Bryan, you're really like a Cajun version of me. You really get fired up when someone disagrees with you! Your description of our very short conversation at the 2010 Nats is a perfect example. If you remember, you at one point before that said that if you needed to add any kind of fins or strakes that those were just band-aids to improper model design. So when I saw all the stuff you tacked on to the Valiant, I asked you about it. You of course had an answer. I don't remember laughing at anything you said but I'm sure that is what you think happened. I know I certainly found your change in position to be amusing, so maybe I did. If you found that offensive, I apologize.

I have been an advocate of forward CG for years. I never bought in to the aft CG theories, but frankly it does work for some fliers. It just never worked for me. But every now and then I got my butt kicked by someone doing just that.

I have never found the need to have a model with zero mixes. I won the 1989 Team Trials with a model that had so many mixes it would scare you if you saw it. Do I think it's a nice goal to reach? Sure, but my goal competing in pattern contests is to win them. If this "Don Quixote" pursuit of the perfect model takes away from your actual performance at a contest because you were too busy trimming a model to get the 3% mix down to zero instead of learning how to do that rolling loop, then it is a negative.

The simple fact is that there are, as DaveL pointed out, a lot of solutions to the same problem. I'm glad you feel that you have all the answers and that you are the only owner of the truth. It's good to be sure of yourself.

I applaud all those guys out there that are designing models and eventually making them available to us mere mortals. Just in case you hadn't noticed Bryan, I didn't design the Onas I've been flying for a while. And I didn't design the Nuance I'm flying now. I don't have the drive to put out that level of effort anymore. But I have designed Team Trials and Nats F3A winning models in the past. If I ever decide I need to design another pattern model, it might look different then either one of those models. But if it ended up needing some mix here and there, I would hardly consider it a failure. And if I had to add a fin or a strake to it, it would still not be a failure.

Pattern is about seeking perfection in flying the maneuvers. Everybody has their way of trying to achieve that perfection. I have seen great fliers that could fly the box the model came in better then most. And I have seen great designers that have moved forward the evolution of the models we fly, but have never achieved high placings at the major meets. The guys that have been consistently top placers at the big contests are usually some combination in between these two positions. Proving again that some form of compromise is usually the best path.