Gary Hubler

[wingman]

Well, Gary arrived at Stead with Mariah, saying as usual "We've been really busy this year and haven't had a chance to do much with the airplane this year...". As usual, he ran flawlessly and very fast.

I was awfully pleased to see that he got to race Bad Attitude on Friday this year -- keeps his unlimited ticket up to date, so he's ready next year.

Neal

[On Site Grafix]

Re: Gary Hubler

Mariah is one very beautiful sky ride. . . great photo too, I'm jealous!

[Peashooter]

Re: Gary Hubler

Mariah is amazing. There are a lot of F1s that "look" faster, but so far, none that "are" faster. (yet)

[tex-fan]

Re: Gary Hubler

I looked at the race speeds on RARA.com for the gold this year. 257 mph for Gary Hubler, 2nd was 254 mph for Daid Hoover, and 3rd was 247 mph for Charlie Greer. Those are some tight racing boys there! I've never been to the races, but it sure seems to me that the F1 racers [all the classes really] are sure some awsome pilots. I sure hope to get to the races some day.

[Victor Archer]

Re: Gary Hubler

Excellent photo Neal!!!

[wingman]

Re: Gary Hubler

Thanks...

Yes, big heavy airplane, sizeable pilot -- but a great wing , wonderful engine, and great pilot. A winning combination for the moment. These guys researched and built this wing themselves, back around 1990. It and the famous Nemesis wing are probably the best IF1 wings ever built. Sometimes it can pay off to go against the conventional wisdom, which was that thin wings were the way to go...

Neal

[BillRo]

Re: Gary Hubler

I don't know if you are aware ((RARA did not notice it seems) but Gary beat Jon Sharp's "Nemesis" race record in the Gold race on Sunday. Since I don't believe in Tom Gribbin's calclated course length I use the measured length of 3.1195 miles for the short course. Sharp's record was 5m 58.41sec for 8 laps (249.904 m/h) set in 1995. Gary took 5m 57.132 (251.563 m/h). His plane may be heavy but it is lighter than "Endeavor" and gains 4 sec from takeoff to the course. He was also 0.5sec quicker per lap than Hoover on Sunday.

Before Jon, the record was held by John Parker in American Special. It was a different course length but the speed was 249.065 m/h, set in 1980.

Jon still holds the IF1 qual record of 263.188 m/h set in 1999.

BillRo

[Apteryx]

Re: Gary Hubler

It and the famous Nemesis wing are probably the best IF1 wings ever built. Neal

.....and....and....

Oh there, but for a few little (Sharp) engine secrets....

Paul

[wingman]

Re: Gary Hubler

LOL! Paul, With any luck your wing will be legendary too some day. First you guys need to beat Gary.

Other than coming in second, what did David think of the airplane with a better motor this year? Is he happy with his choice of wing profile? I know it was a bit of a different choice from some other projects.

Sounds like you know that Gary has had some input from the Nemesis engine guys, as well as apparently some things Dan Gilbert has come up with over the years.

Neal

[fenceliner01]

Re: Gary Hubler

Since I don't believe in Tom Gribbin's calclated course length I use the measured length of 3.1195 miles for the short course. BillRo

How does Tom's "Calculated" course length differ from the "measured" course length.? I thought the only conflicts were on the Unlimited course.

[wingman]

Re: Gary Hubler

Thanks Bill Rogers!

I had been wondering if Gary's speed was a record, but I'm not enough of a numbers guy (no s**t Sherlock!) to figure out the conversion. All in all not bad for a Cassutt !

I didn't realize That Mariah is actually lighter than Endeavor. Thanks also for the acceleration figures -- crucial data for these airplanes! There's an extremely interesting discussion By Biplane racer Jeff Lo over on WarbirdAeroPress of takeoff issues for those classes that use the racehorse start -- ie Formulas and Biplanes...

Neal

[FlyinLo]

Re: Gary Hubler

How does Tom's "Calculated" course length differ from the "measured" course length.? I thought the only conflicts were on the Unlimited course.

All of the courses now have their distance computed based on a certain G load turn rather than point to point pylon distances. They now used the actual distance flown using the "ideal" path at that G load, said G load varying from class to class. This generates longer distances, which in turn makes the posted speeds higher. One interesting side effect is that the "official" course lengths are now different between IF1 and Biplane even though we fly around the very same pylons. The computation used a higher G loading for the IF1 guys. Of course, the fastest biplanes are within about 10mph or less (and closing fast) of the fastest IF1 planes now...

[tex-fan]

Re: Gary Hubler

Hey pilots, in your F1s and your Biplanes, what are the G loads? I don't guess I've ever heard. Thanks,

[BillRo]

Re: Gary Hubler

All of the courses now have their distance computed based on a certain G load turn rather than point to point pylon distances. They now used the actual distance flown using the "ideal" path at that G load, said G load varying from class to class. This generates longer distances, which in turn makes the posted speeds higher. One interesting side effect is that the "official" course lengths are now different between IF1 and Biplane even though we fly around the very same pylons. The computation used a higher G loading for the IF1 guys. Of course, the fastest biplanes are within about 10mph or less (and closing fast) of the fastest IF1 planes now...

Jeff is fairly close on this but please do not use the word "actual". The calculated courses fairly arbitrarily use the speed/G loads used to calculate safety radii documented in the FAA Inspectors Handbook. These were developed by Jack Sweeney and a bunch of us, for the FAA in the early '80s. For IF1 that is 250 m/h and 3 G; for Bipes it is 210 m/h and 3 G. At a certain G, the flight path radius is determined by the speed. So in fact it is not the G load that varies for the different course lengths but the theoretical speed. This calculated course goes through the middle of the pylon so if you wanted an "actual" path you might want to add half a wing span or so.

If you really need a perfect flight path for design purposes Chris Luvara's GPS driven telemetry system provides an eye opening ovoid ground track. Actual tracks obviously vary with aircraft performance, traffic, weather (especially wind) and other variables. The only IF1 aircraft to fly the calculated course would have to fly a constant 3 G at 250 m/h in the turns and cut all the pylons. All of this IMHO makes it an unnecessary change except that it gave the ULs a 500 m/h lap.

If you must change the course length do it geometrically with a constant radius around the three pylons at each end and offset the track outside the pylon by 20'. That would provide a more accurate "actual" course than what we have now. Of course that would not work for the UL asymmetric course so you know why we have what we have

BillRo

[Apteryx]

Re: Gary Hubler

Other than coming in second, what did David think of the airplane with a better motor this year? Is he happy with his choice of wing profile? Neal

The motor was better then last year, but still has a little room for improvement. Not quite happy with the prop, but we'll need to get the engine dialed in, to see which direction to go on that. The exhaust system was never tweeked, so we're hoping to pick up some power there. (The dyno we use, can't handle the 4-1, but we think we can use another machine).
The design was run through the computer, and there's really nothing to change, aerodynamically speaking. The wing is very close to Nemisis', and David's pretty happy with it.
So it's just a matter of tweeking...

I want to put little motors on the wheels, so we can get off faster...

Paul