Cockpit detail can be well done or terrible. That is all part of the consideration.
I don't think that there is anything worse than using Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck type figures for a pilot.
I agree that there are cases that a painted on canopy could be better.
All I am saying is that canopy detail should be part of the consideration. Certainly a Ron Burns or Charlie Lickliter Ballerina III cockpit is superior to a paint-on every time. But a simple cockpit can be well done.
Again, a nicely done cockpit along with all the other appearance considerations should be make a difference.
HI TOM .. All
Below is the judging guide, it does cover Canopies... see below
Appearance Judging Guidelines
Judging appearance in the Precision Aerobatics Event is a subjective process just as is awarding points for flight maneuvers. In every contest a set of models are presented for judging. The object of the judging process is to assign points to the models in the correct order, with the appropriate differential, in that contest. Consistent, predictable results can be realized only through training and adherence to established guidelines. It is strongly suggested that the event director brief the appearance judges on and stress adherence to the following guidelines. Preparation would be enhanced by a short evaluation of several models, followed by debriefing and critique. This parallels the proven process used for the flight judges. This is particularly important at national and major regional contest.
Model presented for judging will be judged as presented. Precon-ceived opinions, such as model type, (ie: semiscale vs. classic), color selection, model design, etc. are not appropriate to the process.
The major factor in assigning points is the execution in the model’s construction and finish. A general example of (relative position) would be equally constructed and finished models, one a full blown competition model, the other a basic, simple model. Given that the models are indeed equal in finish and construction, the more complete/complex plane would be awarded more points.
The Process
Appearance judging should not be a random process, but should evaluate the presented model in a methodical system. This will insure a uniform, fair approach and award of points. The following is offered as an orderly methodology; additional specific amplification of judging criteria is provided in the appendix.
STEP 1: Individual Appraisal
Flying Surfaces - Construction – consider structure; smooth,
straight, and uniform. Surfaces precisely aligned, with mating
surfaces properly fitted. Straight, uniform edges proper hinge
execution.
STEP 1: Individual Appraisal (cont.)
Finish – Color – all colors uniformly applied and consistent in
density. Color separations smooth and clearly defined. Ink lines
uniform width and density.
Surface – all grain filled and surfaces polished and glossy. Color
patterns applied in a balanced manner, top and bottom of the plane
equally finished.
Fuselage Construction- Symmetry – Smooth integration of mating
surfaces, such as cowling, hatches and fillets. Functional opening
precisely executed with tight uniform joints.
Finish – Surface smooth and flowing. Color application consistent
with location, surface preparation consistent over entire aircraft.
Summary – General – After examining each model; judges will
have an opinion on their individual worth. Note that appearance
points are not assigned now.
STEP 2: Comparison and Appraisal:
At this point in the process, the models are compared to each other.
The object is to place the models in order of their worth, as deter-
mined in step one. There will be examples of equal value, for
differing reasons, and there will be a varying disparities.
Step 3: Assigning Point Values:
Once the models are arranged in groups, points can be assigned.
Points on a specific model may vary from contest to contest, as the
process is designed to provide comparison of models at one
contest. However, as the process is followed, the range of award
should be relatively narrow. Because groups are adjacent does not
mean there should be a difference of only one point. Rather, the
assigning of point value should again reflect the group worth. The
best group of airplanes should be assigned best score, but not
necessarily a maximum or near maximum score. Likewise, the low
Step 3: Assigning Point Values: (cont.)
group may not be assigned a minimum value. Inbetween groups
should be assigned scores relative to their value between the high
and low groups. It is possible to be skewed low or high in this
relationship. The important point is that the award reflect the
differential worth.
Summary
The process described generally follows the process that has evolved over the years at the national level. There are adjustments and insights added to improve uniformity. It is a subjective process, but the results should reflect the actual values of the models submitted for judging. There-fore, it is strongly suggested that the process be followed at all precision Aerobatics contests. For contests where PAMPA skill classes are flown, classes may be combined for appearance judging.
One Appendix:
Appendix:
INDIVIDUAL APPRAISAL
Specific Details for consideration
Note: Specific details mentioned as examples are not intended to infer requirements. They are provided as sample differentiators to aid in separating apparently equal models.
Fillets
Fillets should be smooth and consistent in size. They should feather into the adjoining surfaces with no visible ridges or unevenness. Size of the fillets is in general a matter of the modeler’s preference and should not normally be a consideration in appearance assessment.
Detailed Canopy/Cockpit Vs. Painted Canopy
A well-done detailed cockpit with molded canopy should score better than well-done painted-on canopy. Conversely, a well-done realistic painted-on canopy/cockpit should score better than a poorly done molded canopy/cockpit.
Rubbed-out Finish
A well-done rubbed out finish should be very shiny with no sanding scratches showing. The surface of the model should be “flat”; that is , there should be no ripples in the surface caused by uneven sanding out of the clear coat. There should be no “rub-throughs” that affect the color under the clear coat. There should be no wood or paper grain showing. There should be no ridges where one color transitions to another. (tape lines)
Plastic Finishes
Plastic coverings, ie., monocoat, ultracoat, etc., have the potential to provide high gloss finishes. They should be considered exactly the same as other finishing process. Joining overlaps, aircraft structure, trim application seams and surface tautness are but a few of the possible flaws in this type of finishing technique.
Semi-scale Airplanes
Not all finishes have to be “shiny”. A semi-scale war-bird with a well done uniformly matte finish should not be downgraded because it is not shiny. In fact this finish may be more difficult to achieve than a shiny finish.
Appendix:
INDIVIDUAL APPRAISAL
Specific Details for consideration (cont.)
Ink Lines
An airplane with well-done ink lines enhances the appearance of an airplane. Poorly done ink lines should score lower than had the ink lines been omitted.
Mating Surfaces (hinge lines, hatches, cowlings)
Hinge lines should be uniform. The gap should be consistent from one end to the other and in most cases the gap should be very small. There should be no paint build up in the hinge line. If the hinges are painted, they should be uniform in appearance. Hinge pockets should be neat and uniform from hinge to hinge.
Cowling and hatches should fit uniformly with no gaps or ridges showing. There should be no paint missing at the joining edges (chipping off or rub through).
Landing Gear
All things equal, well detailed wheel pants should award higher than plain wheel pants or simple fairings. A semi-scale airplane with appropriate scale like fairings would be an exception.
Tape Lines
Uniform tape lines contribute significantly to the aesthetic appearance of a stunt plane. Tape lines should be smooth with no jagged areas and there should not be a visible ridge showing.
Wear and Tear
Un-repaired or poorly repaired damage, yellowing of the finish, cracks in the finish, or other signs of aging must reduce the points that otherwise might be awarded. Age of the airplane should not be a consideration in awarding of appearance points, as long as it has been well maintained and shows no signs of deterioration.
Topic: Cutlass XL....more pictures (Read 4967 times)
