Dennis,
The Classic airplanes eligibility has nothing to do with comparative efficiency of the wing surfaces. It is amazing how distorted interpretations have evolved.

I initially suggested the Fidelity points. This was to encourage building the airplanes as originally designed, while recognizing that it is impossible for all judges be aware of all designs.

Foam wings instead of built-up wings and I-beamers; symmetrical or asymmetrical wings as per the original; drastic changes in moments would be examples of airplanes that should not get maximum fidelity points. This should also effect consideration for "best of" type awards.

There have been some really gross interpretations, like judges insisting on reproducing paint schemes and colors.

There is absolutely no intent to disqualify any Classic airplane whether or not Fidelity points are used.

BTW, while the version of the "Olympic"  that was published in American Modeler and later kitted by Brodak has a sheeted wing, earlier versions of the "Olympic" had the I-Beam look, and also a "Nobler" type wing.  Bob Gialdini flew a I-beam like "Olympic" at the '61 nats.  I am not sure that the internal structure was actually an I-beam. The published "Olympic" had more leading edge sweep back than the other versions.

If the judges are absolutely sure that the orginal only had one kind of covering and the model in question was something else,or some other change from the "original" and even if fidelity points are not used, judges have the option to reduce appearance points.  I have seen this done on several occasions.

In one way, I can understand the concept of "fidelity" points for the classic event.  However, there are no guidelines regarding how far "fidelity" to the original is to be judged.  One opinion might have it that to be eligible for any fidelity points, there should be some presentation with documentation showing photographs, construction drawings and power train used on the original, then the judges have some basis to award any fidelity points.  I am sure the drafters of the classic rules did not intend to require such documentation or to even think about it, but my question would be to them, how else can a judge award fidelity points on an equitable basis from one model to the other.  Thus, my opinion above that when "known" deviations from the original, be it construction, shapes, paint schemes or whatever, judges can deduct appearance points.

Do not bother with sending bomb shells.  That is my opinion and no argument will change it.

Keith

Who uses fidelity points?   Even at the NATS I only seen appearance points, not fidelity the few years I tried to compete and have fun.

The plans from which I built my Olympic, show a fully sheeted wing version, and one which is open structure-covered with silkspan or silk, I believe. I opted for Ultracoat, in hopes of saving weight. Can you see it in my little picture/avatar?

I thought Mr. Gialdini designed a sharp trim scheme for the plane, too, so I duplicated it, to the best of my ability-in purple.

 We used to use Fidelity points up here & I always got maximum points, I don't know why because I used a modern engine ..the paint job was close but a variation or 2.

Hi John,

While it makes no difference, the Dutch might just have used the Veco.  Several pilots from "Europe" did use Vecos, even McCoy Red Heads!  Use what ya got, do it the way you want to and have fun.  Like Ty said, it's a crap shoot with the judges anyway and I think they do the best they can.

BIG Bear