Author Topic: Stiletto (Read 3250 times)

Alan Hayes · « **on:** July 21, 2007, 08:42:32 PM »

Was the Stiletto, in any version ever kitted?

Alan

John Paris · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2007, 09:00:18 PM »

Alan,
Ty probably knows more about this than me, but M&P did kit the 600 and 660 sized versions. There was also another company that kitted the 660 version (Enterprise??). The M&P versions show up on the bay from time to time, but you need to pay close attention to see which version you are getting.
John

Alan Hayes · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2007, 09:44:24 PM »

Ty, I have always loved the lines on this aircraft...always wanted to build one and have the 35 plans from Tom Dixon. Just another goal to achive..lol I don't have much time to build a kit much less to cut one....but what is an extra few nights at the bandsaw..right?

Alan

Bill Little · « **Reply #3 on:** July 25, 2007, 12:38:26 AM »

Just an "FYI", guys. Y'all do know that none of the Stilettos are Classic Legal, right?

Allen Brickhaus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 25, 2007, 06:56:00 PM »

The early M&P kit was of Les McDonald's version in the June, 1974 issue of Model Airplane News. This was the thin winged (610 square inch) early version of Dick Mathis' kit. The second was a 580 square inch version which Les never built and was more like the shapes of his World Championships model but much smaller. I did a review of the second kit in the May 1979 issue of Model Airplane News and it was powered by a Como .40. I do believe that there was a 660 version kitted by the Florida based company a bit later.

Allen Brickhaus

Allen Brickhaus · « **Reply #5 on:** July 25, 2007, 07:02:28 PM »

Copy of first page (50) of review.

Allen Brickhaus

Alan Hayes · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2007, 07:21:01 PM »

I must have overlooked something here....what is the cut off date?.....LOL

Alan

Allen Brickhaus · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2007, 08:48:18 PM »

End of 1969.

Allen Brickhaus

James Mills · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2007, 09:24:41 PM »

I have brought this up in conversation before but not sure if I ever posted it, but would designs such as this warrant conversation about extending the cutoff date for classic (which would open up more designs from Shaffer, Werewage, Hunt, McDonald, and many more) to say '75 or '79?

This would also keep with the philosophy of having one plane for more than one class as well as have many designs that would be very competitive in the PAMPA classes. I believe this would create a new fire to build some of these planes and not hurt the intent of classic competition. I know some contests have a nostalgia event, but this also means more judges needed to cover a separate event.

Just a thought.

Thanks,

James

john e. holliday · « **Reply #9 on:** July 26, 2007, 09:25:52 AM »

Some parts of the country are already discussing this already. It has already been suggested to start a 70's class of stunt. All I will say is leave the cut off at 12-31-1969 for Classic. Have fun, DOC Holliday

RandySmith · « **Reply #10 on:** July 26, 2007, 10:18:43 AM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on July 26, 2007, 09:25:52 AM

Some parts of the country are already discussing this already. It has already been suggested to start a 70's class of stunt. All I will say is leave the cut off at 12-31-1969 for Classic. Have fun, DOC Holliday

HI Doc

Many people have talked about this for sometime now and many do NOT want the date left at 12\31\69, many people feel that the original concept, before it got changed to be preferred, that is any 25 year old model is Classic legal.
I myself think it is silly that people will tell you that a 37 year old Lew McFarland ACKRO is Not classic legal, or that a 36 year old McDonald Tropicaire is NOT Classic legal.
I personally feel that the date should move to 1975 and be fixed there then looked at in 5 years. or just add 1 year for every 2 years that pass.
Which ever way it goes the PAMPA member ship need to see it , vote on it,and NOT have it just decided in secret without anyone knowing. And the argument about the foam cookie cutter airplanes is NOT a very good one. I am not afraid of having to compete against them. Besides I have had dozens of people tell me how "stale" the Classic event is getting without having new planes come in.

Regards
Randy Smith

Allen Brickhaus · « **Reply #11 on:** July 26, 2007, 12:19:34 PM »

Thank you Ty,

Some have suggested a class called the "Super Seventies" or Tom Dixon has the "Nostalgia Class" in the Atlanta area. I rather like having the addition of a five year group of models like Randy suggested in a previous comment on this thread. Someday I might have something of mine also "Classic" legal.

Allen Brickhaus

Bill Little · « **Reply #12 on:** July 27, 2007, 01:36:07 AM »

I can understand the reason for "setting a fixed date" like in OTS for the cut-off. But, having said that, I believe the rolling 25 years original rule would be better. I know, personally, that I will not consider the period the model came from because I will still build the ones I like. I have always thought that Classic, like OTS is supposed to be more of a FUN event. An event where "old" planes are built and flown to relive that time frame, not to win a trophy (although that IS nice! LOL!!) And each of us have a period, and "style", of plane that we like from yester year. I have always taken "Classic" seriously, but serious in the fact that I want to reproduce an airplane from a time gone by that has caught my attention and then go fly it with a bunch of other like minded pilots.

IMHO, another event is not the answer unless it flown combined with the current Classic event and the breakdown comes on the scoreboard. Plus you could only fly one or the other during that meet. To hold it as a completely separate event will take more resources which are not always available.

Either way the whole thing goes, I will be satisfied. Since, like I said, I will build the planes I want to build either way. If it is not Classic legal I will just fly it in PAMPA class. At my level, a Genesis 46, or other '70s plane, will be plenty competitive.

Allen Brickhaus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 13, 2007, 09:02:10 AM »

Enclosed are some shots of Les McDonald's 72C Stiletto which was owned by Wynn Paul and now in the hands of Kenny Stevens, boy if that Kenny could ever learn how to finish a model. LOL.

Allen Brickhaus

Shultzie · « **Reply #14 on:** August 23, 2007, 02:22:12 PM »

Quote from: Allen Brickhaus on August 13, 2007, 09:02:10 AM

Enclosed are some shots of Les McDonald's 72C Stiletto which was owned by Wynn Paul and now in the hands of Kenny Stevens, boy if that Kenny could ever learn how to finish a model. LOL.

Allen Brickhaus

Thanks..for the photos...GREAT SHOTS OF ONE REALLY GREAT WORK OF SKYART.

Tim McTigue · « **Reply #15 on:** August 23, 2007, 03:08:11 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on July 27, 2007, 01:36:07 AM

I can understand the reason for "setting a fixed date" like in OTS for the cut-off. But, having said that, I believe the rolling 25 years original rule would be better. I know, personally, that I will not consider the period the model came from because I will still build the ones I like. I have always thought that Classic, like OTS is supposed to be more of a FUN event. An event where "old" planes are built and flown to relive that time frame, not to win a trophy (although that IS nice! LOL!!) And each of us have a period, and "style", of plane that we like from yester year...

I "kind of" share your opinion, but I have a fear about a rolling-25 rule. My fear is that it would eventually lead to many fliers "going for the win" and building later-model planes, and a consequent general lack of interest in the older designs (plus, the 60's era planes would lose their distinction). I note that there is an OTS class, as well as Classic, to distinguish the older designs from the later ones, and also to prevent a Trixter-Barnstormer from "competing" against a 1968 design. I put the quotes there, because it'd be difficult to define the parameters of any such competition.

I have no axe to grind here, I may not ever compete on any level in any location, and I do admittedly seem to have a fixation on older planes so far - I've built a Flite Streak, a Skyray, and a Smoothie - the most modern plane I've built so far was a Fancher Twister. Currently building a Trophy Trainer, and I have both the Cobra and Colossus kits from Walter. I'd also like to build a Nobler. Mabe an Ares. Can't seem to move into the Modern era at all...

I do wonder, though, how many would build these older designs if newer ones were competing in Classic competitions alongside them. I guess I'd prefer to create a different competition for them, but I hear you about the resources (moot point around here, the same 3 or 4 guys show up to all competitions, and have for years - I'm not yet one of them).

Marvin Denny · « **Reply #16 on:** August 23, 2007, 04:35:54 PM »

Quote from: RandySmith on July 26, 2007, 10:18:43 AM

HI Doc

Many people have talked about this for sometime now and many do NOT want the date left at 12\31\69, many people feel that the original concept, before it got changed to be preferred, that is any 25 year old model is Classic legal.

Yes Randy, and many of us want it LEFT as it is, Start a new class if you wish, but leave Classic alone.

Bigiron

Bill Little · « **Reply #17 on:** August 24, 2007, 01:38:35 PM »

Quote from: Marvin Denny on August 23, 2007, 04:35:54 PM

Yes Randy, and many of us want it LEFT as it is, Start a new class if you wish, but leave Classic alone.

Bigiron

Hi Marvin,

Out of curiousity, what was your opinion BEFORE the Dec. 31, 1969 cut-off was established? There was a period of a few years where the 25 year rolling "Nostalgia" rule was in effect.

Allen Brickhaus · « **Reply #18 on:** August 24, 2007, 01:40:39 PM »

That would be a good idea. Thus we would have:
a. Old Time Stunt
b. Classic
c. "Super Seventies-Nostalgia-etc."

Allen Brickhaus

proparc · « **Reply #19 on:** August 24, 2007, 02:42:07 PM »

Quote from: RandySmith on July 26, 2007, 10:18:43 AM

HI Doc

Many people have talked about this for sometime now and many do NOT want the date left at 12\31\69, many people feel that the original concept, before it got changed to be preferred, that is any 25 year old model is Classic legal.
I myself think it is silly that people will tell you that a 37 year old Lew McFarland ACKRO is Not classic legal, or that a 36 year old McDonald Tropicaire is NOT Classic legal.
I personally feel that the date should move to 1975 and be fixed there then looked at in 5 years. or just add 1 year for every 2 years that pass.
Which ever way it goes the PAMPA member ship need to see it , vote on it,and NOT have it just decided in secret without anyone knowing. And the argument about the foam cookie cutter airplanes is NOT a very good one. I am not afraid of having to compete against them. Besides I have had dozens of people tell me how "stale" the Classic event is getting without having new planes come in.

Regards
Randy Smith

This is the best solution I have ever heard. A lot of really good "Flushing Meadows Golden Era" designs published in Flying Models mamgazine would be allowed to compete.

Bill Little · « **Reply #20 on:** August 24, 2007, 04:29:14 PM »

Well, when this discussion comes up, I always suggest that a "Super '70s Class" (Jan. 1, 1970-Dec. 31, 1979), or either a "Nostalgia Class" (25 year cutoff), be run concurrent with Classic. One entry per pilot, no crossover. All fly at the same time, and it's separated on the Score Board. No extra judges needed, just one more set of awards. Time,etc., to run the meet stays the same. Everyone gets what they want! (now what's so hard about that??)

L0U CRANE · « **Reply #21 on:** August 25, 2007, 12:38:10 PM »

Bill,

Of course, you caught (were caught on?) the wording in another thread, I think. Both classes fly combined in the same flight order schedule, and the results are separated and posted to the appropriate scoreboard by class. Do I have that right?

Bill Little · « **Reply #22 on:** August 25, 2007, 11:16:59 PM »

Quote from: L0U CRANE on August 25, 2007, 12:38:10 PM

Bill,

Of course, you caught (were caught on?) the wording in another thread, I think. Both classes fly combined in the same flight order schedule, and the results are separated and posted to the appropriate scoreboard by class. Do I have that right?

Yep.