Here's the deal

A gentleman posted pictures of a Thunderbird II that had both a modified canopy mounting and relocation of landing gear into the wing.  That gives him adequate evidence.  Is the fact that the pictures are posted online here adequate evidence for anyone else?  I would think so, but do you just print them off and submit them to the CD?  If the CD frequents here he would probably already have seen them.  Just curious and asking questions again........

Jim Pollock  

Come on Bill, that would be cheating pure and simple........

If, however you can supply pictures of modifications that had been done by someone else
that were posted online, I don't see why a person that didn't make the modifications originally
couldn't do the same?

Jim Pollock   

Ty,

I wish. Nope, his drawings were done on butcher paper and are the outlines and some construction notes and that's about it. There are markings on where the ribs go, and outline of the fuse side (sans top and bottom block) and that sort of thing. Enough there that I could draw some more detailed plans pretty easily. And he signed them after a fashion (put his name on them). And there is a date on the rib template (6/67), but I think that was more to keep track of what he was using where and no note as to whether it actually goes with the Raven (though I know it does).

Bill died in 2000, so I can't authenticate it with him. His son is still around and remembers the plane, but he was never much into flying. Oh well. I may end up building it just for nostalgia's sake.

This whole idea is interesting in a couple of ways...

Authenticity judging? Back in the day, if I, or some friends of mine, built a kit they liked, we'd often build another one. Kit bashing? Sure thing. Originality was an Appearance Score item, when total points ran to 40. ...NOT authenticity...

Seems many of us liked to be able to recognize our model in a gaggle of the same design, too. Tip shapes, canopy location, wing vs fuse gear, even trike gear on what had appeared as a taildragger... NOT just different paint scheme - without which we might get dinged back then for being less than "original."

Even some structural "advantages?" Ever fold a stab on a kit Magician? ...Ever feel uneasy that the stock 1/8 balsa stab might just fold on you?

Formed bubble canopy on a Barnstormer, if you were not adept at lacing celluloid together?

Documentation? Hmmm... Seems many of us admit to kit-bashing back in the day... If we ever DID take snapshots of our revised kit- or plans-built models, how likely are they to still exist, or even be found if they do?

Now, there are many basics to remain "true" to the originals - Would you accept a sheeted foam version of an I-Beamer? That would be a place for "authenticity" scoring, and a place to express our opinion of it - but not grounds for a DQ. Technically, in most of the OTS rules, the surface appearance, sizes, moments, airfoils, areas and such are to represent the original models.

(Who would have a snapshot of a sheeted foam kit/plans-bashed I-beamer, from before we discovered styrofoam?)

Other common 'bashes' may or may not have documentation. If they do, the flier at least will suffer less razzing from the other guys...

There's been a lot of discussion, some of it heated, about what the original Smoothie, or Magician, really was. Why get steamed about that? The first Smoothie we knew of was the Air Trails plans article. The first Magician we knew of was Silhavy's design as kitted by what eventually became MidWest, or wound up in their product line, somehow. Even Sterling's Skylark differed vastly from Ed Southwick's original - one of the few things I ever heard him speak even a bit harshly about...

Today, we know about some of the original designer's original versions, and I think that's great. I also offer the idea that knowing that does not make the kit or plans versions so many of us first saw less authentic to the era. Now we can choose either version. For those who chase down the very first one by the original designer, great - that's part of what you enjoy in the event. The various forms of "Spirit of (event era)" awards give recognition to these models, which often also sport "era authentic" wheels, tanks, props, engines, etc. Now, that is going above and beyond! ...which is what hobbies allow, sometimes encourage, some of us to do.

Sure, there's an element of competition in Classic and OT - and whatever 70's or creeping-30-year event catches on. We fly them because we enjoy that side of things. We remember flying - or wishing we were flying - the great models of earlier eras. Now, we can. It isn't only competition, and the level of competition intensity is up to the individual. Some guys enjoy going BTTW at anything they do, others have different rewards and yet others like the activity for itself a bit better for the relaxed experience it is.

It would have to be a really gross abuse of the "Spirit" ideas to torque me up very tight. ...And more because it abuses the ability to enjoy an enjoyable occasion than anything else... The nearest thing I ever saw to an "illegal" Old Timer at a VSC was an equal-span AA,Sr. It was built by a great foreign flier who didn't realize that making modern "corrections" to archaic designs wasn't Kosher. There was no intent to "cheat," and he certainly flew well enough not to need any advantage from his mods. Simple misunderstanding, and accepted as such. He's been back to later VSCs and his models are spot-on the Spirit, beautifully built and wonderfully well flown. Isn't that closer to why we do this silly stuff?

I may bring the plans and what I have to VSC next year for some "expert" opinion.   

I kept hoping that someone from the era took pics at Whittier Narrows. My cousin flew there most weekends and many contests from about 65 to the early 70s. Used to have pictures from that time, but they were lost.

Dennis,

It was actually about 580 square inches. Kinda big for the time, I guess. It's sort of odd looking plane with a mid-wing bubble canopy and squarish rudder and sort of USA-1ish tips with a fuse mounted gear. His original was painted red and cream with some black trim and "Raven" on the wing. He flew variations of it from about 66 when I first started flying with him at Whittier Narrows until about 71 when he became enamoured of the original Van Loo Chipmunk. His last plane was a Simons Scorpio around the mid 70s. His one and only plane with an ST46. He was a good guy. He taught me to fly and I miss him.

Randy:
* Draw it up
* Build it

I totally agree (not that it means anything).  Classic is an event to fly old airplane models.   For the average contest, I don't know of many which use points for even Appearance anymore.  The *SPIRIT* of th eevent is to bring back an earlier time in model airplanes. 

Randy, you certainly have the character that no one questions, and I cannot forsee any problems with anyone if you were to build the model.  If you DO take a hit on Fidelity Points, at least you have a model that means something to you.  And there is still no rule which brings about disqualification of a model unless it is a safety issue.  As of yet, I have not seen reference to any rule which excludes a model from competition in the Classic Event.

Has anyone changed the *rules*?

Mongo

There is no "standard" for what would be "adequate certification for classic design".

The PAMPA rules for Classic stunt include the following:

"Any design may be entered, provided the contestant has convincing evidence of the design's compliance."

"It is suggested that contestants provide reasonable proof that the model presented was actually flown during the period of eligibility...  This proof could include kit plans, magazine articles and/or plans, photographs and documentation signed by the original designer."

I think a good rule of thumb to follow would be for the entrant to provide whatever "convincing evidence" he would expect to see if he were the CD/ED at the contest he enters as proof of the eligibility for that model.  The rules were intentionally lax in this regard.  Yes,  some people might want to push the envelope, but there is a matter of integrity involved here.  There are many who participate in the Classic event and experience great satisfaction in finding some obscure design and then generating the "convincing evidence" of the design's compliance".

Keith

Yea, I have the original drawings and templates for my cousin Bill Mayo's design called The Raven from 1967. He flew it at Whittier Narrows from early 67 to about 69 and entered several contests. I've always wanted to built it but I don't have any pictures of it (my wonderful aunt threw out the old photo album with so many wonderful pictures in it) and only my memory to go by, so I've never felt like there was adequate documentation for it to pass as a classic at contests. I hate to show up with it at VSC and try to convince the judges that it was classic legal. It is, but knowing and proving are two entirely different things. I've always hoped that someone took pictures at Whittier Narrows in that time period and I could get a picture of it. He was there with it a lot.

I think Dad has a picture of it, I'll check.
Chris...

Ty,

I found out you can get Butcher Paper at Art and General Hobby Supply Stores now like Hobby Lobby.

Jim Pollock   

Randy,

Go for it.

The Cholla Chopper web site at www.ccmaconline.org has detailed eligibility requirements for VSC.

The following is from their web page. For more details chack out their web site:

Airplanes that were never published:
1) If a picture of the plane exists and can be authenticated by date either on the front of the picture or on the back, submit the picture or pictures, especially if there was a group photo and someone from the picture can validate the picture was taken in the dated year.
2) If plans exist, and they are dated, submit the original(s). The plans will be returned to the sender. Un-kitted planes designed during the Old Time or Classic period which were scratch built using some kind of plan or plans, those plans should be submitted. Many people drew their own plans and worked off of them. Any data that helps identify the time period the plans were drawn in is valid information.
3) If the only data available is a dated picture, front or back, the person submitting (if not the designer) will also need someone else to concur with the date. A letter of confirmation of the date of the design and signed by the designer along with designer signed picture(s) is acceptable by the rules for both Old Time and Classic and is grounds for acceptance. If the designer is no longer available, anyone the designer flew with and saw the plane fly or anyone who can concur should be named in the documentation. Either letter of confirmation must include the address and phone number of the signer in its text as a minimum and if possible an e:mail address. The minimum contact information is required.
4) The bottom line is: Any and all information that can be provided will go a long way to help validate the proposed aircraft.
Note: The reason for this procedure is to encourage those people who built and flew planes that might qualify to be flown at VSC to submit what documentation they have for evaluation. Contest management has several knowledgeable people to help evaluate the submitted data. Who knows, maybe one of these people saw the submitted plane fly or saw it at a contest and can testify to its validity. All data submitted by the sender will be returned along with a letter stating the proposed aircraft’s status. Our mission is to validate as many airplanes which meet the criteria.
There is one other requirement. Un-Kitted designs and/or un-published designs once validated by this procedure must be shared and made available either by making drawings available, kits available, or both. In other words a complete package from which the validated aircraft can be reproduced must be made available. This requirement is per the rules for both Old Time and Classic Stunt. Please keep this in mind because it is the responsibility of the designer/sender to do what is necessary to produce a complete package.

Ty,

  "Perfect"

Jim

Randy if you have a plane design that you know yourself was designed by that person and flown numerous times, go for it.  Classic is supposed to be fun as well as an out let for us to build and fly the planes we often dreamed about.  There may be somebody out there that when the see the plane will say I remember when so & so designed that and flew it.  The Classic planes to me were different as they didn't look like the cookie cutter designs people came up with in the 70's & 80's.  You have time enough the way you build and finish to have it ready for VSC. 

 

Ahhhhh, memories

Actually, Buster's dog was named "Tag" and I have no idea why I remember this. As far as the post goes, Randy, you've convinced some pretty heavy hitters in the Classic Stunt world that your documentation is more than sufficient...Go For It!  

Shhhhh Pete, I'm just messin' with my buddy Ty,,,,,   

You never forget Ty. Can't remember stuff from a few days ago, but still remember the color, and orientation of running and range lights. Like Marines, once a Sailor, always a Sailor.  

Back to the subject.

Randy, build the plane. After all this posting, no one will challenge that the design is valid, and someone will remember it. If you wait too long, that person may have passed on. It's happening all to often these days.

Well,

Since there is a picture of one on this board - then I can build my T-Bird II with the gear in the wing and the canopy moved back over the center of the wing.....right?

Jim Pollock

>>How often did he call you "bucko"?? <<

Only when I was in deep sh$t!