Old timers really had to learn to fly

**Cribbs74** Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:22 pm

This thread is more related to CL, but Kim's pulse radio exploits make it seem like RC was a tad on the rough side at first.

I have been flying CL continuously for 3 years now and boy was the learning curve steep!

I tend to wander back and forth from OTS to modern PA stunters and can really feel and see the difference. I have seen some very seasoned pilots do a full pattern with some pretty antique planes and it made me think about how hard it must have been to master CL stunt back in the 50's/60's

CL has come a long way, while I can do most of the same stunts with a Ringmaster as I can with a Cardinal, I find it's so much easier with modern airframes. The newer stuff does what you tell it to the instant you ask whereas the older designs you provide subtle input and hope for the best.

Does anyone else fly Old designs and new? If so do you notice a difference in the quality of flight?

Ken Cook Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:47 am

Old designs were plagued with thin wings and narrow spans. They stall in the maneuvers and therefore needed a lot of speed which period engines couldn't deliver. In addition, they used close coupled control surfaces and were generally overweight. The OTS pattern is not one that demands a lot of momentum to keep things looking the same. The planes are already handicapped therefore they can't properly perform a PAMPA pattern. Certain models of that era were different. This is why you see the OTS guys flying the same models, The Humongous, Jamison Special etc. These had larger than normal for the time wingspans with thicker airfoils.

The real test of the plane and your patience is when you introduce the bonus points for period correct engines. This is where you throw your handle across the circle and throw a tantrum. Rusty posted his flying experience with Bob Zambelli at Fort Jax. Bob uses a OK .60 in the Viking. The video presented a nice flying plane and the engine was on song for the video. A few weeks later at Huntersville, nothing. The engine wouldn't start and all the variables were correct in order but no run. I still haven't asked him what the problem was.

Old designs with the exception of few just don't track or fly correctly. Don't believe what you read in the old magazines in regards to the way these old models fly. The editor's were like car salesman. The fact that you can use modern engines on old designs is what changed the playing field.Garden State Circle Burners have been monumental in OTS rules. A modern engine develops enough power (with reserve) to keep things chugging along.

I've flown a lot of old time designs and while I feel they're neat and interesting I do like the modern stuff. We were recently flying a Drone .29 diesel on a late 40's design plane which the name escapes me. Our entire club flew the plane and a few of us even managed flying it inverted which was pretty amazing. The plane however could loop fairly well assuming you nursed it through. Ken

**Cribbs74** Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:51 am

Ken,

I am really fond of the classic era designs as by that time they starting figuring things out and ships flew a lot better. That era gives you the best of both worlds.

Interesting that you mentioned engine choices. I think you are spot on and that modern engines do make a huge difference in older designs.

Mind you sometimes the older ones do work well in certain airframes.

I really wish I had something in 1/2A that could lumber along like the big birds do. It seems that I will have to settle for high speed runs as there is just not enough torque to allow them to slow down.

ian1954 Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:56 am

Control line flying didn't really take off in the UK until after the war in 1947.

I have a little book "Control Line Flying" by R.H.Warring that was published in 1948. It is dated but has some gems of wisdom.

Old timers really had to learn to fly Silk_a10

Old timers really had to learn to fly Silk_a10

One of them is the precis on sport vs stunt models.

Old timers really had to learn to fly Silk_a11

The whole book provides examples of the learning curve that old timers went through developing the hobby.

fredvon4 Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:26 pm

"Learning curve" ah yes I think, as a young lad, I progressed fairly fast, mostly due to crappy plastic stuff that only stayed in the air by shear will of the pilot....think any Cox RTF in the 60s.

Learning about .19 or .35 balsa airplanes and how easy they were to "build" (even with time consuming silk n dope coverings) had a dramatic effect on my "piloting". And had the added benefit of learning how to construct a kit to be both light and durable. (Thank you dad) as well as fly them competently.

Of course by the 60s (when I started); what Cribbs is alluding to had already turned into history.

I, like thousands of kids, got to leap forward exponentially because we had fathers, older school chums, or great magazine stories to guild us past many of the frustrations of those just a few years older.

Interesting as I now learn about some of my C/L heroes, like Wooten or Mathis and similar competitors....they were teenagers at the time not too much older than I was. It would be great if I could say I too was a pioneer. But truth is I was good at reading, listening, observing...and developed the fine skill of imitation

35 years later, much is the same, as each of you here on this forum contributes to my continued imitation and increasing knowledge and competence

Thank you Jacob and ALL forum contributors!

Sponsored content

Old timers really had to learn to fly

Old timers really had to learn to fly

Re: Old timers really had to learn to fly

Re: Old timers really had to learn to fly

Re: Old timers really had to learn to fly

Re: Old timers really had to learn to fly

Re: Old timers really had to learn to fly