CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS
Curt Contrata, 6783 Nightwind Cir., Orlando FL 32818; E-mail: [email protected]
Current World Champion Bill Werwage’s beautiful P-47 with
bubble canopy. He flew this GeoBolt at the 2001 Nats.
Kevin Stewart and Dove in 2001. Stan Powell designed it in 1970s
and mentored Kevin during construction, trimming. Stewart photo.
On Top Five Day at 2003 Nats, Curt Contrata (R) assists as Randy
Smith prepares Katana for second official flight.
WE CAN CALL them trends or refer to them as eras; it does not
matter. They are a reality in CL Precision Aerobatics. Although it is
sometimes difficult to identify trends while they are happening, they
are easy to spot when one studies a few decades of our event’s
evolution. Look to any element of our equipment for examples of
trends; the three most obvious areas are finish, style, and power.
After the Classic cutoff date (December 31, 1969), we enjoyed
many years of beautifully inked models. These jewels included sleek
jets and some incredible semiscale masterpieces. There was a time
when all serious Stunt airplanes had to have white as a base color
and a different time when things went fluorescent.
Construction styles and techniques have also continued to
evolve, with one method showing more popularity at a given time
than others. In the 1970s, fully sheeting a built-up wing became an
accepted method of construction. That was soon followed by
sheeted foam wings. Foam wings continue to be a competitive
solution, but they are not enjoying the widespread popularity they
once did.
The quest for a perfect power source has been ongoing
throughout the event’s history. During a few different time periods,
one particular engine and/or system became widely used, dominated
the event, and became an accepted standard. There have been
several benchmark engines through the years, and piped engines
have dominated the event since the SuperTigre .60 era.
These trends are also somewhat regional; each corner of the
country seems to have chosen a slightly different solution for the
same set of problems. Not that all fliers in a particular region are
using the same approach, but there are a few pilots of influence in
each area that campaign a particular system, which by nature makes
it popular in that region.
This phenomenon should be no surprise; the same happens at
local flying fields across the country—even without the exposure to
outside competitive influences. If somebody in the club has
something that seems to work well, you can bet that another club
member is going to get one soon.
The successful programs are typically most influential as sources
of inspiration for other modelers. Seeing a high-performance model
fly in a contest and almost appear to be on rails is often enough to
seduce a modeler into building one for himself or herself.
Throughout our history, competition has driven the trends,
inspired modelers, and pushed the development of new equipment
and the refinement of what already existed. Most methods and
materials that are common in the construction of intermediate
models today were developed for top-level competition in an effort
to find better solutions.
We are currently lucky to have so many great designs and power
options available to us. Perhaps the only real downside is that there
are too many choices. It is easy for a flier who wants to advance in
the event to get confused and make the wrong choices when
deciding which program to follow.
When you are ready to consider a new
program, carefully watch the best examples
of each approach and try to be as objective
as possible. See with your own eyes, and do
not be influenced when people try to tell
you what you are seeing. Know the
shortcomings of your own equipment, and
pay particular attention to those same
problem areas when observing other
programs.
Since several different approaches are
being used successfully in competition these
days, it is easier than ever to find one that
suits your particular style, ability, and needs.
Changing to the wrong established program
can easily cost you a season of competitive
flying, so make sure you choose the right
program for you.
The AMA Nats presents the perfect
opportunity to observe all of the different
programs, in every weather condition. If you
attend the Nats with this purpose, pay
particular attention not only to the official
flights, but to what the various competitors
are doing during their practice sessions—it
can be quite revealing.
If it takes a year to build a competitive
model, it is hard for any of us to admit when
it has been a wasted effort. Since the better
pilots can sometimes overcome their
equipment’s shortcomings, it is easy for
other modelers to be mistakenly influenced
by systems that appear to work well. Your
competition will seldom admit the
inadequacies of their equipment, so be
especially careful when signing on to a
program with only a handful of followers.
This is why the practice sessions can be
so educational. It is the time when fliers are
not acting cool for the judges and are being
completely natural by freely and honestly
expressing their frustrations about their
equipment. Problems don’t usually make it
into print anywhere, and nobody talks about
their difficulties on game day.
The model and/or engine that a
competitor will use is often not his/her
best choice. This happens for a number
of reasons, ranging from having a wing
lying around that needed to go into
something to getting a great deal on an
engine. Those are two of the worst
factors to consider when deciding what
to build and what to power it with.
Many of the models flown in
competition were not finished early enough
to allow sufficient time for trimming,
experimenting with power/propellers, and
evaluating objectively. I have seen many
modelers build airplanes with the intent of
trying two engines to decide which was the
best match, only to run out of time before
the evaluation process was finished, or even
started.
Running out of time before a contest is
never a good thing, and competitors should
be careful when deciding which is the right
model to fly in competition. The shiny,
unproven model with a new engine is the
wrong one to fly at an important contest, yet
it happens all the time.
Since building a full-blown Stunt aircraft
can take some people an entire season,
producing one competitive model per year
is a good average to maintain. With that in
mind, deciding to develop a new program
can set a competitor back several years.
Consider that the first model will be a
learning experience, the second will be a
refinement, and the third might be
competitive. That is three years of missed
competition while others were getting better
by refining their flying skills using
dependable, contest-proven equipment.
I realize that developing something on
their own is why some are involved in the
event. If that is the case, go for it. We just
never know how many years we will have
the opportunity to be competitive. If you
enjoy building pretty airplanes and being
competitive, it makes more sense to follow a
proven program.
To decide which program is right for
you, it helps if you have a mentor and/or
coach who are/is knowledgeable enough to
recognize your style and your limitations in
order to help you make that choice
correctly.
A number of fliers would like to be the
ones responsible for starting a trend, so
there is often some fairly heavy
campaigning on their part to attract disciples
to a new, unproven program. There can be a
great temptation to do this, but if you want
to remain competitive, I advise you to
follow a proven program and not to
experiment.
Since there is generally no more work
involved in building a competitive design
than an underpowered dog, it only makes
sense that you produce the most competitive
model you can. Good equipment never
hurts, and if you could fly a great model one
time, I promise it would change your life. It
is much more fun and much easier to fly
good equipment.
Does size really matter? Yes, it does.
Nothing is ever a win-win, though. Bigger
airplanes present better to the judges, and
they are more forgiving when combined
with bigger engines.
When I ran a piped PA .61 engine,
nothing was all that critical. Needle settings
were forgiving, propeller pitch had a small
window, and nitromethane content only
varied 2.5% throughout the year.
The downside was that there was more
surface area to be affected by the wind since
the model was larger. Although the engine
would pull the model through the maneuvers
effortlessly, even when I missed the wind by
a few degrees, I never cared for how hard
the model pulled when the wind was really
blowing. My bottoms in the wind were more
of a surprise than a controlled event.
The piped PA .40-powered model never
pulls excessively in the wind, and therefore I
am better able to finesse it through the
pattern when the wind is really blowing. It
does get blown around a little, but since it’s
smaller and lighter, it gets back on track
quicker and is less noticeable than with my
larger models.
The PA .40-powered aircraft penetrates
the wind better than the larger models and is
cleaner through maneuvers, but only if hit
correctly. If the entry point on a maneuver is
missed by a few degrees to the wind, it
becomes a bigger factor than when a larger
aircraft misses the wind. Most everything
else is slightly more critical, including
model weight, needle settings, propeller
pitch, nitromethane content, and the paint
scheme.
Both programs work extremely well,
while each satisfies a different style. Similar
to cars, the bigger ones give a smooth ride
but the little ones are a blast to drive. M
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/03
Page Numbers: 135,136,137,138,139
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/03
Page Numbers: 135,136,137,138,139
CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS
Curt Contrata, 6783 Nightwind Cir., Orlando FL 32818; E-mail: [email protected]
Current World Champion Bill Werwage’s beautiful P-47 with
bubble canopy. He flew this GeoBolt at the 2001 Nats.
Kevin Stewart and Dove in 2001. Stan Powell designed it in 1970s
and mentored Kevin during construction, trimming. Stewart photo.
On Top Five Day at 2003 Nats, Curt Contrata (R) assists as Randy
Smith prepares Katana for second official flight.
WE CAN CALL them trends or refer to them as eras; it does not
matter. They are a reality in CL Precision Aerobatics. Although it is
sometimes difficult to identify trends while they are happening, they
are easy to spot when one studies a few decades of our event’s
evolution. Look to any element of our equipment for examples of
trends; the three most obvious areas are finish, style, and power.
After the Classic cutoff date (December 31, 1969), we enjoyed
many years of beautifully inked models. These jewels included sleek
jets and some incredible semiscale masterpieces. There was a time
when all serious Stunt airplanes had to have white as a base color
and a different time when things went fluorescent.
Construction styles and techniques have also continued to
evolve, with one method showing more popularity at a given time
than others. In the 1970s, fully sheeting a built-up wing became an
accepted method of construction. That was soon followed by
sheeted foam wings. Foam wings continue to be a competitive
solution, but they are not enjoying the widespread popularity they
once did.
The quest for a perfect power source has been ongoing
throughout the event’s history. During a few different time periods,
one particular engine and/or system became widely used, dominated
the event, and became an accepted standard. There have been
several benchmark engines through the years, and piped engines
have dominated the event since the SuperTigre .60 era.
These trends are also somewhat regional; each corner of the
country seems to have chosen a slightly different solution for the
same set of problems. Not that all fliers in a particular region are
using the same approach, but there are a few pilots of influence in
each area that campaign a particular system, which by nature makes
it popular in that region.
This phenomenon should be no surprise; the same happens at
local flying fields across the country—even without the exposure to
outside competitive influences. If somebody in the club has
something that seems to work well, you can bet that another club
member is going to get one soon.
The successful programs are typically most influential as sources
of inspiration for other modelers. Seeing a high-performance model
fly in a contest and almost appear to be on rails is often enough to
seduce a modeler into building one for himself or herself.
Throughout our history, competition has driven the trends,
inspired modelers, and pushed the development of new equipment
and the refinement of what already existed. Most methods and
materials that are common in the construction of intermediate
models today were developed for top-level competition in an effort
to find better solutions.
We are currently lucky to have so many great designs and power
options available to us. Perhaps the only real downside is that there
are too many choices. It is easy for a flier who wants to advance in
the event to get confused and make the wrong choices when
deciding which program to follow.
When you are ready to consider a new
program, carefully watch the best examples
of each approach and try to be as objective
as possible. See with your own eyes, and do
not be influenced when people try to tell
you what you are seeing. Know the
shortcomings of your own equipment, and
pay particular attention to those same
problem areas when observing other
programs.
Since several different approaches are
being used successfully in competition these
days, it is easier than ever to find one that
suits your particular style, ability, and needs.
Changing to the wrong established program
can easily cost you a season of competitive
flying, so make sure you choose the right
program for you.
The AMA Nats presents the perfect
opportunity to observe all of the different
programs, in every weather condition. If you
attend the Nats with this purpose, pay
particular attention not only to the official
flights, but to what the various competitors
are doing during their practice sessions—it
can be quite revealing.
If it takes a year to build a competitive
model, it is hard for any of us to admit when
it has been a wasted effort. Since the better
pilots can sometimes overcome their
equipment’s shortcomings, it is easy for
other modelers to be mistakenly influenced
by systems that appear to work well. Your
competition will seldom admit the
inadequacies of their equipment, so be
especially careful when signing on to a
program with only a handful of followers.
This is why the practice sessions can be
so educational. It is the time when fliers are
not acting cool for the judges and are being
completely natural by freely and honestly
expressing their frustrations about their
equipment. Problems don’t usually make it
into print anywhere, and nobody talks about
their difficulties on game day.
The model and/or engine that a
competitor will use is often not his/her
best choice. This happens for a number
of reasons, ranging from having a wing
lying around that needed to go into
something to getting a great deal on an
engine. Those are two of the worst
factors to consider when deciding what
to build and what to power it with.
Many of the models flown in
competition were not finished early enough
to allow sufficient time for trimming,
experimenting with power/propellers, and
evaluating objectively. I have seen many
modelers build airplanes with the intent of
trying two engines to decide which was the
best match, only to run out of time before
the evaluation process was finished, or even
started.
Running out of time before a contest is
never a good thing, and competitors should
be careful when deciding which is the right
model to fly in competition. The shiny,
unproven model with a new engine is the
wrong one to fly at an important contest, yet
it happens all the time.
Since building a full-blown Stunt aircraft
can take some people an entire season,
producing one competitive model per year
is a good average to maintain. With that in
mind, deciding to develop a new program
can set a competitor back several years.
Consider that the first model will be a
learning experience, the second will be a
refinement, and the third might be
competitive. That is three years of missed
competition while others were getting better
by refining their flying skills using
dependable, contest-proven equipment.
I realize that developing something on
their own is why some are involved in the
event. If that is the case, go for it. We just
never know how many years we will have
the opportunity to be competitive. If you
enjoy building pretty airplanes and being
competitive, it makes more sense to follow a
proven program.
To decide which program is right for
you, it helps if you have a mentor and/or
coach who are/is knowledgeable enough to
recognize your style and your limitations in
order to help you make that choice
correctly.
A number of fliers would like to be the
ones responsible for starting a trend, so
there is often some fairly heavy
campaigning on their part to attract disciples
to a new, unproven program. There can be a
great temptation to do this, but if you want
to remain competitive, I advise you to
follow a proven program and not to
experiment.
Since there is generally no more work
involved in building a competitive design
than an underpowered dog, it only makes
sense that you produce the most competitive
model you can. Good equipment never
hurts, and if you could fly a great model one
time, I promise it would change your life. It
is much more fun and much easier to fly
good equipment.
Does size really matter? Yes, it does.
Nothing is ever a win-win, though. Bigger
airplanes present better to the judges, and
they are more forgiving when combined
with bigger engines.
When I ran a piped PA .61 engine,
nothing was all that critical. Needle settings
were forgiving, propeller pitch had a small
window, and nitromethane content only
varied 2.5% throughout the year.
The downside was that there was more
surface area to be affected by the wind since
the model was larger. Although the engine
would pull the model through the maneuvers
effortlessly, even when I missed the wind by
a few degrees, I never cared for how hard
the model pulled when the wind was really
blowing. My bottoms in the wind were more
of a surprise than a controlled event.
The piped PA .40-powered model never
pulls excessively in the wind, and therefore I
am better able to finesse it through the
pattern when the wind is really blowing. It
does get blown around a little, but since it’s
smaller and lighter, it gets back on track
quicker and is less noticeable than with my
larger models.
The PA .40-powered aircraft penetrates
the wind better than the larger models and is
cleaner through maneuvers, but only if hit
correctly. If the entry point on a maneuver is
missed by a few degrees to the wind, it
becomes a bigger factor than when a larger
aircraft misses the wind. Most everything
else is slightly more critical, including
model weight, needle settings, propeller
pitch, nitromethane content, and the paint
scheme.
Both programs work extremely well,
while each satisfies a different style. Similar
to cars, the bigger ones give a smooth ride
but the little ones are a blast to drive. M
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/03
Page Numbers: 135,136,137,138,139
CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS
Curt Contrata, 6783 Nightwind Cir., Orlando FL 32818; E-mail: [email protected]
Current World Champion Bill Werwage’s beautiful P-47 with
bubble canopy. He flew this GeoBolt at the 2001 Nats.
Kevin Stewart and Dove in 2001. Stan Powell designed it in 1970s
and mentored Kevin during construction, trimming. Stewart photo.
On Top Five Day at 2003 Nats, Curt Contrata (R) assists as Randy
Smith prepares Katana for second official flight.
WE CAN CALL them trends or refer to them as eras; it does not
matter. They are a reality in CL Precision Aerobatics. Although it is
sometimes difficult to identify trends while they are happening, they
are easy to spot when one studies a few decades of our event’s
evolution. Look to any element of our equipment for examples of
trends; the three most obvious areas are finish, style, and power.
After the Classic cutoff date (December 31, 1969), we enjoyed
many years of beautifully inked models. These jewels included sleek
jets and some incredible semiscale masterpieces. There was a time
when all serious Stunt airplanes had to have white as a base color
and a different time when things went fluorescent.
Construction styles and techniques have also continued to
evolve, with one method showing more popularity at a given time
than others. In the 1970s, fully sheeting a built-up wing became an
accepted method of construction. That was soon followed by
sheeted foam wings. Foam wings continue to be a competitive
solution, but they are not enjoying the widespread popularity they
once did.
The quest for a perfect power source has been ongoing
throughout the event’s history. During a few different time periods,
one particular engine and/or system became widely used, dominated
the event, and became an accepted standard. There have been
several benchmark engines through the years, and piped engines
have dominated the event since the SuperTigre .60 era.
These trends are also somewhat regional; each corner of the
country seems to have chosen a slightly different solution for the
same set of problems. Not that all fliers in a particular region are
using the same approach, but there are a few pilots of influence in
each area that campaign a particular system, which by nature makes
it popular in that region.
This phenomenon should be no surprise; the same happens at
local flying fields across the country—even without the exposure to
outside competitive influences. If somebody in the club has
something that seems to work well, you can bet that another club
member is going to get one soon.
The successful programs are typically most influential as sources
of inspiration for other modelers. Seeing a high-performance model
fly in a contest and almost appear to be on rails is often enough to
seduce a modeler into building one for himself or herself.
Throughout our history, competition has driven the trends,
inspired modelers, and pushed the development of new equipment
and the refinement of what already existed. Most methods and
materials that are common in the construction of intermediate
models today were developed for top-level competition in an effort
to find better solutions.
We are currently lucky to have so many great designs and power
options available to us. Perhaps the only real downside is that there
are too many choices. It is easy for a flier who wants to advance in
the event to get confused and make the wrong choices when
deciding which program to follow.
When you are ready to consider a new
program, carefully watch the best examples
of each approach and try to be as objective
as possible. See with your own eyes, and do
not be influenced when people try to tell
you what you are seeing. Know the
shortcomings of your own equipment, and
pay particular attention to those same
problem areas when observing other
programs.
Since several different approaches are
being used successfully in competition these
days, it is easier than ever to find one that
suits your particular style, ability, and needs.
Changing to the wrong established program
can easily cost you a season of competitive
flying, so make sure you choose the right
program for you.
The AMA Nats presents the perfect
opportunity to observe all of the different
programs, in every weather condition. If you
attend the Nats with this purpose, pay
particular attention not only to the official
flights, but to what the various competitors
are doing during their practice sessions—it
can be quite revealing.
If it takes a year to build a competitive
model, it is hard for any of us to admit when
it has been a wasted effort. Since the better
pilots can sometimes overcome their
equipment’s shortcomings, it is easy for
other modelers to be mistakenly influenced
by systems that appear to work well. Your
competition will seldom admit the
inadequacies of their equipment, so be
especially careful when signing on to a
program with only a handful of followers.
This is why the practice sessions can be
so educational. It is the time when fliers are
not acting cool for the judges and are being
completely natural by freely and honestly
expressing their frustrations about their
equipment. Problems don’t usually make it
into print anywhere, and nobody talks about
their difficulties on game day.
The model and/or engine that a
competitor will use is often not his/her
best choice. This happens for a number
of reasons, ranging from having a wing
lying around that needed to go into
something to getting a great deal on an
engine. Those are two of the worst
factors to consider when deciding what
to build and what to power it with.
Many of the models flown in
competition were not finished early enough
to allow sufficient time for trimming,
experimenting with power/propellers, and
evaluating objectively. I have seen many
modelers build airplanes with the intent of
trying two engines to decide which was the
best match, only to run out of time before
the evaluation process was finished, or even
started.
Running out of time before a contest is
never a good thing, and competitors should
be careful when deciding which is the right
model to fly in competition. The shiny,
unproven model with a new engine is the
wrong one to fly at an important contest, yet
it happens all the time.
Since building a full-blown Stunt aircraft
can take some people an entire season,
producing one competitive model per year
is a good average to maintain. With that in
mind, deciding to develop a new program
can set a competitor back several years.
Consider that the first model will be a
learning experience, the second will be a
refinement, and the third might be
competitive. That is three years of missed
competition while others were getting better
by refining their flying skills using
dependable, contest-proven equipment.
I realize that developing something on
their own is why some are involved in the
event. If that is the case, go for it. We just
never know how many years we will have
the opportunity to be competitive. If you
enjoy building pretty airplanes and being
competitive, it makes more sense to follow a
proven program.
To decide which program is right for
you, it helps if you have a mentor and/or
coach who are/is knowledgeable enough to
recognize your style and your limitations in
order to help you make that choice
correctly.
A number of fliers would like to be the
ones responsible for starting a trend, so
there is often some fairly heavy
campaigning on their part to attract disciples
to a new, unproven program. There can be a
great temptation to do this, but if you want
to remain competitive, I advise you to
follow a proven program and not to
experiment.
Since there is generally no more work
involved in building a competitive design
than an underpowered dog, it only makes
sense that you produce the most competitive
model you can. Good equipment never
hurts, and if you could fly a great model one
time, I promise it would change your life. It
is much more fun and much easier to fly
good equipment.
Does size really matter? Yes, it does.
Nothing is ever a win-win, though. Bigger
airplanes present better to the judges, and
they are more forgiving when combined
with bigger engines.
When I ran a piped PA .61 engine,
nothing was all that critical. Needle settings
were forgiving, propeller pitch had a small
window, and nitromethane content only
varied 2.5% throughout the year.
The downside was that there was more
surface area to be affected by the wind since
the model was larger. Although the engine
would pull the model through the maneuvers
effortlessly, even when I missed the wind by
a few degrees, I never cared for how hard
the model pulled when the wind was really
blowing. My bottoms in the wind were more
of a surprise than a controlled event.
The piped PA .40-powered model never
pulls excessively in the wind, and therefore I
am better able to finesse it through the
pattern when the wind is really blowing. It
does get blown around a little, but since it’s
smaller and lighter, it gets back on track
quicker and is less noticeable than with my
larger models.
The PA .40-powered aircraft penetrates
the wind better than the larger models and is
cleaner through maneuvers, but only if hit
correctly. If the entry point on a maneuver is
missed by a few degrees to the wind, it
becomes a bigger factor than when a larger
aircraft misses the wind. Most everything
else is slightly more critical, including
model weight, needle settings, propeller
pitch, nitromethane content, and the paint
scheme.
Both programs work extremely well,
while each satisfies a different style. Similar
to cars, the bigger ones give a smooth ride
but the little ones are a blast to drive. M
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/03
Page Numbers: 135,136,137,138,139
CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS
Curt Contrata, 6783 Nightwind Cir., Orlando FL 32818; E-mail: [email protected]
Current World Champion Bill Werwage’s beautiful P-47 with
bubble canopy. He flew this GeoBolt at the 2001 Nats.
Kevin Stewart and Dove in 2001. Stan Powell designed it in 1970s
and mentored Kevin during construction, trimming. Stewart photo.
On Top Five Day at 2003 Nats, Curt Contrata (R) assists as Randy
Smith prepares Katana for second official flight.
WE CAN CALL them trends or refer to them as eras; it does not
matter. They are a reality in CL Precision Aerobatics. Although it is
sometimes difficult to identify trends while they are happening, they
are easy to spot when one studies a few decades of our event’s
evolution. Look to any element of our equipment for examples of
trends; the three most obvious areas are finish, style, and power.
After the Classic cutoff date (December 31, 1969), we enjoyed
many years of beautifully inked models. These jewels included sleek
jets and some incredible semiscale masterpieces. There was a time
when all serious Stunt airplanes had to have white as a base color
and a different time when things went fluorescent.
Construction styles and techniques have also continued to
evolve, with one method showing more popularity at a given time
than others. In the 1970s, fully sheeting a built-up wing became an
accepted method of construction. That was soon followed by
sheeted foam wings. Foam wings continue to be a competitive
solution, but they are not enjoying the widespread popularity they
once did.
The quest for a perfect power source has been ongoing
throughout the event’s history. During a few different time periods,
one particular engine and/or system became widely used, dominated
the event, and became an accepted standard. There have been
several benchmark engines through the years, and piped engines
have dominated the event since the SuperTigre .60 era.
These trends are also somewhat regional; each corner of the
country seems to have chosen a slightly different solution for the
same set of problems. Not that all fliers in a particular region are
using the same approach, but there are a few pilots of influence in
each area that campaign a particular system, which by nature makes
it popular in that region.
This phenomenon should be no surprise; the same happens at
local flying fields across the country—even without the exposure to
outside competitive influences. If somebody in the club has
something that seems to work well, you can bet that another club
member is going to get one soon.
The successful programs are typically most influential as sources
of inspiration for other modelers. Seeing a high-performance model
fly in a contest and almost appear to be on rails is often enough to
seduce a modeler into building one for himself or herself.
Throughout our history, competition has driven the trends,
inspired modelers, and pushed the development of new equipment
and the refinement of what already existed. Most methods and
materials that are common in the construction of intermediate
models today were developed for top-level competition in an effort
to find better solutions.
We are currently lucky to have so many great designs and power
options available to us. Perhaps the only real downside is that there
are too many choices. It is easy for a flier who wants to advance in
the event to get confused and make the wrong choices when
deciding which program to follow.
When you are ready to consider a new
program, carefully watch the best examples
of each approach and try to be as objective
as possible. See with your own eyes, and do
not be influenced when people try to tell
you what you are seeing. Know the
shortcomings of your own equipment, and
pay particular attention to those same
problem areas when observing other
programs.
Since several different approaches are
being used successfully in competition these
days, it is easier than ever to find one that
suits your particular style, ability, and needs.
Changing to the wrong established program
can easily cost you a season of competitive
flying, so make sure you choose the right
program for you.
The AMA Nats presents the perfect
opportunity to observe all of the different
programs, in every weather condition. If you
attend the Nats with this purpose, pay
particular attention not only to the official
flights, but to what the various competitors
are doing during their practice sessions—it
can be quite revealing.
If it takes a year to build a competitive
model, it is hard for any of us to admit when
it has been a wasted effort. Since the better
pilots can sometimes overcome their
equipment’s shortcomings, it is easy for
other modelers to be mistakenly influenced
by systems that appear to work well. Your
competition will seldom admit the
inadequacies of their equipment, so be
especially careful when signing on to a
program with only a handful of followers.
This is why the practice sessions can be
so educational. It is the time when fliers are
not acting cool for the judges and are being
completely natural by freely and honestly
expressing their frustrations about their
equipment. Problems don’t usually make it
into print anywhere, and nobody talks about
their difficulties on game day.
The model and/or engine that a
competitor will use is often not his/her
best choice. This happens for a number
of reasons, ranging from having a wing
lying around that needed to go into
something to getting a great deal on an
engine. Those are two of the worst
factors to consider when deciding what
to build and what to power it with.
Many of the models flown in
competition were not finished early enough
to allow sufficient time for trimming,
experimenting with power/propellers, and
evaluating objectively. I have seen many
modelers build airplanes with the intent of
trying two engines to decide which was the
best match, only to run out of time before
the evaluation process was finished, or even
started.
Running out of time before a contest is
never a good thing, and competitors should
be careful when deciding which is the right
model to fly in competition. The shiny,
unproven model with a new engine is the
wrong one to fly at an important contest, yet
it happens all the time.
Since building a full-blown Stunt aircraft
can take some people an entire season,
producing one competitive model per year
is a good average to maintain. With that in
mind, deciding to develop a new program
can set a competitor back several years.
Consider that the first model will be a
learning experience, the second will be a
refinement, and the third might be
competitive. That is three years of missed
competition while others were getting better
by refining their flying skills using
dependable, contest-proven equipment.
I realize that developing something on
their own is why some are involved in the
event. If that is the case, go for it. We just
never know how many years we will have
the opportunity to be competitive. If you
enjoy building pretty airplanes and being
competitive, it makes more sense to follow a
proven program.
To decide which program is right for
you, it helps if you have a mentor and/or
coach who are/is knowledgeable enough to
recognize your style and your limitations in
order to help you make that choice
correctly.
A number of fliers would like to be the
ones responsible for starting a trend, so
there is often some fairly heavy
campaigning on their part to attract disciples
to a new, unproven program. There can be a
great temptation to do this, but if you want
to remain competitive, I advise you to
follow a proven program and not to
experiment.
Since there is generally no more work
involved in building a competitive design
than an underpowered dog, it only makes
sense that you produce the most competitive
model you can. Good equipment never
hurts, and if you could fly a great model one
time, I promise it would change your life. It
is much more fun and much easier to fly
good equipment.
Does size really matter? Yes, it does.
Nothing is ever a win-win, though. Bigger
airplanes present better to the judges, and
they are more forgiving when combined
with bigger engines.
When I ran a piped PA .61 engine,
nothing was all that critical. Needle settings
were forgiving, propeller pitch had a small
window, and nitromethane content only
varied 2.5% throughout the year.
The downside was that there was more
surface area to be affected by the wind since
the model was larger. Although the engine
would pull the model through the maneuvers
effortlessly, even when I missed the wind by
a few degrees, I never cared for how hard
the model pulled when the wind was really
blowing. My bottoms in the wind were more
of a surprise than a controlled event.
The piped PA .40-powered model never
pulls excessively in the wind, and therefore I
am better able to finesse it through the
pattern when the wind is really blowing. It
does get blown around a little, but since it’s
smaller and lighter, it gets back on track
quicker and is less noticeable than with my
larger models.
The PA .40-powered aircraft penetrates
the wind better than the larger models and is
cleaner through maneuvers, but only if hit
correctly. If the entry point on a maneuver is
missed by a few degrees to the wind, it
becomes a bigger factor than when a larger
aircraft misses the wind. Most everything
else is slightly more critical, including
model weight, needle settings, propeller
pitch, nitromethane content, and the paint
scheme.
Both programs work extremely well,
while each satisfies a different style. Similar
to cars, the bigger ones give a smooth ride
but the little ones are a blast to drive. M
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/03
Page Numbers: 135,136,137,138,139
CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS
Curt Contrata, 6783 Nightwind Cir., Orlando FL 32818; E-mail: [email protected]
Current World Champion Bill Werwage’s beautiful P-47 with
bubble canopy. He flew this GeoBolt at the 2001 Nats.
Kevin Stewart and Dove in 2001. Stan Powell designed it in 1970s
and mentored Kevin during construction, trimming. Stewart photo.
On Top Five Day at 2003 Nats, Curt Contrata (R) assists as Randy
Smith prepares Katana for second official flight.
WE CAN CALL them trends or refer to them as eras; it does not
matter. They are a reality in CL Precision Aerobatics. Although it is
sometimes difficult to identify trends while they are happening, they
are easy to spot when one studies a few decades of our event’s
evolution. Look to any element of our equipment for examples of
trends; the three most obvious areas are finish, style, and power.
After the Classic cutoff date (December 31, 1969), we enjoyed
many years of beautifully inked models. These jewels included sleek
jets and some incredible semiscale masterpieces. There was a time
when all serious Stunt airplanes had to have white as a base color
and a different time when things went fluorescent.
Construction styles and techniques have also continued to
evolve, with one method showing more popularity at a given time
than others. In the 1970s, fully sheeting a built-up wing became an
accepted method of construction. That was soon followed by
sheeted foam wings. Foam wings continue to be a competitive
solution, but they are not enjoying the widespread popularity they
once did.
The quest for a perfect power source has been ongoing
throughout the event’s history. During a few different time periods,
one particular engine and/or system became widely used, dominated
the event, and became an accepted standard. There have been
several benchmark engines through the years, and piped engines
have dominated the event since the SuperTigre .60 era.
These trends are also somewhat regional; each corner of the
country seems to have chosen a slightly different solution for the
same set of problems. Not that all fliers in a particular region are
using the same approach, but there are a few pilots of influence in
each area that campaign a particular system, which by nature makes
it popular in that region.
This phenomenon should be no surprise; the same happens at
local flying fields across the country—even without the exposure to
outside competitive influences. If somebody in the club has
something that seems to work well, you can bet that another club
member is going to get one soon.
The successful programs are typically most influential as sources
of inspiration for other modelers. Seeing a high-performance model
fly in a contest and almost appear to be on rails is often enough to
seduce a modeler into building one for himself or herself.
Throughout our history, competition has driven the trends,
inspired modelers, and pushed the development of new equipment
and the refinement of what already existed. Most methods and
materials that are common in the construction of intermediate
models today were developed for top-level competition in an effort
to find better solutions.
We are currently lucky to have so many great designs and power
options available to us. Perhaps the only real downside is that there
are too many choices. It is easy for a flier who wants to advance in
the event to get confused and make the wrong choices when
deciding which program to follow.
When you are ready to consider a new
program, carefully watch the best examples
of each approach and try to be as objective
as possible. See with your own eyes, and do
not be influenced when people try to tell
you what you are seeing. Know the
shortcomings of your own equipment, and
pay particular attention to those same
problem areas when observing other
programs.
Since several different approaches are
being used successfully in competition these
days, it is easier than ever to find one that
suits your particular style, ability, and needs.
Changing to the wrong established program
can easily cost you a season of competitive
flying, so make sure you choose the right
program for you.
The AMA Nats presents the perfect
opportunity to observe all of the different
programs, in every weather condition. If you
attend the Nats with this purpose, pay
particular attention not only to the official
flights, but to what the various competitors
are doing during their practice sessions—it
can be quite revealing.
If it takes a year to build a competitive
model, it is hard for any of us to admit when
it has been a wasted effort. Since the better
pilots can sometimes overcome their
equipment’s shortcomings, it is easy for
other modelers to be mistakenly influenced
by systems that appear to work well. Your
competition will seldom admit the
inadequacies of their equipment, so be
especially careful when signing on to a
program with only a handful of followers.
This is why the practice sessions can be
so educational. It is the time when fliers are
not acting cool for the judges and are being
completely natural by freely and honestly
expressing their frustrations about their
equipment. Problems don’t usually make it
into print anywhere, and nobody talks about
their difficulties on game day.
The model and/or engine that a
competitor will use is often not his/her
best choice. This happens for a number
of reasons, ranging from having a wing
lying around that needed to go into
something to getting a great deal on an
engine. Those are two of the worst
factors to consider when deciding what
to build and what to power it with.
Many of the models flown in
competition were not finished early enough
to allow sufficient time for trimming,
experimenting with power/propellers, and
evaluating objectively. I have seen many
modelers build airplanes with the intent of
trying two engines to decide which was the
best match, only to run out of time before
the evaluation process was finished, or even
started.
Running out of time before a contest is
never a good thing, and competitors should
be careful when deciding which is the right
model to fly in competition. The shiny,
unproven model with a new engine is the
wrong one to fly at an important contest, yet
it happens all the time.
Since building a full-blown Stunt aircraft
can take some people an entire season,
producing one competitive model per year
is a good average to maintain. With that in
mind, deciding to develop a new program
can set a competitor back several years.
Consider that the first model will be a
learning experience, the second will be a
refinement, and the third might be
competitive. That is three years of missed
competition while others were getting better
by refining their flying skills using
dependable, contest-proven equipment.
I realize that developing something on
their own is why some are involved in the
event. If that is the case, go for it. We just
never know how many years we will have
the opportunity to be competitive. If you
enjoy building pretty airplanes and being
competitive, it makes more sense to follow a
proven program.
To decide which program is right for
you, it helps if you have a mentor and/or
coach who are/is knowledgeable enough to
recognize your style and your limitations in
order to help you make that choice
correctly.
A number of fliers would like to be the
ones responsible for starting a trend, so
there is often some fairly heavy
campaigning on their part to attract disciples
to a new, unproven program. There can be a
great temptation to do this, but if you want
to remain competitive, I advise you to
follow a proven program and not to
experiment.
Since there is generally no more work
involved in building a competitive design
than an underpowered dog, it only makes
sense that you produce the most competitive
model you can. Good equipment never
hurts, and if you could fly a great model one
time, I promise it would change your life. It
is much more fun and much easier to fly
good equipment.
Does size really matter? Yes, it does.
Nothing is ever a win-win, though. Bigger
airplanes present better to the judges, and
they are more forgiving when combined
with bigger engines.
When I ran a piped PA .61 engine,
nothing was all that critical. Needle settings
were forgiving, propeller pitch had a small
window, and nitromethane content only
varied 2.5% throughout the year.
The downside was that there was more
surface area to be affected by the wind since
the model was larger. Although the engine
would pull the model through the maneuvers
effortlessly, even when I missed the wind by
a few degrees, I never cared for how hard
the model pulled when the wind was really
blowing. My bottoms in the wind were more
of a surprise than a controlled event.
The piped PA .40-powered model never
pulls excessively in the wind, and therefore I
am better able to finesse it through the
pattern when the wind is really blowing. It
does get blown around a little, but since it’s
smaller and lighter, it gets back on track
quicker and is less noticeable than with my
larger models.
The PA .40-powered aircraft penetrates
the wind better than the larger models and is
cleaner through maneuvers, but only if hit
correctly. If the entry point on a maneuver is
missed by a few degrees to the wind, it
becomes a bigger factor than when a larger
aircraft misses the wind. Most everything
else is slightly more critical, including
model weight, needle settings, propeller
pitch, nitromethane content, and the paint
scheme.
Both programs work extremely well,
while each satisfies a different style. Similar
to cars, the bigger ones give a smooth ride
but the little ones are a blast to drive. M