in late innings.
>Todays hitters will face the starter maybe twice then the
>middle relief guy then the set-up man and finally the closer.

That, too. And it was "common knowledge" before about 1970 that as a baseball player, you shouldn't work out extensively or you would be "muscle bound". And if Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax were playing today, they would be on continual suspension from throwing inside. And that's only 40 years ago, imagine all the changes since 1930. Just can't make any valid comparison. Same thing with the 1988 49'ers and the 75 Steelers, or any other "greatest ever" comparison.


In any competition, the best you can do is beat whoever shows up under whatever conditions you have when you do it. There's absolutely no way to know what you might have done against other competitors in other conditions.

Brett

>Also, George was the best at that time in that event on that
>occasion, but he would not be competitive today against the
>top flyers even with the best of equipment.
>
>Things have changed. It is a new world today.

What has changed so radically that someone as competitive "in his prime" as GMA could not compete at today's level?

Please bring me up to speed.

Thanks in advance,
Greg

>What has changed so radically that someone as competitive
>"in his prime" as GMA could not compete at today's
>level?
>
>Please bring me up to speed.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Greg
>

I really don't see this going anywhere because, as Brett stated, it is highly speculative. Brett brought up baseball. I don't think many of the great baseball pitchers of 50 or 60 years ago would be nearly as competitive today as they were then. People have learned new pitches, new ways of delivery, etc., plus they are up against batters who have also had to learn how to cope.

That said, when was the last time you saw a Fox 35 powered Nobler make the top 20 at the Nats (Bob Gieseke, and it wasn't an ordinary Fox or an ordinary Nobler.) Since George's time we have learned how to trim to minute details the tip weight and the leadout position. There have been dramatic strides in engine technology (and don't, for a minute, think that doesn't make a difference.) Airfoils have changed, moments have changed, tail areas have changed--and all this in proportion to the rest of the plane.

And then there is the dedication. Ten years ago a 500 score could make the top 20 at the Nats. Now it takes about a 530 in most circles while the top scores have not changed. That tells me that competition has gotten a lot stiffer. In George's day the young turks (ok, younger generation) were winning because they were doing the most flying and had the reflexes, etc. The older generation hadn't grown up with these things as the technology was just coming into being. What we have today is people who have been flying for most of their life honing their skills. And don't put that down as saying the young guys have better reflexes. A couple of years back the entire top 5 could have drawn social security. There are new guys popping up now who have risen through the ranks, but they have done so by flying 500, 1000, 2000 flights a year in practice, and doing so with a coach. (Did George ever have a coach?)

As I said, it is all speculative, but George didn't practice all that much, he didn't have all that much experience, and he just didn't have that much competition which is why he won. This is not to take anything away from George or his achievements, because he was the best at this time and that is what counts. But many guys who have been flying "expert" and winning in local contests somehow seem to think they have to fly in Advanced at the Nats "because they can't compete". I think that is where George would have been, too. (And he probably wouldn't have won there, either.)

OK, now I did it. But I gave my opinion. It is tough, guys. This is not something that you just pick up a handle and suddenly expect to "be there".

George once told me that for a month before the Nats he stopped at the field on the way to work and flew 10 flights, and then another 10 on the way home. So he did put in some practice time.

Len said:

">As I said, it is all speculative, but George didn't practice
>all that much...,"

Hi Len:

This is a quote from GMA's June 1958 MAN article entitled, "How To Design a Stunt Model"...

"If you are going to fly competition stunt, you must practice a great deal; at least 50 flights a week. There is no substitute for practice. The more you practice the more your chances are for winning."

I don't know if he practiced what he preached for his entire stunt career, but this is verbatim from the MAN article.

Currell

>Len said:
>
>">As I said, it is all speculative, but George didn't
>practice all that much...,"
>
>Hi Len:
>
>This is a quote from GMA's June 1958 MAN article entitled,
>"How To Design a Stunt Model"...
>
>"If you are going to fly competition stunt, you must
>practice a great deal; at least 50 flights a week. There is no
>substitute for practice. The more you practice the more your
>chances are for winning."
>
>I don't know if he practiced what he preached for his entire
>stunt career, but this is verbatim from the MAN article.
>
>Currell
>

I am going to have to agree with this. And I don't doubt that in later years George did, indeed, practice more. And I don't know what his success ratio was. I don't know how many Nats he entered, but I don't recall his name being on the trophy all that much after the first time. How many times was he in the top 5? I don't know. How many times was he on the podium? That we do know. And how many times did he win the Nats after the modern pattern was developed?

The question involved his Nats winning plane and George, Himself. He had hastily put that plane together, completing it just a couple of weeks before the Nats at which he won. When he drew up the plans for MAN, he did so from memory. The plane was far, far away. When he drew up the plans for Top Flite (Green box Nobler) it was again far, far away, which accounts for the slight differences in design. I don't think he was practicing all that much at that time, but then the competition wasn't all that stiff. We need to remember that the Nobler was one of the first fully flapped models (along with the P-40, Stuka, and a few others) But that caught on, and so did people's interest in practicing. Oh, and the pattern changed, too.

It is interesting that the Nobler, designed to fly the OTS pattern, is still a competitive airplane. There are others, but not too many.

The best set of triangles I have ever seen, and I do not expect to ever see better, were flown by an ARF Nobler

Leonard's right. It's apples and oranges. You can NOT compare past generations to the current generation. What was is not what is. There's no comparison possible other than to compare where the individual was in their time to todays individual in the current time. Most, if not all of the best of the past would not be able to compete today because of what has happened since their time and todays top competitors would be at a disadvantage due to that which is now, wasn't back then. As has been said, "That which is today has been built on the past." The 4 minute mile was thought unattainable until Roger Bannister broke it. Today, a 4 minute mile won't qualify you to compete in anything past grade school. Shoes, training, runners have all changed dramatically, all built upon the past. Can one from the past com[ete if born in the current time? It's impossible to determine since Everything is variable and is therefore not quantatatively determinable.

>As I said, it is all speculative, but George didn't practice
>all that much, he didn't have all that much experience, and he
>just didn't have that much competition which is why he won.

I would probably stay out of it, but this is not accurate. GMA practiced *a lot* when he was serious about it. He set the standard for the "2000 flight-a-year"/"Walker Cup is at the bottom of a fuel jug" philosophy that was later picked up by Billy, Les McDonald, Al, and pretty much everybody else until very recently (including Orestes).

Brett

In conversations with Frank McMillan he said at the 58 nats, he and George would go out every evening and go through a gallon of fuel to get ready for the next day.

Walter

> I would probably stay out of it, but this is not accurate.
>GMA practiced *a lot* when he was serious about it. He set the
>standard for the "2000 flight-a-year"/"Walker
>Cup is at the bottom of a fuel jug" philosophy that was
>later picked up by Billy, Les McDonald, Al, and pretty much
>everybody else until very recently (including Orestes).
>
> Brett

You might be able to help me with this, Brett, but my point was 1952. That was the year that he won the Nats with his Nobler/engine combination, wasn't it? I don't think that year he practiced a whole lot. But the question involved George with this plane and engine. George was still in school at the time and entered the Nats in the senior division. During these years the younger guys did win, and without a lot of years of practice behind them. In later years he may have practiced a lot, perhaps won a lot of local contests (don't know how many), but how often did he enter the Nats again, and how often did he win again, even with his regimen of practice, practice, practice?

My point is, the year he won the Nats with that just freshly painted Nobler, was he that polished that he could compete in the winning circles of today? I don't think so. He was good enough then--the best at the time. But time moves on, and things change and we need to change with it. It is tough going out there. You'd smoke him.

Well, first off GMA did not include the Hourglass. That was put in by the CL contest board. He put in a vertical square Eight. His words from the taped interview.

Two, what if he kept up with the updates in CLPA, engines, planes, etc as did Billy Werwage, now an olde man, still capable.

Babe Ruth was up against spit balls and stuff no longer thrown, but he had incredible eye/hand coordination. What any good hitter needs. There are less off the wall balls thrown today than ever before. When was the last time you even heard of a spit ball or a knuckle ball. The Knuckle ball is darn near impossible to hit. The last one I know to have been used was in 2000 and it was very rare then.
Also, the mound is lower now, thanks to a certain Cardinal pitcher.

Age has a part in a persons capbility, but if a person keeps up the skills with practice, and unless he has some cripling affliction, he won't be easy to beat. Never count in age, just experience and heart.
My .25 worth. Why spend pennies?

>Well, first off GMA did not include the Hourglass. That was
>put in by the CL contest board. He put in a vertical square
>Eight. His words from the taped interview.
>
>Two, what if he kept up with the updates in CLPA, engines,
>planes, etc as did Billy Werwage, now an olde man, still
>capable.
>

First off, Billy isn't as old as I am. (Maybe I need two "e's" after "old".) But you are looking at the question differently than I was. The hypothesis, as it was phrased was, "if George were here today with his Nats winning Nobler/engine combination he couldn't make the top twenty at today's Nats." I agreed with that hypothesis. Still do. But I was looking at it as George, who won in 1952, using the same plane/engine combo. You (and perhaps others) were looking at it as George in his later years (not today since he is no longer around and would be too old) competing with his airplane of then but with his later skills against today's competition. And I still say, "No" for two reasons.

1) The plane/engine would not be competitive against today's machines. It would have to have perfect weather. Ask Gieseke why he moved on.

2) George won when he did, but what makes anyone think he was "the greatest". Against David, Paul, Orestes, Brett, and all the rest (about ten others clamoring to get into the mix and very capable)--that's a formidible group. It is getting tougher and tougher to crack the top 20, much less trying to get into the top 5. And with an outdated plane/engine combo--no way.

Could Paul do it in Classic? (Yes, and indeed he did.) But that was in Classic. He didn't use the same airplane that won for him at VSC and take it to the Nats to enter in the open class. There is a reason.

You're right Leonard. I did drift from the actual question. But what if it wasn't a hypothetical question?

. The Knuckle ball is darn
>near impossible to hit. The last one I know to have been used
>was in 2000 and it was very rare then.

Tim Wakefield of the Boston Red Sox Still throws it.

Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks

GMA(God rest his soul)obviously had good reflexes and eye hand coordination. He also must have flown some very good flights. If he showed up today and the weather was at all decent with mild winds he'd likely win and almost certainly make the top twenty. His name is George Aldrich, after all.

A few years ago a "Coy Lady" won the Australian Nationals with the old Fox 35. IF you can believe the scuttlebutt, the owner of same practiced, practiced, practiced. A Nobler is still a fine airplane, and with a good engine, Fox included, is still capable of winning the gold ball. It takes practice, practice, practice. The newer large airplanes do not turn as tight as the older smaller ones, and while more impressive, due to their large size, in MHO do not fly any better than some of the smaller planes. I have seen some pretty good patterns put in using a Ringmaster that weighed 26 oz.

I too hate it when someone brings up a legend and then tries to compare them with todays world. When I seen Al Rabe at VSC when he first came out of hiding, I asked him why he didn't compete. He stated to me that he had nothing to prove. He is still one of the best designers around and I have seen him fly. Even then I thought he could beat three fourths of the competitors at that time. I think George quit competing in stunt as he found other things that got his interest. Mainly rebuilding engines.
DOC Holliday

While I am not a great "drum-beater" for GMA, I do (did) know him quite well, and he did a lot of work for me and I did a little for him. I really do not have a dog in this fight, but thought I would throw in my "fight'n Rooster"
First--- GMA DID practice fly A LOT!!. Only in later years of his competitive era did he taper off in his practice flying, and that was because he was too busy providing equipnent and products for us masses to use.
NOW!! You handicap George by asking him to fly a plane/powerplant of his era against the modern equipment and then ask if HE (the pilot) could make the top five(or so)?? That is like tying an anchor around a world champ swimmer and then asking if he could still out swim a modern swimmer wearing spandex "greasy suit". Not much compairson.
Now--- I will pose another Hypothetical question.
How many of the Elite "Top Five (or so)" could make the podium if they had to build and fly the planes of George's era using the power plants of that era, the materials and technology of that era to build their Fuselages, wings, motor mounts etc etc etc . No Adjustable tip weight boxes line leadouts, adjustable control horns etc no carbon fiber. And on and on.
I would guess that there are only a couple that could do it. Billy W & Paul W Perhaps?? It would definitely handicap most of them.
As one who has watched George in his prime and a LOT of stunt fliers since including the present, I truely think that George could more than "hold his own" in a heads up run using comparable equipment--- and that the Nobler/Fox 35 is really capable of putting in a winning flight even today if the judges aren't biased toward Modern equipment.(I hope they aren't)

Bigiron

Marvin,

I believe that I would add Bob Gieseke to that mix of capable modelers. he proved many times a Nobler "his version of it" could
win the Nats and WC's both.


Jim Pollock

Hi Len. The impression that I get from the '58 MAN article is that his reference to the need for much practice extended back to his early '50s successes. But I could be mistaken here.

Currell

I am not prejudiced against smaller airplanes. In fact I think that the trend to larger and larger airplanes may be the wrong way to go.
We are constrained by a bubble that either has a 60' or 70' radius.
From my judging perspective, the larger airplanes have a more difficult time operating on that envelope. A larger and heavier airplane does not seem to me to be able as well as a smaller aircraft to perform the maneuvers per the guidelines on that envelope without opening up the maneuvers, specifically the 4 leaf, triangle maneuvers, square maneuvers, etc. The newer larger aircraft perhaps are smoother, but they make a mockery of trying to turn a corner with a 5' radius. I realize that the smaller and lighter aircraft can not corner with a 5' radius either, but they do turn a sharper corner and it is perspecive that is being judged after all

>I am not prejudiced against smaller airplanes. In fact I
>think that the trend to larger and larger airplanes may be the
>wrong way to go. We are constrained by a bubble that either
>has a 60' or 70' radius. From my judging perspective, the
>larger airplanes have a more difficult time operating on that >envelope. A larger and heavier airplane does not seem to me
>to be able as well as a smaller aircraft to perform the
>maneuvers per the guidelines on that envelope without opening
>up the maneuvers, specifically the 4 leaf, triangle maneuvers, >square maneuvers, etc. The newer larger aircraft perhaps are >smoother, but they make a mockery of trying to turn a corner
>with a 5' radius. (snip)

I have to respectively disagree here. First off, the classic size planes (550-600 square inches) will need to fly at approximately the same speed as the larger (650-700 square inches). And if they are flying at the same speed, they are not going to corner any sharper. Add to that the fact that the smaller planes are usually (though not always and I think not correctly) flown on 60 foot lines and the larger planes on 67-70 foot lines, the larger planes have a larger envelope to fly in while turning the same size corner. And, yes, with modern designs, longer tail moments, larger tail volume, the corners are quite sharp and the illusion very effective in "appearing to fly the 5 foot corner".) Now when you talk about the round maneuvers, I don't see any reason at all for opening up these maneuvers. This is one thing that Matt has worked hard on in putting his 670 square foot plane in that proper envelope. If anything, you hear people telling him that he is flying too small (and only because it is relative to what they see others fly). These planes are very capable of flying tight corners and well within the envelope dimensions given to them. Sometimes people fly larger because their power plants or conditions don't give them the option. But it is not because their plane was too big.

Although there is a trend among some to go to 630-350 square inch planes (still not small by what you envision) Paul's last electric barn burner (or was it bird killer) was, I think, about 750 square inches. I don't know the best size for flying and sometimes it depends on conditions, but don't discount the larger planes because of some perception that they can't turn as tightly as their smaller cousins.

> NOW!! You handicap George by asking him to fly a
>plane/powerplant of his era against the modern equipment and
>then ask if HE (the pilot) could make the top five(or so)??
>That is like tying an anchor around a world champ swimmer and
>then asking if he could still out swim a modern swimmer
>wearing spandex "greasy suit".

Precisely! That's also why it's an unanswerable question.


> and that the Nobler/Fox 35
> is really capable of putting in a winning flight even today
>if the judges aren't biased toward Modern equipment.

I guess everyone is entitled to his opinion. I think the cornering would severely handicap you compared to the Impact and Imitation-type models. A point that people are still not getting even 30 years later.


Brett

Back when GMA was winning all the marbles, in about 1951, or so, I was also winning stunt contests. So I thought I was some hot stuff. But, as was mentioned, CLPA has advanced to where aircraft and engines(and pilots) resemble nothing like they were in the '50s.

Now, flying about the same level as I did at age 18, I'm somewhere in the lower half of Advanced. The world has changed, and I didn't keep up.
This is to say that if GMA were competing today, he would be an also-ran.

Floyd in OR
'