Just another dumb question here. If we build the plan veiw and keep the spirit of the event then could one scale a large plane down smaller and build it for Classic? Such as 2 thirty fives and make it for two 15teens? Yes,I would like to build my Two Much only smaller since I`m getting to old too fly  that huge thing. Just a Thought.

Gordy

It all depends if you want to debate it here or actually build the plane and enter it in a contest.

If you show up with the plane and pay the entry fee, you can pretty much run what you brung.

Mr. Trostle, with all due respect, I dont recall that there is any allowance for disqualifying ANYTHING from flying classic? Yes there are rules outlining whats acceptable, and whats not,, but as for a penalty for not meeting the rules? I think there is a stipulation that this is a for "fun" event, and tolerance should be granted? That being said, it would be up to the individual to decide what hes really after.. and then the CD could I suppose refuse his entry?

Is rule 6 still in the books? The only copy of the rulebook I have on hand is 2004.  Basic intent of this rule is/was that any landing gear that would be impractical on a full sized aircraft will not be allowed. Ever see a real tailwheel assy that holds the fuselage of the aircraft close to level to the tarmac?? Was anyone ever disqualified at a contest for this??
Don

I don't really have a clue anymore.......  OTS and Classic as *SUPPOSED* to be for FUN.  To bring back the old planes and have FUN flying them. 

If competitive instincts are the over riding need for the competitor, then lets line up 10 yds apart and have head on tackling drills.  Helmets are optional.  And if you dodge or side step, you have to go again... from 15 yds.

Big Bear

This one of the reasons I resisted flying Classic for as long as I did. I was afraid I'd get to some contest with a CD that was taking things way too seriously and get disqualified for something I overlooked.

Sigh ....

Gordan
The little twin Pathfinder is one of the best flying stunters ever - why worry about Classic, scale down a Two Much and use what you learned from the Pathfinder twin and go for it.  Even put some electric retracts and motors on it.  Think Big. I bet an electric will shut down the motors at the same time.

Norm

Keith,
Actually I was thinking more of about 80% of the original Two Much. And I really don`t think a 2-bits looks anything close to an Impact. Have you had your eyes checked lately?

Gordy

Keith / guys
I have some experience in the other disciplines of model aircraft.  I can tell you if you don't draw the line and enforce the rules someone will redefine the rules (maybe gradually) to suite their special interests.  An example that I have experienced was F1 pylon racing – beautiful scale airplanes turned into – well they are something - it just isn’t attractive or scale like to me. 
I just filled out my NW regional’s entry form and it has 8 different stunt classes.  I’m not criticizing the northwest regional’s they are accommodating the participants.  If we keep going will have a class for every member in Pampa.   Gordy, I know you are my flying buddy – but I don’t think we should have an 80% Classic Two Much stunt class; nor a 120% Classic Playboy class.  If we add the Nostalgia 30 class we could just about have a class for every competitor at your average stunt contest right now.  Let’s get real - I know we all want to win something but we may be doing Too Much (pun intended) in accommodating member’s whims. 
Keith I think you’re correct, this year at the NATS go look at the Q40’s they all look alike even if they are labeled by different names – unchecked, all classes of stunters will eventually migrate to look like Impacts or revert to Noblers.
Just my thoughts

Norm

HI Keith, Norm, Randy, et. al.,

This all harks of the blow up over AP and BOM a few years ago.  It was well bantered about that the *INTEGRITY* of the pilot was of the highest order and no one would willingly break the rules.  That was the over riding undertone of the debate all along.  Where is that in THIS situation?  Has the *INTEGRITY* of everyone involved diminished?  We are supposed to police ourselves in these endeavors, right?  *We* are ultimately responsible for our personal actions, correct?

Those that have ever seen my Classic planes know that I build *carbon copies* of the original, as closely as I can.  Usually even a copy of the original paint scheme.  I built a Spacehound, from Paul Tupker's plans, which were identical to the Russian drawings I had seen, yet I have seen other Spacehounds built that do not really resemble my model.  There was only one Spacehound in th e'64 WC configuration which all the models are supposed to represent. 

I do take advantage of the rules as to internal mods to make the plane safer/more sturdy, possibly, and easier to trim, but the airfoils, outlines, etc. are kept *original*.  I do it to recreate a plane I was enamored with in my earlier days.  With my current (and probably future) situation, I will not be able to win at any local meet, or probably even place.  Tom Luper, Tom Dixon, Dale and Derek Barry, Dave Hemstraught, Kent Tysor, Larry Draughn, Steve Fitton, John Simpson, etc., etc, are always there and we do not have classes for Classic nor Nostalgia 30.  So I do it for PURE fun.  It sure sounds that there MUST be others who do not.  Some must be doing it to gain an unfair advantage so that they are assured of a win??  That is the message I am getting here.  I have known all those I mentioned for a LONG time, and I have not seen any indication of that from any of them.  So it must be in another area of the country......  I have just NEVER seen a real need to get that anal about the length of a tail wheel strut, or any other minor (even if it does help on take off or landing) deviance, when it doesn't really affect the over all FLYING abilities of the model such as an airfoil, overall length, stab/elev area change, etc.. 

Are we in THAT much of a danger of the Classic/Nostalgia 30 classes being taken over by cheaters??

Thanks,
Big Bear

Bill,

I agree with almost all of what you said, and with the spirit of most of the rest of it. The only difference, to me, is not so much with "cheaters," as with some who do not understand the enjoyment intention of the older (OT and Classic) events. OTS started, in John Miske's words (in the 1979 MAN article, as I roughly recall) as an essentially non-competitive opportunity to either: fly again the models of our early days or - to finally fly some of them we wished we could, but couldn't, back then.

We'd learned a lot about improving design by then, but OTS was not about building another modern model, but about building the old designs as they were. ...With all their quirks and problems, but at least out of lighter wood than came in the Sterling kit boxes, etc. ...

One highly regarded flier, and true gentleman in all senses, did not understand that part of the OTS spirit, and came from a faraway country to an early VSC. ...with an equal span AA, Sr, cowled front end w/spinner faired in. He had no intention to cheat, but saw several areas where the AA,Sr could be improved, and did so... EXCEPT - the emphasis is on reliving the flying of the days when such kits and mag plans were current. Otherwise, there'd be no reason NOT to build a modern layout, revise wingtips, body and fin shapes, then do a paint scheme that looks like the "original's" box art, or a well-known photo.

I even think it goes back to GSCB, that modifications that change a design's "sit" at rest were not in the spirit, at least - if not specifically not allowed. Many of the rules sets for these unofficial, basically "fun" events spell out several "allowable mods." If a mod is not specifically allowed, how do we change to: we can use it, because it wasn't mentioned?

Now, power plants were never intended to be the same as the originals used. It ceases being fun when you need to be a wealthy MECA connoisseur to find what was once a common engine. Some do prefer to go with the original engines - that's part of what they enjoy... For practicality, commonly available, current, engines have always been part of OTS.

In that understanding, even though it isn't my best preference, I agree electrics should be allowed. Practical. In some parts of the country, noise complaints mandate them, in efffect. Could you imagine someone, in such an area, bringing out an unmuffled Fox 59 in a Lethal Lucy and flying it wound up as tight as Leon Shulman did?

Of course, some competitive feeling is involved, but the limitations of the basic eligible models does a lot to keep it from getting go-for-broke bloody.

Bill,

I agree with almost all of what you said, and with the spirit of most of the rest of it. The only difference, to me, is not so much with "cheaters," as with some who do not understand the enjoyment intention of the older (OT and Classic) events. OTS started, in John Miske's words (in the 1979 MAN article, as I roughly recall) as an essentially non-competitive opportunity to either: fly again the models of our early days or - to finally fly some of them we wished we could, but couldn't, back then.

We'd learned a lot about improving design by then, but OTS was not about building another modern model, but about building the old designs as they were. ...With all their quirks and problems, but at least out of lighter wood than came in the Sterling kit boxes, etc. ...

One highly regarded flier, and true gentleman in all senses, did not understand that part of the OTS spirit, and came from a faraway country to an early VSC. ...with an equal span AA, Sr, cowled front end w/spinner faired in. He had no intention to cheat, but saw several areas where the AA,Sr could be improved, and did so... EXCEPT - the emphasis is on reliving the flying of the days when such kits and mag plans were current. Otherwise, there'd be no reason NOT to build a modern layout, revise wingtips, body and fin shapes, then do a paint scheme that looks like the "original's" box art, or a well-known photo.

I even think it goes back to GSCB, that modifications that change a design's "sit" at rest were not in the spirit, at least - if not specifically not allowed. Many of the rules sets for these unofficial, basically "fun" events spell out several "allowable mods." If a mod is not specifically allowed, how do we change to: we can use it, because it wasn't mentioned?

Now, power plants were never intended to be the same as the originals used. It ceases being fun when you need to be a wealthy MECA connoisseur to find what was once a common engine. Some do prefer to go with the original engines - that's part of what they enjoy... For practicality, commonly available, current, engines have always been part of OTS.

In that understanding, even though it isn't my best preference, I agree electrics should be allowed. Practical. In some parts of the country, noise complaints mandate them, in efffect. Could you imagine someone, in such an area, bringing out an unmuffled Fox 59 in a Lethal Lucy and flying it wound up as tight as Leon Shulman did?

Of course, some competitive feeling is involved, but the limitations of the basic eligible models does a lot to keep it from getting go-for-broke bloody.

Hi Lou,

Thanks for the reply, and I totally understand where you are coming from.  My underlying message *might* be that we really need to address the rules as to what can cause a model to be *Disqualified*.  As of yet, I have not found anything addressing that actual case scenario.

Bill Little

Thanks for the reply, and I totally understand where you are coming from.  My underlying message *might* be that we really need to address the rules as to what can cause a model to be *Disqualified*.  As of yet, I have not found anything addressing that actual case scenario.

      As far as I can see, there is no provision in the PAMPA Classic rules for DQing anyone for any reason. Maybe there should be, but the penalty for deviations from the original is reduction in fidelity points, not disqualification. If I am missing it I would certainly appreciate being corrected.

   There have been ample opportunities to correct this "oversight" assuming it is one.   And it's not like the first time the topic has come up, it goes back to at least the late 90's.

     Brett


p.s. All it would take is this (changes in bold):

1. The purpose of the event is to encourage the construction and flying of control line stunt models designed, published or kitted prior to the year of 1970. it is a fact that many old time stunt designs continued to complete in the event subsequent to the inception of the “modern’’ pattern; therefore their appearance in a classic-era event would not be out of character. Any design may be entered, provided the contestant has convincing evidence of the designs compliance. Models without convincing evidence of having being designed, built, published, or kitted prior to Jan 1 1970 may not be entered.
 
It is expected that the contestants will comply with the spirit of the event and enter only //words removed\\ models which accurately reflect the aerodynamic layout and appearance of the original. In order to assist the judges, it is suggested that contestants provide reasonable proof that the model presented was actually flown during the period of eligibility as defined in paragraph 1. This proof could include kit plans, magazine articles and or plans, photographs and documentation signed by the original designer.  It is suggested that the judges ask the contestant if any changes have been made to the model presented. Changes that, in the opinion of the judges, represent a deviation from the original design sufficient to significantly alter the performance or appearance shall be disqualified.
 


Note that this also covers the conflict over "built" but not "designed" we were arguing about in January.

   But I can't propose such a change since I am on the Contest Board for PAMPA rules...

p.p.s. And I also can't propose this one, either:


 Fidelity points from 0 to 20 will be awarded for fidelity to the concept of the original design , finish, and propulsion system and conformance to the spirit of the event. Obvious and or gross distortions of the original design or use of engine/propellor/exhaust system with performance exceeding that of the period //words removed\\  in order to gain an actual or perceived performance advantage //words removed\\ will also be subject to reduction of fidelity points. Again, the decision as to the level of distortion and the penalty appropriate for such will be at the discretion of the on-site official and not subject to dispute.


  p.p.p.s. At least I can't propose that until Jan 1 2011.

Brett, I've flown Classic since VSC I. If adopted your proposal will IMHO bring the event back to its original intent in a fair and equitable manner while still allowing innovation. I hope they will be adopted...brilliant!

  Well, neither can be *my* proposal, since I am on the EC and we are also the Contest Board for PAMPA rules. If someone else with an interest in the topic were to propose something similar, then, that's another story.

    I emphasize that to first approximation I really don't care much what the rules are or what people want the event to be. But I do think the rules should be free of the need to interpret them. If we want to be able to DQ people for deviations, we ought to say it right out. As far as I am concerned, from a strictly technical standpoint, it's OK to rely on opinion as to what the deviations can be. But we shouldn't leave it do vague so we have to debate if you can do it at all.

    If pressed, I think that you shouldn't DQ people, and let peer pressure and Fidelity points take care of the problem of deviations. In which case I would change it to this:

1. The purpose of the event is to encourage the construction and flying of control line stunt models designed, published or kitted prior to the year of 1970. it is a fact that many old time stunt designs continued to complete in the event subsequent to the inception of the “modern’’ pattern; therefore their appearance in a classic-era event would not be out of character. Any design may be entered, provided the contestant has convincing evidence of the designs compliance.Models without convincing evidence of having being designed, built, published, or kitted prior to Jan 1 1970 may not be entered.
 
It is expected that the contestants will comply with the spirit of the event and enter only models which accurately reflect the aerodynamic layout and appearance of the original. In order to assist the judges, it is suggested that contestants provide reasonable proof that the model presented was actually flown during the period of eligibility as defined in paragraph 1. This proof could include kit plans, magazine articles and or plans, photographs and documentation signed by the original designer.  It is suggested that the judges ask the contestant if any changes have been made to the model presented. Changes that, in the opinion of the judges, represent a deviation from the original design sufficient to significantly alter the performance or appearance shall be disqualified.    Changes that, in the opinion of the judges, represent a significant deviation from the original design, shall receive minimum fidelity points. In the spirit of the goals stated in the introductory paragraph, no models may be disqualified due to deviation from design.


   or something like that. Of course if we all think Fidelity points should go, then, you have to think of something else.
 

The tail wheel issue is kind of a big deal because lenghtenig the strut makes it easier to make a high-point take off and landing (stating the obvious here). Kind of like re-positioning the too-forward LG on an OTS design. DQ might be a bit harsh but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Lessening of fidelty points seems a good compromise. Personally I like the short tail wheel strut of many classic designs. The nose high attitude allows the model to be rotated on its mains in a realistic manner on T/O, or make a  two point wheel landing and hold the tail wheel off the ground until the aircraft slows. Not easy to do well with either a model or a full scale airplane.  

I think the issue was more the long tail wheel strut than the tail wheel itself.  But...I wasn't there when the infamous tail wheel strut incident occurred so probably shouldn't be talking about it at all.  

Mike, I definitly think you are entitled to strut. You sure can't make the strut too long as the prop barely clears the ground as it is. I had to do the same thing on my Olympic but extended the tail wheel housing instead of adding a strut. Although the plane is in the paint shop the pic sort of shows the end result and the rear fuselage will clear the asphalt (barely). 

The Olympic is an interesting problem. But you are talking about flying it on asphalt. Start to think about it on grass? I only fly on grass and in building mine have had an awful time trying to make something that will work. I reality I know it simply will not. It was made to fly off a hard surface. On grass the thing is going to fuse drag, no doubt about it. Now if someone will suggest to me how to rig up a stooge to it I'll be forever grateful. I have no idea how to make that happen with mine. 

bob branch

Glad to see that reticulated Gila is still doing his job. No way would I try anything funny near your workbench.

Are still snowed in, or are you seeing the light of day yet down New Mexico way?

Well, it happens I do have an FP40 (Lew Woolard modified) and the LA40 also is an exact swap out, but neither has the ponies of the LA46 or its temperament. I seem to have enough clearance for the 11.5-4 APC but not the 12.25-3.75 that this motor likes so much. I do have an assortment of 3-blades to try as well.

No progress on the Shark yet, but it is next in the que. I need to put the final touches on the Olympic, paint the modified Oriental Plus (PA40 on pipe), and the electric powered China Clipper. I think I will qualify for Medicare about the same time as the Shark sees daylight under the wheels.

Nice to hear your days of cabin fever may be coming to an end, but it looks like you have made good use of your confinement!

Russ

thanks, I'll look into it!

bob

When I had my Brodak kit of the Olympic, it flew off of grass except during officials at VSC.  Had two gears, one with pants and one without.   

I think that is the best way to do it, Doc!

Big Bear

Pete is absolutely right about the fuse mounted Olympic gear. I am looking at Gialdini's classic 1963 American Modeler article on the Mark VI (the "barbell" treatise) and it shows details of the "alternate landing gear" mounted in the fuselage. Drawings are by Gialdini himself. The fuse mounted gear puts the wheel axle about an inch forward of where it is with the wing mounted gear.

The Brodak kit uses a very different system of mounting the wing gear, with a grooved block and torque arm as with most modern wing mounts. Better than the original, I think.

The original also uses a very thin K&B wheel in a skinny wheel pant. This says to me, along with the prehensile tail wheel, that Gialdini intended to fly only off pavement. When I built mine I used wider wheels to fly off grass and had to build the pants porky to accommodate the wheels. Looks okay in profile but really not "Mark VI-y" to my eye. If I was interested in performance or winning contests (in my dreams) I would build another with fuse gear.

Any chance of getting a shot of the fuse mounted gear set up on the Olympic?