Hello Gang,
Well, I was there, hoping to get into the contest. But, it was not to be
since Both of my Micro HLG frequencies were already taken. So I just sat
back and watched. Here are MY opinions!
First, I agree with Tom Hoopes. He had a very interesting contest that was
essentially an elimination event, and yes, it was a spectator contest.
At the risk of starting the discussion, the comments on RCSE have spawned
the old arguments again of thermal duration, versus sailplane performance.
The events Tom ran were much like an F3B equivalent contest, while other HLG
contests are more toward the thermal events we normally fly. In the latter,
the flights are mere qualifications, while in Tom's contest we actually saw
some performance requirements.
While standing at my ScrollSander table, people would come by and ask about
my Itch MHLG, and I would get into a discussion of how high people were
throwing their HLGs. I stood back and asked "How high is the American
flag?" If you were there you know the flag, and how it was toppled by the
night flying Zagis! Anyway, the concensus of everyone that I spoke with was
that it was 34-36 ft tall. I then asked how much higher the HLG guys were
throwing their planes over the flag. The MAX was half again as high. So
with these measurements in mind the height the HLGs were reaching was in the
range of 50-55 ft. This is a far cry from the 70 ft or above people have
posted previously on RSCE. I want to point out that a number of the HLG hot
shots were throwing their planes, and as always they threw very hard. It
was a contest, after All!
Next I evalauted some of the designs and saw 4 general schools of HLG
theory. 1) The non-stallable floaters: Logic types, and small long tail
boom tailed designs; 2) The shorter coupled Encore, Maple leaf designs, 3)
A side-arm wing tip design, 4) and the standard polyhedral R/E ships.
Granted, the contest was a more all around performance contest, rather than
a throwing duel, thermaling show, and an attempt to get back to the landing
spot contest.
What I saw were ships that were designed for one task, or one type of a
series of tasks, with different types of flying. Personally I would not
expect to see Joe fly a Long tailed plane, as he may be looking for a
different type of performance. Joe, if you are out there, I am not trying
to speak for you in any way! With the Logic type planes, I saw launches and
leveling out of the planes into the wind. They stopped their forward
lfight and hung there. When they turned downwind they floated along,
however when they turned back upwind, they stopped again. They did not
stall as we would normally call a stall, since the tail could never get the
angle of attack of the wing up sufficiently for the plane to stall. Rather,
in my opinion they mushed. They could hang in a thermal and, with the barn
door type flapperons they used , they could turn. The side arm launched
plane was interesting, and was probably thrown the highest, (55ft), however
it weighed a bit more. I tried to throw my Micro like that for grins, and
the plane would not right itself well for the throw. The side arm plane had
a large vertical fin, and a high degree of wing sweep, which lends itself to
more stability and dihedral effects. The Encore type planes, were
responsive aileron ships, low cambered airfoils and could keep the speed up
when pointed into the wind. The poly ships were the normal poly ship
designs with typical generic flying capabilities.
Personally I would want a HLG that could search the air if required, rather
than rely upon others to help find air. I recall a famous outddoor HLG
champ who visited our flying field in Southern Cal many, many years ago,
Bill Blanchard. He had an arm! When he visited he took a look at my HLG,
which I flew in Dave Thornburg's HLG contest to 3rd place, and made a few
suggestions on both the throw and the plane. I made those adjustments right
there at the field, and got about 8 ft higher on all my throws. To date I
haven't seen those adjustments used on any of the HLGs. Anyway, Mr.
Blanchard had a style and could throw a plane higher than anyone, and had
his plane trimmed to fly better than anyone, so he would just stand around
and wait either until you threw, in which case he out launched then out flew
you, OR, he would go scampering across the field before you even nknew it to
throw into the thermal air he saw. The scamperig may be seen in some
current pilots. Some pilots may do that with HLG now, but this reflects
only dead air time from a high launch. Here again we see that the higher
you launch, the longer you stay up. Sounds just like the evolution of F3B
way back when!
This may be rambling on, but what I see is the arguement for changing rules,
events or whatever, to make you more competitive. It's the argument all
over again of the thermal qualification flight for the spot landing which
determines the winner type contest. Same story, same lousy arguments.
Whatever format you choose, the same pilots will be there to give you a run
for you money.
I do not know how Tom scored the contest. I know there was an all up last
down type round. There was a distance task, and there was a speed task.
Which should come first really depended upon how long the round needed to
take to run. Say there were 30 contestants, well, running 30 through a
speed or distance task my be tiresome, but running 10 through is easier.
Many fly HLG golf type events as alternatives, and some just keep the fun
stuff easy, like seeing how many loops and hand catches could be donein a
row on a throw. I know that in prevous events at earlier Visalia HLG
contests, we had to loop the plane then catch it at the 20 second mark. I
wonder now if the logic type designs would have to be thrown into a loop,
since they may not be able to do it from level flight.
If we run one type of contest then HLGs will be designed for that type of
contest. HLG diversity will be the survival of the fittest HLG for the
event, or from the other side, the least disasterous HLG change will
prevail.
I, for one, intend to have a MHLG which will outlaunch and stay up longer.
Such a goal is an ambitious undertaking!
Hats off to Tom for a very interesting contest!
See you at the field.
Chris Adams
http://www.scrollsander.com
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
