Appearance points for tattered and torn???

[Paul Taylor]

Looking at Robert’s new plane (and very nice BTW) made me start to think.
I think know why people build such nice shinny new planes.  They want the appearance points. But I bet a plane did not look like that for long when in combat.
So say someone built a plane and put a finish on it that looked it has seen some action.
Could it get 1st place appearance points?
 

[Shultzie]

Looking at Robert’s new plane (and very nice BTW) made me start to think.
I think know why people build such nice shinny new planes.  They want the appearance points. But I bet a plane did not look like that for long when in combat.
So say someone built a plane and put a finish on it that looked it has seen some action.
Could it get 1st place appearance points?
 

HUMMMMM? NOT A BAD IDEA??   Perhaps each time a stunt plane is judged for appearence, a small teeeeeenie little "Ace"sticker could be afixed to an area just below the canopy (like those of many WWII fighter planes) to show how many "battles" that our old stunt contest weary have gone through. Each sticker could symbolize the points won and then a percentage added to that old tattered stunter's appearence point scores??
NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWW! 

[John Miller]

Apparently not, in the past. Ron Burns's F4F was totally dissed at the Nats some years back. He had a great finish, scale I might add, of what that plane would have looked like having seen action in the Pacific.

This prompted a lot of discussion over the merits of such a finish as compared to shiney and sparkling. If anything, I believe the judges are now better educated, so they might appreciate such a finish today. It still needs to be seen though, as I'm not aware of anyone trying this since Ron's experience.

John 

[Jim Oliver]

If I were judging appearance, (will probably never happen!) I would give far a higher score to a model like Ron's Zero than I would give to other "scale like" models which have been presented with grossly exaggerated panel lines and other markings which I personally feel puts them in the catagory that I call "cartoon scale".   

Probably not very many will agree with me, but that's my $0.02.

Jim
 


 

[Trostle]

Charlie Reeves and I have judged appearance at several Nats.  Several years ago and after a number of comments and questions, we wrote an article about what we looked for when we determined how many points an airplane would get for appearance.  The article was published in Stunt News and Flying Models and has appeared from time to time on these forums.  This is what we wrote about how we viewed the appearance of the finish.

"Some paint schemes call for a high uniform gloss over the entire airframe.  Other color schemes/airplane designs can be awarded high appearance points with a semi-gloss or even a matte finish if the finish is uniform and appropriate for the model and/or paint scheme.  Inappropriate gloss of lack thereof, or the non-uniform appearance of the finish will result in loss of appearance points."

In other words, if a semi-scale or "near scale" stunt model was being judged, and the finish applied represented a realistic battle-worn aircraft and if it was well done, the airplane should not loose appearance points for the finish.

The situation with Ron Burn's Wildcat was an anomaly that  never should have happened.  That airplane was eligible for the front row.  As I understand it, the people who were doing the appearance judging that year were not stunt fliers and evidently knew nothing about scale appearance.

Keith Trostle

[Clancy Arnold]

I was asked to judge appearance for stunt at the NATS in 1985 or 1986.  The reason I was asked to do it was that I built and flew scale C/L and did not know most of the persons entered in stunt.  I remember that Jack Sheeks and one other person worked with me but when it came to the final selection I was to make the choice.  The models on the front row were all good but one was just better in my HO.

The final judgement is just that, a judges opinion.  On an other day I might have chosen a different model, but I hope I would still chose the same model.   

I remember seeing the "proto model" of my 3 time NATS trophy winning C-7A Carabu,  Jack and I had driven to the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH and it was setting outside.   Neither one of us knew what it was but it was different.   Jack said that if I did not build a model of it he wood.  It was that ugly.

Clancy 

[Bill Little]

Ron Burn's F4F was one of the best model airplanes ever built. Period.  The finish in it was PERFECT for a fighter in the early period of WWII inthe Pacific.  An absolutely awesome scale finish!  Regarless of the event is was perfect.  It got 4 points, IIRC.  And I think it was on the back row by itself.

I was told the AP judges were R/C pattern guys. (??)

Anyway, Ron said he kinda expected it.

Al Rabe always put a "gloss" finish on his NATS planes for just the same reason (at least I've seen him post that).  In CLPA, the more the shine, the higher the points!

Is it right?, I dunno, but that's the way it is.........

Bill <><

[Avaiojet]

Here's a real interesting Thread that ended a bit quickly.

I paid a bit of attention to it because I'm finishing up a model that resembles a Mig-3 and I won't have a high gloss slick finish on it.

I actually went in the direction that is expressed in this Thread, a bit weathered and used as was those aircraft.

I'll have photos when the model is completed, but there are some photos everythere. Close your eyes and throw a dart. 

The situation with Ron Burn's Wildcat was an anomaly that  never should have happened.  That airplane was eligible for the front row.  As I understand it, the people who were doing the appearance judging that year were not stunt fliers and evidently knew nothing about scale appearance.

Keith Trostle

Who were the judges?

[EddyR]

Here is Ron's and my model at the 1988 Nats. Ron"s model was in the last row and mine was right behind Jimmy Casale's 20 pointer. These are the extreme in finishing looks. I has hundreds of ink lines on that model but they do not show in the photo. First clear silk model in a lot of years at the Nats.
Ed