Must you be a mad genius to fly?

I have been thinking about all the elements that are tossed into flying...Like you do math in your head. Say you have a 5 second lap time and then you have 60 foot lines, how fast are you going? And you have to have some mad precision in building and flying. You have to measure stuff out, weigh things and there is some special stuff you need to do to make an airfoil, if designing a plane.
So do you have to be really smart while flying? Are each and every one of you mad genius' with an airplane obsession?

Note: If you look back on some of the earlier posts of people asking for some info on something not too significant, a couple guys go all out and write mini-novels of info. I think some of you should go write a book of arguments..

Grace Paris

Grace, you're wise beyond your years. In almost every area, each of us has a technique which is "best", at least for him/her. Many folks figure that also makes it the best for everyone else, as well. Some of us are also willing to settle for "good enough", and that drives others mad!

You've seen the debates on whether the Fox .35 is a PoS or the best stunt engine ever designed. It all depends on your viewpoint. There were a lot of years where the ancient Fox was the only engine to consider; others just had too-serious shortcomings for our event. And the Fox still has won more CLPA events than either other . . .

Another aspect is that the event has evolved over the years. What used to be "common knowledge" has been challenged or refuted. Technology has made it possible to do what was genuinely impossible 50 years ago. Planes are bigger, airfoils thicker, tails larger too.

We've even evolved new terminology to describe some of these changes. If you had used the terms "Tuned Pipe" or "Tail Volume Coefficient" or "Barbell Effect" in the '50s, you'd have been laughed out of the circle!

Change and adaptability to change are essential. Otherwise, we'd all still be flying Noblers with Fox .35s.

I do ramble on . . .

>Grace, you're wise beyond your years. In almost every area,
>each of us has a technique which is "best", at least
>for him/her. Many folks figure that also makes it the best for
>everyone else, as well. Some of us are also willing to settle
>for "good enough", and that drives others mad!
>
>You've seen the debates on whether the Fox .35 is a PoS or the
>best stunt engine ever designed. It all depends on your
>viewpoint. There were a lot of years where the ancient Fox was
>the only engine to consider; others just had
>too-serious shortcomings for our event. And the Fox still has
>won more CLPA events than either other . . .
>
>Another aspect is that the event has evolved over the years.
>What used to be "common knowledge" has been
>challenged or refuted. Technology has made it possible to do
>what was genuinely impossible 50 years ago. Planes are bigger,
>airfoils thicker, tails larger too.
>
>We've even evolved new terminology to describe some of these
>changes. If you had used the terms "Tuned Pipe" or
>"Tail Volume Coefficient" or "Barbell
>Effect" in the '50s, you'd have been laughed out of the
>circle!
>
>Change and adaptability to change are essential. Otherwise,
>we'd all still be flying Noblers with Fox .35s.
>
>I do ramble on . . .
>
>

Well....
On the other hand, maybe all of our advances in "aerodynamics" for stunters are a little more "subjective" than most of us are willing to admit. Don't get me wrong. Modern stunters with larger more powerful engines and probably somewhat better aerodynamics are easier to fly well under a broader range of conditions than anything used in the "good ole days". However standing and watching Bob Hunt fly a 597 pattern with an airplane design from 1969 (Caprice) at VSC this past weekend is enough to make anyone wonder how far we really have advanced. Several of the patterns I watched at VSC when considered objectively, were as good as anything I've seen anywhere with modern equipment. Granted the conditions were unusually good for a "contest".
Still, while a very pretty little airplane, the Caprice has several serious shortcommings when compared to modern stunter numbers.


Randy C

>On the other hand, maybe all of our advances in
>"aerodynamics" for stunters are a little more
>"subjective" than most of us are willing to admit.

I agree that a lot of the aerodynamics issues are minor. But there's far, far more to what we are discussing than aerodynamics. Just about every branch of physics, in fact.

Brett

Well I was thinking about the Fox.35 and how many people think it is the best engine ever. Maybe they think that because they know that engine the best. It is kind of like a spouse, you know them the best and you think they are the best spouse out of all couples, well you should.
Grace Paris

Excellent analogy. Many of these guys are celebrating their golden wedding anniversaries with their Fox .35s.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

I ,, well,,, uhh
ok I wont say it,,

>
>I have been thinking about all the elements that are tossed
>into flying...Like you do math in your head. Say you have a 5
>second lap time and then you have 60 foot lines, how fast are
>you going? And you have to have some mad precision in
>building and flying. You have to measure stuff out, weigh
>things and there is some special stuff you need to do to make
>an airfoil, if designing a plane.
>So do you have to be really smart while flying? Are each and
>every one of you mad genius' with an airplane obsession?

I would say the obsession part is pretty common. Genius, obviously not. There is a range of successful approaches (and many. many, unsuccessful approaches) from "grinder" where someone goes out, gets everything just good enough to get through patterns through trail-and-error, and then practices continually. The other end of the spectrum is someone who sets everything up very carefully and with full knowledge of exactly why, delves deeply into every aspect of the problem mostly by thinking/analysis and some experiments, and gets the airplane perfect, and counts on that to obviate the need for a lot of practice and/or physical skill.


Most people fall in-between somewhere. Most of the successful people have had elements of both, but fall closer to the former than the latter. And a lot of people have a good and correct "gut" feeling what will work and why, but don't have anything like the capability/interest to pursue it analytically. I myself am much closer to the latter than the former, I have minimal physical talent and some significant issues but manage to mostly make up by having everything set up well enough that I don't have to have particularly high physical skills.


>Note: If you look back on some of the earlier posts of people
>asking for some info on something not too significant, a
>couple guys go all out and write mini-novels of info.

A lot of us have been doing this for 30-40-50 years, so we have gone down *every* road and have an opinion on most things. And are not shy about expressing it, as you note.

Brett

I've noticed no one has mentioned music as being good for flying excellent patterns, but, being able to keep good timing is very important in doing square maneuvers. I believe music is a form of math that does help tremendously. I know that I fly better after beginning to play guitar than I used to!


Jim Pollock

Grace this old man barely made it thru Algebra I. If I had any kind of brains I would leave the planes in the car instead of getting out and making a fool of myself.
DOC Holliday

Maybe we are just naturally smart. We have all the brains we will ever have from birth so who says you do not know the secrets of the world? The only problem is harnessing the knowledge. *shrugs*

I have heard many cl guys in my day (which is still going) and they can ramble for hours if I let them. Some would talk until all the air they have is gone. I do not blame them. Like Brett said, many of you have been flying for quite a WHILE. A big while. And you really can't talk to anyone while you fly. So you hold it all in until you get off the circle, look for a "whipper snapper", then proceed to go through the many details of your flight and all of the flights in the past couple decades.
I think of everything...
Grace Paris

I'm not a genius Grace, although my friends say I am a human calculator. I haven't been flying for a while...unless you think 4 years is a long time.

I am taking advanced classes in my school, so I guess I could be a genius. But when I do think about it, it does take a lot of skill to fly. Build the plane, with precision, tune the engine, and fly the plane at 40-50 mph and perform 15 precise maneuvers.

You mention the question of how fast is the airplane going at 5 or 6 second laps on 60 ft lines. My father, who had a 5th grade education, could figure this out in his head. I, who made a D in college algebra the second time through (and proud of it!), have to have pencil and paper and a calculator.

The way one solves a complex problem, beyond one's ability to solve, is to break it down into a series of simple problems one can solve. We want an answer in miles/hour, ie distance/time. So we start out by with line length/over seconds per lap. Now we need a correction factor which will convert this into miles/hour.

Line length is a radius, and the distance traveled in one lap is the circumfrence, so we have to multiply the line length by 2 pi, 6.232. That gives us distance in feet, so we divide by 5280 feet/mile to give us the distance in miles. This gives us a distance correction factor of 6.232/5280 = .00119. Now we need to convert our seconds into hours. 3600 seconds in an hour. That is seconds/3600 in the divisor which means our correction factor is .00119 x 3600 = 4.28.

So 60 ft/5 sec x 4.28 = 51 MPH, and 60 ft/6 sec x 4.28 = 42.8 MPH. I suspect a bright young person such as you can do these calculations in your head, but I will still need a calculator.

> I, who
>made a D in college algebra the second time through (and proud
>of it!), have to have pencil and paper and a calculator.

Slide rule, maybe?

Brett

Hmmmm,

My calculator can do trig and calc problems, doesn't that make the slide rule obsolete?


> Slide rule, maybe?
>
> Brett


Jim Pollock,

>
>My calculator can do trig and calc problems, doesn't that make
>the slide rule obsolete?
>

But not more desirable. Dang kids and their "need everything quick" lifestyle!

Brett

But not more desirable. Dang kids and their "need everything quick" lifestyle!

Brett

My old K&E has NEVER needed batteries!

Quote: "Don't care what the book says, my slide rule says 2x7=13.95"

George

>
Dang kids and their "need
>everything quick" lifestyle!
>
> Brett



Thats right!!! Now where can I buy me a new Vector ARF ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks

>Hmmmm,
>
>My calculator can do trig and calc problems, doesn't that make
>the slide rule obsolete?
>
>
>> Slide rule, maybe?
>>
>> Brett
>
>
>Jim Pollock,

Ask a old school Carpenter to do this problem on a good Carpenter's square. You know the one with all the little marks on it.
I know how.

Here is some interesting reading on a square.. It does so much its impossible to describe.

http://mathdemos.gcsu.edu/mathdemos/carpcircle/carpcircle.html

My grandfather watches in awe of me type up stuff on his computer. For him to type up this message will take him about 5-10 minutes, me 1 minute. But he has been getting better, I make fun of him saying he has gone from typing with one finger to 2 fingers.

I did remember the formula for calculating speed, but I forgot it. Who knows it, please jog my memory

Isnt it distance over time??? well for a plane you need to find the circumference...2 times pi times the square of the radius(how long your lines are). Then you time the laps. And then you divide the distance by the time...and it should tell you how many feet per second you go. Then if you want to know how many miles per hour you are going, you find out how many seconds are in an hour and multiply that by what you had feet per second. That tells you how many feet you went in an hour. To find the miles, you divide the number of feet per hour by 5,280. And that is how many miles per hour you have...Did I pass?
Grace Paris

Not quite. Look at what you wrote again. Hint: make sure the units come out right.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

>Not quite. Look at what you wrote again. Hint: make sure
>the units come out right.
>
>Howard Rush
>Bellevue, WA


Howard,
If I had a quarter for every time I told her to show her work..... She missed the length of the flyer's arm and the inboard wing as well.
John

John>


And does the pilot pivot on his armpit or the center of his body ??? add another foot ??? And it's not the length of the inboard wing but the length of the leadouts from wing centerline or fuse centerline ???
Greg L. Bahrman

But, from what exact spot on the aircraft are we calculating this speed? That will make a considerable difference in both the percievd and actual speed.... And let us not forget the mass/ distance/ energy equation which is an absolute neccessity since it's relative to everything.

I've been up all night because it's illegal for me to drive today since I;m out of hours and I'm taking off at midnight so I can go to the last day of the Toledo show. I hope something's left. I think I'm punchy. Goodnight all.

Bob

Always set things up so the units come out right. If the units are not right, someting is wrong. Of course, the units being right does not guarentee that nothing is wrong.

>Not quite. Look at what you wrote again. Hint: make sure
>the units come out right.
>
>Howard Rush
>Bellevue, WA

OOPPSS...it was supposed to be just 2(pi)r...I dot area instead of circumference. Good eye.
Grace Paris

>>Not quite. Look at what you wrote again. Hint: make
>sure
>>the units come out right.
>>
>>Howard Rush
>>Bellevue, WA
>
>OOPPSS...it was supposed to be just 2(pi)r...I dot area
>instead of circumference. Good eye.
>Grace Paris

The point Howard was getting at was the the squared term suggests a result for an area. Of course you recall that area of a circle is pi*r^2 and circumference is 2*pi*r. What do you think an r^3 term will buy you?

I dont know. DO tell.

Kids these days are so two-dimensional.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

>Kids these days are so two-dimensional.
>
>Howard Rush
>Bellevue, WA

Howard,
I was in a mechanics of materials class and we had a student ask the instructor if he was talking about square area or cubic area. The instructor said that he should rush down to the admissions office while he could still recover some of his tuition. It was probably 10 minutes before we were all composed enough to continue. Boy school was fun...
John

Grace,
The point on this one is that an r term will yield a length, an r^2 term will yield area (length x length) and an r^3 term will yield a volume (length x length x length). Sometimes you will come across things where you don't know what the exact answer may be or if you have an equation set up properly, but knowing your units can help steer you in the right direction.
Pop.

>2 times pi times the square of the
>radius(how long your lines are).

Additional (probably worthless but oh-so-clever) hint - I think this problem can be solved WITHOUT resorting to the use of the A scale on your slide rule.

So, as a sanity check, 67 feet (63 foot lines, 2 and half feet of wing, and a foot an a half of arm) and 5.3 seconds:

2*pi*r^2/t = 2*3.14*67*67/5.3 ~= 28200/5.3 = 5320 somethings???

Brett

The measure of the radius as usually figured is from the handle to the centerline of the airplane. For stunt it is reasonable to add in the length of the arm, but no need to add in the wing length.

So r is reasonably 63 ft + 1.5 feet = 64.5. So, (64.5/5.3)4.28 = 52MPH.

>The measure of the radius as usually figured is from the
>handle to the centerline of the airplane. For stunt it is
>reasonable to add in the length of the arm, but no need to add
>in the wing length.
>

Line length is usually specified eyelet-to-eyelet in stunt, that's what I assumed for Grace's question. When I say I am flying on 63' lines, that's 63 feet from the center of one eyelet to the center of the other.

Brett

Yes, now that you point it out, that is how we do it. I was being nostalgic for the racing days.

OK, (67/5.3)4.28 = 54 MPH.

I guess what I think about most when I'm flying stunt is what tweak I can make to improve how the airplane flies. Then there's trying to figure out what the wind is doing and what to do about it. Meanwhile, I try to remember where I am in the pattern and what my coach told me about each maneuver when I come to it.

Combat is a different matter. It is like fast chess.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

>I guess what I think about most when I'm flying stunt is what
>tweak I can make to improve how the airplane flies. Then
>there's trying to figure out what the wind is doing and what
>to do about it. Meanwhile, I try to remember where I am in
>the pattern and what my coach told me about each maneuver when
>I come to it.
>
>Combat is a different matter. It is like fast chess.
>
>Howard Rush
>Bellevue, WA


Fast chess while relying just on instinct, instead of strategy

Combat requires thinking. You can develop instinct through experience, but it only gets you so far. You need to identify and exploit your opponent's weaknesses and his airplane's flaws, which you discover through a series of experiments during a match while avoiding being predictable yourself. Often the outcome of a match depends on who can concentrate the most intensely.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

>Combat requires thinking. You can develop instinct through
>experience, but it only gets you so far. You need to identify
>and exploit your opponent's weaknesses and his airplane's
>flaws, which you discover through a series of experiments
>during a match while avoiding being predictable yourself.
>Often the outcome of a match depends on who can concentrate
>the most intensely.
>
>Howard Rush
>Bellevue, WA


I have flown a combat ship once before even though I think it was a trainer (foam wing, adn I thinkthe guy who let me fly it said that) I have always wanted to try combat out, it looks really fun and gets your blood pumping.

>
>Combat is a different matter. It is like fast chess.
>
>Howard Rush
>Bellevue, WA

Yeah Howard....Mostly luck!


Randy C

A local stunt flyer was blaming his score on an ill wind. I told him that in combat, both flyers get the same wind at the same time. That's why stunt is all luck.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

You learn lots of things about how planes fly flying combat that will take next to forever to learn if you do the typical stunt progression- Ringmaster, Nobler, then something big with a pipe on it. Take a tip from how the military trains- when training is bloodless combat, combat is bloody training. Flying a gorgeous plane that took hours and hours to build can make you too cautious to learn how to fly it. If you don't crash at least once a year, you aren't practicing hard enough.

The first time my wife saw me crash she said afterwards, "well, I guess every time you launch a plane kiss it good bye first!" Truer words were never spoken.

Stunt is all skill, while combat is all reflexes.
Grace Pari

>Stunt is all skill, while combat is all reflexes.
>Grace Paris

I see you have not flown combat.....

>>Stunt is all skill, while combat is all reflexes.
>>Grace Paris
>
>I see you have not flown combat.....

I'd like to try combat in competition, it does look very fun.

Are you coming to the Nats?

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

"Combat is a different matter. It is like fast chess."

I coined it as "control line martial arts."

Norm

Well Grace,

For me its the other way around. Modeling has made me what I am in many ways. In school, I had no use for algebra, physics, etc, but when I got serious about competing and understanding structures and some minor bit of aerodynamics, those subjects that bored me to distraction became wonderous methods for solving problems. They carried over into my adult life and turned into a career and have served me well. So genius or not, modeling gave me the drive to learn things I otherwise would have ignored and in learning those things discovered a way to make my living and enjoy it at the same time.

Now being mad on the other hand is something I have many times been accused of, probably with sound basis.


Randy Ryan <><
AMA 8500
SAM 36
BO all my own M's

>For me its the other way around. Modeling has made me what I
>am in many ways. In school, I had no use for algebra, physics,
>etc, but when I got serious about competing and understanding
>structures and some minor bit of aerodynamics, those subjects
>that bored me to distraction became wonderous methods for
>solving problems. They carried over into my adult life and
>turned into a career and have served me well. So genius or
>not, modeling gave me the drive to learn things I otherwise
>would have ignored and in learning those things discovered a
>way to make my living and enjoy it at the same time.
>

Me too. Although I was already genetically inclined towards engineering, modeling of various sorts certainly spurred my interests in the underlying mathematics and physics, in which I remain gainfully employed.

Brett

>
>>For me its the other way around. Modeling has made me what
>I
>>am in many ways. In school, I had no use for algebra,
>physics,
>>etc, but when I got serious about competing and
>understanding
>>structures and some minor bit of aerodynamics, those
>subjects
>>that bored me to distraction became wonderous methods for
>>solving problems. They carried over into my adult life
>and
>>turned into a career and have served me well. So genius
>or
>>not, modeling gave me the drive to learn things I
>otherwise
>>would have ignored and in learning those things discovered
>a
>>way to make my living and enjoy it at the same time.
>>
>
> Me too. Although I was already genetically inclined towards
>engineering, modeling of various sorts certainly spurred my
>interests in the underlying mathematics and physics, in which
>I remain gainfully employed.
>
> Brett

Brett,

I had the same inclination but it took real problem solving to overtake my "intuitive" approach, although my intuitive methods usually produce pretty good results.


Randy Ryan <><
AMA 8500
SAM 36
BO all my own M's

I'm with Brett on this:

You needn't be *mad* ... but *obsessive* surely helps.

Mike Keville

Talking about mad en obsessive.. When I walk around in supermarkets, (e.g. Walmart in the US, Carrefour in Belgium or Shanghai) I look at certain kitchen stuff or decorating hardware and I always imagine firstly how these things and bits might be usefull in my PA hobby. (E.g. some small nylon parts could act as the sliding block of a adjustable lead out, something else might be a great start for a belcrank....) At the same time my right hand is rhytmically giving "up control" as if I am flying consecutive square loops. (Sometimes triagles, but then the rhytm is different...) Do I need a doctor? Or is this normal behaviour for us?

As you probably know Grace. Most of the stuff posted gets into the BS category real quick. It is the best thing that most of us are an expert at and the bigger you can explaine something the more content there is that can be taken out and not entirely confuse the explanation that is suposed too be explanied in this particular Post. Now this is my opinion alone and I do not represent any of the other people that post on this forum. AND besides I have now confused my brain ito thinking I have some kind of explanation which I don't.

I hope I have made this completly clear so you don't have to ask again. You are welcome. The old stunt pilot from the past. Leo:@

>I'm with Brett on this:
>
>You needn't be *mad* ... but *obsessive* surely helps.
>
>Mike Keville

Mike, some see obsessive as mad!


Randy Ryan <><
AMA 8500
SAM 36
BO all my own M'

Same here. Trig to me was just memorizing how and where to apply tables until I studied AC electricity...then it all made sense.

George

Grace, Stunt flying is just like playing blues guitar, (all you heavy metal cats leave me alone LOL). I used to go to the clubs and for the life of me could not figure out how they were doing it. They would plug that "Strat" or Gibson into a Fender twin reverb and man, it seemed like magic was coming out. Next thing you know, here comes the big applause.

Control line stunt, like the blues, has a certain "improvisational" quality to it. You are seeking to impart your "style" on the judges. Both require practice,committment and discipline. The interesting thing about both of them is you can't really calculate your way to a performance. You just have to practice until the performance becomes intuitive.

My father could not figure how I could build those complex airplanes at such a young age. I seemed to have been born with the ability to get inside this medium at a young age. Blues guitar and stunt are so complementary because you cannot do it without "getting inside the medium". This is the key; you must develop the ability to "immerse" yourself within that particular activity.

There are just certain things in your life that you will not be denied!! In my case, control line stunt and electric blues guitar have to happen. No compromise about this, they have to happen!!! Control Line stunt ships must be built and flown, and I have to have my blues, that is all there is to it.

I can tell you with almost certainly, that if you pursue control line stunt as a life long hobby, you will not regret it. The quality and the caliber of the people, and the mental, physical, and psychological capabilities it imparts to you are almost without peer.

>
>I have been thinking about all the elements that are tossed
>into flying...Like you do math in your head. Say you have a 5
>second lap time and then you have 60 foot lines, how fast are
>you going? And you have to have some mad precision in
>building and flying. You have to measure stuff out, weigh
>things and there is some special stuff you need to do to make
>an airfoil, if designing a plane.
>So do you have to be really smart while flying? Are each and
>every one of you mad genius' with an airplane obsession?
>
>Note: If you look back on some of the earlier posts of people
>asking for some info on something not too significant, a
>couple guys go all out and write mini-novels of info. I think
>some of you should go write a book of arguments..
>
>Grace Paris

Hi Grace, you've got it backwards, You do not have to be a mad genius
to fly, you have to be a mad genius to design and build.

Tony G(Ex Combat Flyer that gets it.)

Don't know anything about "mad genius"...
But it sure helps to be a "fun junkie"

Stunt is easy

Stunt is easy if you are really brave!

>Stunt is easy.

That's what I keep hearing. Funny how it takes so long to master something as simple as this, though.

Brett

Howard borrowed my pocket slide rule once to figure out a fox36 on a Nemesis speed. Or did I just date both of us?