Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Separate Racing from Airshow

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

    Originally posted by Race5 View Post
    Yeah, that "other" project is interesting for sure.
    Lear Solution?
    Eddie's Airplane Patch-Birthplace of the "Sonic Boom".......and I'm reminded every friggin' day!

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

      Originally posted by RAD2LTR View Post
      You say the fast unlimiteds aren't coming back. Okay, what about the Tsunami rebuild? Johnny is 100% going to race it if there are races to race. Then there is the Shockwave project. Both of those will be 480+ racers. There is also another project that is pretty bold. I can't say who is doing it, or what is being built, but if successful, will change the Unlimited class in a very big way. The paraphrased quote on that project from the owner is "It Better be faster than Shockwave" We have already seen one top Sport class racer move from Sport to Unlimited, there are others interested, and knowing their current levels of sponsorship, its not out of their grasp to build a fast Unlimited. Tiger has said that if someone shows up worth racing, Strega will be back. Well, I just gave you three examples of racers that will give Strega a run for its money. Granted, it will be 5+ years for any of those 3 to make an appearance, but its a little premature to write the Unlimiteds off. There is also the Yak project from Redding that is a wildcard at this point, but when its done, should be a 450+ racer. In the end, who needs Strega, Rare Bear and Voodoo really? Yep they are fast, nope they aren't racing for whatever reason. Do you need to go 490+ or can you have an awesome race where the top speed is 450? 430? Is it really about how fast they are going, or can you have some awesome racing at 430? Looking at the results over the past 40 years, there have been many awesome races with a top speed of around 440, so clearly the ability to run 490 is not what makes for an awesome year of racing.

      Lets be honest, you can't split the races and the airshow from each other. They have a symbiotic relationship. You take the racing away from the airshow, and you lose the crowd there for the other part. I think an evening airshow with some night runs, and other interesting stuff (tethered hot air balloons doing rides at night? If nothing else, it would be cool to see. Perhaps a slideshow on a building, more warbird rides, night aerobatic acts without fireworks.) could be a big draw. Get a jet truck out there doing runs in afterburner down the ramp. Military jets blasting around at twilight in full afterburner, that is always a memorable experience. (Get a B1 to blast out in full burner, I'd love to see that again.)

      The races can't be any shorter either. There simply isn't time. Yeah its a long week for everyone, but when you have a racer that just doesn't want to work right, every hour that can be spent to find and fix the issue is used. Take it out, test it, okay seems to be better, lets go fly it. Fly it, nope still not right, plane comes apart, people work late into the night, out to the ramp for a power run, nope, not happy back to the pit. That can be and has been the story for many teams over the years. They need the time to get things right. The guys who have everything go smoothly from start to finish, are lucky. Good for them, but that isn't how racing goes most of the time. 3 days of qualifying are needed, then some early racing by Thursday to get things rolling. Seriously, look at any major motorsports race. Its a week long deal to race on Sunday. IF1, Indy cars, WRC, heck, even vintage racing. I was one of those teams that needed all week to get the car right at the Rolex Monterey Historics in 2018. When I wasn't on the track, I was trying to figure out why the car wasn't working right, till WAY late at night. (It took me another year to figure out what the issue was, and it stumped all the really knowledgeable people as well.) From a spectator standpoint, this is sometimes tough to grasp. Okay, the plane doesn't work, stand down and enjoy the show. The trouble is, as a competitor, you can't just stand down and enjoy the show. You spent days, weeks, years getting your racer ready to run, you were accepted, you made it there and it kills you to not be able to go run at your best. So you end up spending every moment you can trying to get it right so that on Sunday, you can go out and run your best.

      The races evolved the way they did for a reason. The people racing need all week to get things just right. The races need filler between races so as to keep people interested. (Lets face it, people don't have the greatest attention span when nothing is going on.) The airshow is the filler. This is also why the Volvo precision driving group, car drops, jet car/truck ect work well. They aren't using airspace when the racers come down the chute. They do their thing, racers take the course, and by the time the start lap is ending, those ground based filler bits are clear and out of the way, and spectators attention is back on the racers coming around pylon 8 onto the front straight. Mixing military demos in can break up some of the racing just for a quick change of pace.

      In the end, you can have the most well done race week in history, but if no one knows about it, there will be empty seats and opportunity will be lost. This is on RARA to make sure they get the word out EVERYWHERE. Billboards, announcements at all airshows, a booth at the major ones. Marketing is the key, and that is what I don't see being done well. If locals don't know that a National Championship event is happening, then the marketing department has failed. Yep, it costs $ to do, but you can't make the $ if no one knows about the event.

      Will
      Great thoughts in total. Agreed on the fact that the airshow cannot just go away - it has to be there to make the economics work. My comment was simply to say that from my personal perspective and mine alone, if the economics supported a racing-only event, I would be fine with it. They do not, so how best to manage the event in total? That is where I think pushing the airshow acts to mid-afternoon and later has some potential. A discounted after 3p entry ticket MIGHT be very appealing to a demographic not represented on AAFO - the local, low to middle income family looking for something to take the kids to for 3-4 hours (but not all day) that has something fun or exciting like a twilight show. Maybe on Saturday and Sunday, have a couple of racers do an airshow act (as has been done at POF and other places) in the airshow block to whet the appetite of some newbies. Maybe not.

      In the end, all of that blood, sweat, and time you talk about can and would still be there. There would still be late night thrashes, early morning dawn patrols, and the same amount of flying Wednesday through Sunday. Yes, Monday and Tuesday quals would be impacted and I do not have enough insight into the realities around those days to know if they could be maintained but I doubt Owen would have suggested eliminating them if RARA was not having difficulty staffing and paying for those days. I do know racers would still be able to arrive the weekend before and work/fly those days - just without a clock or a sterile airspace. No, it is not the same but it is also not completely shutting down their ability to work towards Sunday.

      Regarding the dead time issue, I would say that, again from my perspective and mine alone, it will not be as large as what might be imagined. What is there I will gladly take to avoid some of the concerns I have witnessed trying to mesh two very different activities with very different needs and requirements. I also think the STOL class may provide some potential solutions here as well. It is still brand new in Reno years and I think there may be ways to structure their activities to fill in some of the larger gaps.

      My main thought on the impact not being as great as might be imagined: the airshow acts do not start until nearly midday anyway and are much lighter (or non-existent) earlier in the week. I just do not see the bifurcation being as big a deal from a user experience (spectator or racers) as compared to what it might open up. The one caveat is the pylon photogs and afternoon lighting. While I am not one and never will be, I am sympathetic to the loss. However, if the event is not made sustainable, they will not have anything to shoot anyway. Maybe a tweak to help mitigate is to let Wednesday and Thursday be racing only (they are or nearly are anyway) and run as previous. Then on Friday, have the twilight show to kick-off the airshow component and let the racing run at least a little closer to current times. Saturday and Sunday then follow something close to Owen's original idea.

      Just thinking out loud and trying to get a realistic vision of what might be.

      Finally - marketing is indeed key. I own my own business and when I get a client, much like racing, they are hooked for life. The key is getting those new clients and fans. Finding ways to put money in the marketing coffers - having the best product to generate revenue, containing costs, donations - is ultimately job one. While the total dollars involved is not small, RARA and the event are indeed a small business in most ways. By all indications they may have stopped, or nearly so, the hemorrhaging of the last decade. Now to rebuild year over year.

      James

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

        Originally posted by SpinB View Post
        Lear Solution?
        No. But.....

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

          Originally posted by Race5 View Post
          No. But.....
          Clearly folks on the forum know of the project so why does it remain so confidential? It would be nice to know more about exciting projects like this and shockwave. The unlimited class could use a boost in excitement, just curious for the rookie folks like me not in the know??any link to the Lear solution project as well?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

            Originally posted by Race5 View Post
            No. But.....
            Clearly folks on the forum know of the project so why does it remain so confidential? It would be nice to know more about exciting projects like this and shockwave. The unlimited class could use a boost in excitement, just curious for the rookie folks like me not in the know??any link to the Lear solution project as well?

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

              Originally posted by rforslund View Post
              Clearly folks on the forum know of the project so why does it remain so confidential? It would be nice to know more about exciting projects like this and shockwave. The unlimited class could use a boost in excitement, just curious for the rookie folks like me not in the know??any link to the Lear solution project as well?
              It remains confidential because the owner hasn't made it public yet. I'd love to tell the world, but that would take away from the owners reveal when he's ready to do so. I guess I can say its not a warbird. Some think its brilliant, others will call it a death trap. I can't say either way as I lack all the details. I can also say, its likely 5 years out. Its interesting, and when it shows up, its going to generate a lot of excitement.


              Will

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

                Originally posted by rforslund View Post
                Clearly folks on the forum know of the project so why does it remain so confidential? It would be nice to know more about exciting projects like this and shockwave. The unlimited class could use a boost in excitement, just curious for the rookie folks like me not in the know??any link to the Lear solution project as well?
                I only know of the "other" project because of a conversation I had at Reno directly with the owner. Not my place to share the details. The "Lear Solution" was as much of an inside joke as it was a project. Nothing to see on that one.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

                  Originally posted by Race5 View Post
                  I only know of the "other" project because of a conversation I had at Reno directly with the owner. Not my place to share the details. The "Lear Solution" was as much of an inside joke as it was a project. Nothing to see on that one.
                  Thank you for the response Race5 and Will. Hopefully we will hear more about this and the other builds as they progress.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

                    Originally posted by Race5 View Post
                    The "Lear Solution" was as much of an inside joke as it was a project. Nothing to see on that one.
                    I can say with some pretty firm authority that while it is true it started out with a joke between two friends, there actually WAS research that went into the engineering of the project, and the real decision moment was when a certain person who is well-known in the circles for their flow-systems said that there wouldn't be sufficient storage area for the fluids needed.

                    But beyond the 'hey, wouldn't it be funny if' start of the Lear Solution project, drawings were actually done up, a wing was secured, and inquiries were made as to obtaining the two-stage engines. The people who are on the 'inside' can laugh at the 'ha-ha' aspect of it, but there was a point where it was an actual "I think there's validity here" aspect of the project.

                    For those who weren't familiar, this was in the 2006-08 timeframe. The joke was "what if we repurposed the Lear Jet fuselage left over from when John Dilley made 'Vendetta' and made it into a DO-335 type racer. Ha-ha. But that progressed to a 'well, what would that look like? What would we power it with, what would be an optimal wing, what kind of engineering would that take?" And because the Lear fuselage is larger than a Mustang or Bearcat, it was figured a push-me/pull-you Griffon installation (think a bigger version of the Dave Garber racer), with the wing from a T-33 and custom built 'front end' with a cockpit...and would have plenty of room in the fuselage for radiators, fuel, ADI, etc.

                    One of the partners had a T-33 wing as a starting point, and there was a search on for a suitable wrecked Lear 35 fuselage to sacrifice. It never got to the funding stage, because the engineer that counted calculated that it wouldn't work. By the way, the original working concept was named "Final Solution"--which was based on Matty Laird's "Solution" and "Super Solution"--but when the historical context of that name was brought to light, it was quickly changed to "Lear Solution". Somewhere in my files I still have the first sketched-out drawing of the fuselage modifications.
                    Last edited by Big_Jim; 01-03-2022, 06:54 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

                      Originally posted by Race5 View Post
                      The "Lear Solution" was as much of an inside joke as it was a project. Nothing to see on that one.
                      Certainly more validity than the Sani-Hut F-82 that was someone's running joke...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

                        Originally posted by Big_Jim View Post
                        I can say with some pretty firm authority that while it is true it started out with a joke between two friends, there actually WAS research that went into the engineering of the project, and the real decision moment was when a certain person who is well-known in the circles for their flow-systems said that there wouldn't be sufficient storage area for the fluids needed.

                        But beyond the 'hey, wouldn't it be funny if' start of the Lear Solution project, drawings were actually done up, a wing was secured, and inquiries were made as to obtaining the two-stage engines. The people who are on the 'inside' can laugh at the 'ha-ha' aspect of it, but there was a point where it was an actual "I think there's validity here" aspect of the project.

                        For those who weren't familiar, this was in the 2006-08 timeframe. The joke was "what if we repurposed the Lear Jet fuselage left over from when John Dilley made 'Vendetta' and made it into a DO-335 type racer. Ha-ha. But that progressed to a 'well, what would that look like? What would we power it with, what would be an optimal wing, what kind of engineering would that take?" And because the Lear fuselage is larger than a Mustang or Bearcat, it was figured a push-me/pull-you Griffon installation (think a bigger version of the Dave Garber racer), with the wing from a T-33 and custom built 'front end' with a cockpit...and would have plenty of room in the fuselage for radiators, fuel, ADI, etc.

                        One of the partners had a T-33 wing as a starting point, and there was a search on for a suitable wrecked Lear 35 fuselage to sacrifice. It never got to the funding stage, because the engineer that counted calculated that it wouldn't work. By the way, the original working concept was named "Final Solution"--which was based on Matty Laird's "Solution" and "Super Solution"--but when the historical context of that name was brought to light, it was quickly changed to "Lear Solution". Somewhere in my files I still have the first sketched-out drawing of the fuselage modifications.
                        Great story thanks big Jim!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

                          Originally posted by Big_Jim View Post
                          Certainly more validity than the Sani-Hut F-82 that was someone's running joke...
                          And in actuality The Lear Solution made more sense. Everyone can snark all they like but real concerns of the design were discussed by gold race winning pilots, engineers, and motor builders. The problem became that in the immense Lear Fuselage could not have carried enough gasoline, ADI, and coolant. The T-33 wing was chosen over the Mustang wing because that was the design airfoil used with Tsunami. Plus at the time we had access to a brand new one, the landing gear was in the right place on the airfoil for a nose gear.

                          The entire thought project was because When Carl Friend who was the aero-guy on Rare Bear first saw the "Lear Stang" he said "wow! Somewhere there must be a really fast Learjet with that Mustang wing" we started to think...HMMMM.
                          Last edited by BellCobraIV; 01-04-2022, 12:45 PM.
                          John Slack

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

                            Originally posted by BellCobraIV View Post
                            And in actuality The Lear Solution made more sense. Everyone can snark all they like but real concerns of the design were discussed by gold race winning pilots, engineers, and motor builders. The problem became that in the immense Lear Fuselage could not have carried enough gasoline, ADI, and coolant. The T-33 wing was chosen over the Mustang wing because that was the design airfoil used with Tsunami. Plus at the time we had access to a brand new one, the landing gear was in the right place on the airfoil for a nose gear.

                            The entire thought project was because When Carl Friend who was the aero-guy on Rare Bear first saw the "Lear Stang" he said "wow! Somewhere there must be a really fast Learjet with that Mustang wing" we started to think...HMMMM.
                            Here's a very basic reason why: The P-51, Bearcat, Yak etc... within a few knots have a Vne or 440kts and Mmo 0.74
                            Lear 35 has a Vne of 325Kts and the Mmo 0.78
                            T-33 Vne 505 and Mmo 0.80

                            Learjet wing is designed to be "fast" at 35,000'+ not at Reno elevation.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

                              Originally posted by mdwflyer View Post
                              H
                              Learjet wing is designed to be "fast" at 35,000'+ not at Reno elevation.
                              ....which was precisely why a Lear wing was never even in the conversation.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Separate Racing from Airshow

                                Originally posted by Big_Jim View Post
                                ....which was precisely why a Lear wing was never even in the conversation.
                                Well, to be fair it WAS in the conversation, just not in a positive way. The bummer about the T-33 wing is that it would be too low to the ground to get big enough propellers front and rear.
                                John Slack

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X