Hey Paul,
You know, that's a really good point. In previous years they have put captions with the photos so you know what school it is. Hmm. Well, if you give me a filename, I can try to tell you what school it is. I could maybe make a personal page with the top 10 teams or something.

As for how the planes flew, 19 of the 33 teams present posted some sort of flight score. So, a little under 60% flew. I'd say that about half of those flew respectably. There were only about 4 or 5 planes that flew "well."

I hate to say it, but I think pilot skill and experience was a big factor in this competition. Some of the aircraft present could have done better with a different pilot... and others owed much of their success to their pilot.

I saw a lot of pitch stability and control issues. Most of the aircraft had acceptable power, but many of the power systems were rather inefficient. Again, this is probably due mainly to the vast array of experience levels there. I think it probably takes a team 3-4 years to really develop a program and, by the end of that time, the seniors graduate and the team pretty much has to start over.

It was interesting that some of the best looking planes either didn't fly well, or had really bad RAC scores. I really loved the USNA planes... they were very cool but too heavy. One of the planes that impressed me the most was "SWAG" from Mississippi State. The entire plane was made from laser-cut wood parts... and they came to the competition with stacks of pre-cut spare parts! I had to keep from drooling... it was a beautiful thing!

-David