Hi Pat:

Billy Simons used to call these models "New Wave" designs. I kind of like that! That's what I consider my Genesis design to be, and also Les McDonald's Stiletto, Boom Boom Gunther's Galaxy, Jim Kostecky's Talon and Formula S, and many others.

Bob Hunt

Hi Guys,

Bob the name "New-Wave Classic" does roll easily off the tongue and has a nice ring to it. I like it. I guess the reason I started this post in the hope that by naming this style of classic plane, it might generate renewed interest in these bold, unique and special designs.

I seem to remember some references to "functional style" for planes like the Stunt Machine and the Stiletto that made no effort to even emulate  any real airplane but instead were designed as tools dedicated to optimize  PA performance. Your Genesis would fit in this category as well. 
I don't see the need to get carried away with lots of extra style category names like "functional" but a more inclusive name like "New Wave Classic" , would be a handy way to reference these designs. 

One area that may generate some confusion, is what separates a "Jet Style" airplane from a "New Wave" airplane.  Are the Gierke Novi I - II & III "jet style" or "new wave" while the Novi IV seems to definitely be "New Wave".
Interesting questions ---Huumm.   Bob thanks for your input.

Dennis, I want to thank you for your input as well. Dennis  I am like you in that I am getting used to the idea of creating a name for this style of design but I think that Bill Simon, through the irrepressible Bob Hunt,  may be on to something with this "New Wave " name. It kind of grows on you.
 
I am not really familiar with the Jerry Worth "Mirage" and "Apteryx" designs
but if you say so I am sure they would be of this style.

Think about the implications of what led Bill Simons to use the word "New Wave" as these planes were the new and modern style planes of their era.
Now 30-40 years later I think they are worthy to finally have a name that would describe their unique nature.  What do you guys think?

                                                                Pat Robinson

Billy did say that the Apteryx was a definite impact on the USA-1 design as far as looks and aesthetics were concerned.

Hi Guys,
Well, Dennis posting some pictures motivated me to dig through my own magazine collection and I have come up with some images of the the 3 planes I talked about so I am going to try and post 2 plans and a side view picture. ( this is my 1st attempt at posting pictures)

First, from May, 64  MAN, you have Jerry Worth's "Electra X-35" that featured the distinctive swooping fuselage/rudder shape that were featured on several of these dinstinctive planes. It also featured a rounded rear fuselage with a sub fin that was seen on several later designs.
 Second , from Aug. 65 MAN, you have Gerry Flaugher's "Midas" again with that distinctive swooping rudder but with totally a different rear fuselage shape.
Third, from January 1967 MAN, you have Jim Van Loo's "Mystere" which also has that distictive rudder shape but this time in a turtle deck rear fuselage.
Even though it has a a turtle deck I doubt any knowledgable person would confuse Mystere's shape with a Nobler-Ares-Detroiter style airplane.

Dennis, when you start looking a little closer you can almost see how these "New Wave" designers influenced each other as the designs evolved
that by 69 resulted in the "Mirage".
 
Dennis, do you know when Dave Gierke entered the timeline with his airplanes because some of  his planes might be considered "New Wave" as well.  I am sure that their are other guys we have overlooked.
 
Traditional classic planes are graceful and timeless, modern airplanes are optimally functional and finish out beautifully but "New Wave" airplanes were exciting just because because they had  "bold new shapes" that only got better with a beautiful finish. Some of these designs may be considered lacking in sufficient side area compared to modern designs but perhaps counter-rotating electric power might mitigate those issues in the future.
Anyway, I still think these are exciting and appealing airplanes.

Hi Randy and Bill,

Bill, in what year was the USA-1 created? I don't think I have ever known the date. Anyway, thanks for joining in with your info.

Randy, wouldn't you love to compare the plans for the Apteryx and the USA-1 side by side and see where these 2 creative guys are alike and also how they differ.
Or, to heck with doing a comparison , I would just love to have a set of plans for the Apteryx.    Randy, I want to thank you for joining in as well.

Hi Doc, Yep, "New Wave" does have a nice ring to it.  I haven't looked closely at the Mirage plan but Jerry Worth's "Electra X-35" has something like 25+ ribs per panel and it is an I-beam wing design. If the external look of the plane is the same when the wing is covered then I don't see why there would be any problem. Folks re-engineer classic planes all the time for greater strength or to build lighter or build more accurate like a molded leading edge instead of a carved leading edge and etc. . I guess some purists would insist on building just like the original using only Ambroid glue but to me it is more about the design and the shape than what is under the paint in a classic airplane . To each his own. 

Guys, I want to thank you all for weighing in , this is an interesting discussion about some very special airplanes that to some degree have been overlooked by builders and ,who know's ,if we all succeed in creating a viable name like "New Wave" it might generate new interest and new building of these exciting airplanes ,which would only enrich all our flight circles.

                                                             Pat Robinson

Hi Bill,

In my message to Randy Powell, I alluded to the differences I would expect between the Apteryx and the USA-1 and how interesting it would be to compare 2 planes with similar styling features to see how each designer went about creating a plane to meet their own personal flying requirements.

Airfoils, moments , flaps as % of wing area, tail volume and etc., etc.
I would think the differences would be in the details which would all probably add up to a very different flying plane. Designers may inspire each others styling but a good builder will usually wrap a given shape around a proven numbers that have been tried and tested in the air.

Bill, thanks for the 1969 date for the USA-1. I tend ,to usually, tie airplanes to their magazine article but I don't remember a construction article for the USA-1, so I was a little vague on the date.

Bill thanks for your usual informative input.  Thanks!

                                                             Pat Robinson

Dennis,

Here's a picture, dated 1965 Nats, of the Novi I.

I think you can have a wing mounted gear in a Jet, just not a fuse mounted gear --- unless it's a trike.   

Hi Guys,
Wow!  This is getting good. 

Dennis thanks for a viable definition of "Jet Style" Stunt Planes as I think it should make it easier to figure out what is or is not a "New Wave" Stunt Plane.

I guess the next thing to do is create a list of  "New Wave" stunt planes so everybody could be on the same page about these designs. Dennis,you and your family have a lot of available stunt history to reference do you think you
you could begin a list that others could help out by adding to. Wynn Paul would obviously be a great source of imformation ,as well. Don't worry, I am not trying to volunteer you for a job I am just thinking out loud about a possibility.  What do you think?

Something happened around 1964 -65 where the styling of stunt planes began to shift and evolve to new ,different an sometimes bolder shapes and it kept right on evolving to the point that by the late 70's and early 80's I heard people bemoaning the lack of any "Nobler-Ares-Detroiter" style airplanes.
 
Someone could honestly ask , "What's the point in all this naming and creating a list, because people are going to build what they like anyway, no matter what you call it.  My only answer is by giving these designs a name and maybe creating a list of them we could increase awareness of them in the minds of more builders who have either never seen them or have just forgotten them over the passage of time. No, I am not proposing to change classic rules in some way, but just to increase awareness of great designs.

Dennis, thanks also for your pictures and for your information on Dave Gierke's airplanes.  I think your USA-1 picture and explaination confirms everything "Big Bear" Bill had to say about it  and it is nice to see your rare picture of the original configuration. Good Stuff !!
 
Dennis do you know if plans for the Apteryx have ever been available? It would be a shame for an inovative and beautiful plane like that to be lost.
 
Dennis, I have never seen  the plans or pictures of the Kostecky "Talon" but
it sounds like it conforms to your definition of "Jet Style" to me.

Hi Randy,  Thanks for the Novi picture. I have the magazine article but this is the 1st time I have seen this plane in color.  Now as for your explaination of  "jet style" landing gear -   - Huuumm 

Randy, do you know of any other designs, that you would consider, to also be "New Wave"style.  You seem to be someone with an affinity for this style of airplane who has done his part to keep them flying, so I would value your input.

Thanks guys, this has been very interesting. It started with me looking at some old plans in a new and different way that seems to have struck a chord of interest with other guys out there.  This has been good.

                                                               Pat Robinson

Hi Guys,
Wow!  This is getting good. 

I guess the next thing to do is create a list of  "New Wave" stunt planes so everybody could be on the same page about these designs. Dennis,you and your family have a lot of available stunt history to reference do you think you you could begin a list that others could help out by adding to. Wynn Paul would obviously be a great source of imformation ,as well. Don't worry, I am not trying to volunteer you for a job I am just thinking out loud about a possibility.  What do you think?

Something happened around 1964 -65 where the styling of stunt planes began to shift and evolve to new, different an sometimes bolder shapes and it kept right on evolving to the point that by the late 70's and early 80's I heard people bemoaning the lack of any "Nobler-Ares-Detroiter" style airplanes.
 
Dennis, thanks also for your pictures and for your information on Dave Gierke's airplanes.  I think your USA-1 picture and explaination confirms everything "Big Bear" Bill had to say about it  and it is nice to see your rare picture of the original configuration. Good Stuff !!
 
Dennis do you know if plans for the Apteryx have ever been available? It would be a shame for an inovative and beautiful plane like that to be lost.
 
Dennis, I have never seen  the plans or pictures of the Kostecky "Talon" but
it sounds like it conforms to your definition of "Jet Style" to me.

Hi Randy,  Thanks for the Novi picture. I have the magazine article but this is the 1st time I have seen this plane in color.  Now as for your explaination of  "jet style" landing gear -   - Huuumm 

Thanks guys, this has been very interesting. It started with me looking at some old plans in a new and different way that seems to have struck a chord of interest with other guys out there.  This has been good.

                                                               Pat Robinson

PAT: Responses here indicate you had a HECK of an idea for the thread in the first place!

I think when the Jets started showing up they wre very exciting.  Trike gears, swept flying surfaces (especially those FINS!) were all the rage.  Over time the pendulum swung back some and a lot of elements of the jets were melded with th eclassic or functional designs.  Over time I think we have swung back to "classic" shapes - but there seems to be a lot of interest in the Jets again!

Rather than list all the designs (I still have a day job!) I think it is cool to just have a category to identify with them with.   I'm not sure I am smart enough to put them all in the right list either!  Not sure we have covered ALL the designs:
* Where would you put the Hunt's Genesis, Casale's original black Spectrum, or my Orange Crate?  I think they  belong in ANOTHER group; before this thread started I would have thought of THOSE as "New Wave"!  Maybe we should call them "punk rockers"!
* Also, there is a big distinction between Semi Scale and the "Scale" group (Rabe, et al) - seems inadequate to paint them with the same brush.

About the Apteryx - I am not aware of any Plans for it.  Unless someone knows how to contact Jerry Worth I am not sure how else to even TRY to get any.

Brother Big Bear:  This is the only pix I ever remember seeing of the original USA-1.  I think the bottom of the fin radius up into the straight line at the back of the wing.  With the later fin I thin the rear fuselage sahpe was retained - with the fin offset forward.

Pat: Copy of Talon article below, but I have lost the main TEXT!  Anyhow, note the add-on "jet intakes/exhuasts" and the stab fairings - but with a tail dragger layout..

I guess I am going to have to dig out my CD's that Tom Wilk made of all the stunt planes thru the years.  I can't remember all of the planes, but, he tried to get every publidhed design on the different discs.  It was fun to see a picture of a young Alan Brickhouse, Bobby Hunt and quite a few others.  If the Apertyx was published it would be on his disc.  Later and have fun,  DOC Holliday

I've always considered that Bart Klapinski's Nat's winning Tempest fits into this listing. Would you agree, or not?

Trike gear is one of the features that seem to be shared, at least in the beginning, with many of the designs of this era.

DENNIS...WOW!
THESE LAST TWO...ARE TRULY THE TIP-TOP OF THE BEAUTY CHAIN!!!

YOU SHOULD PUT TOGETHER A COFFEE TABLE PICTURE BOOK...with that great collection of pristene stunt models...Keep them commmmin' Thanks for the memories...Dennis~!

Hi Guys,
this is the third time I have started on a reply, so hopefully the 3rd time is the charm. hopefully I remember some of it.

First, Dennis I want to thank you for your pictures and your insightful input about this topic.Well Done!  

Second , when I started this thread I thought stunt plane came in just a few "Design Styles" which broke down into following :

"Traditional" style that came in 2 forms ,the turtledeck form like Nobler-Ares-Strathmoor type of plane ,and the top block-canopy form like Playboy, Skylark, Thunderbird type of airplane .

"Scale-Stunt" were airplanes that derived their basic form from a real airplane and it could be a p-51, or PT-19 or Stuka or an F-86 Sabre jet, it didn't matter. A plane mostly based on a real jet is a "Scale-Stunt" airplane and not a "Jet-Style" airplane for example.

"Jet Style" to me were airplanes that were both "Non Traditional" and not "Scale Stunt" airplanes. To me a "Jet Style" design was an original design that incorporated jet-like design elements in it's shape.  I viewed every thing from the Novi through the Stiletto's to Bob Hunts Genesis and beyond as "Jet Style airplanes.  Bob Hunt in his post clearly stated that he considered his Genesis to be a "New Wave" design so I had to rethink what I thought, actually were, "Jet Style" airplanes. Needless to say I was  a little confused.

Then comes along one Dennis A, "Esquire", with rules defining what elements constitute a "Jet Style" design and by the process of elimination what is a "New Wave" design airplane.  This provided some clarity.
( Note* Given your Talon post I think your rules should say "Most Jets are )(trikes" instead of "All Jets are trikes".                                           )

Dennis , I think a simple 2 step process should make classifying airplanes somewhat easier.

1. Ask the question is this plane a "Scale Stunt" or "Traditional" design style?
    If NO , proceed to question 2.

2. Ask the question does this plane meet the the requirements for a
  "Jet Style" design.
    If No, then the airplane is classified as a "New Wave" style of design.

Dennis, I think this process may make it easier to classify the planes you brought up. The Genesis is as Bob said a "New Wave" design. Is your Orange Crate a "Traditional" style of design? I would say the answer is No. Is it a "Jet Style" design again the answer is No. So your Orange Crate would be a "New Wave" design.  The 3 airplanes I started this thread about the Mystere, Midas, and Electra X-35, are all ,Not, "Traditional" Style airplanes but are also ,Not, "Jet Style" airplanes so I would say they are "New Wave" designs.

The Tempest, John mentioned, is also ,Not, a "Traditional" design style of airplane and it is ,Not, "Jet Style so it too is a "New Wave" design. By the way, John thanks for your post, I appreciate you mentioning the Tempest.

Now Dennis, the 2 Tom Warden designs "The Continental" and the "Minado" are based on the "Playboy" which is a "Traditional" design and I would consider both of these planes to be of a "Traditional" Design Style.  

The real key to this process is to decide if a plane is of a "Traditional" Design Style or Not , and then just use your rules to see it is "Jet Style" or Not. Dennis does that work for you? To me it is easier to look at a plane a say "Traditional" or "Non-Traditional" when trying to classify it.

The neat thing about all of this , to me, is that we finally have a "cool" name for all those wonderful "Non Traditional" styled stunt planes.

As far as the Apteryx plans go, sometimes designs just get lost over time and we are all lucky that  people have done the work to preserve as many planes and stunt heritage as we now have available.

Dennis thanks again for your thoughtful contributions to this thread.

Big Bill, Got a question for ya!    
Exactly where would this new USA-1 fit into your building "Priority List".
I haven't kept count but it seems you have mentioned a lot of different projects either underway or in the planning stages so I was wondering how this new USA-1 would fit in all of that  . You be a busy , busy boy.  

Doc, thank you for mentioning the CD's. I bet they would be an Ideal way to do research on airplanes. Going through a "Gazillion" magazines to find the few things you are actually looking for is tedious , and time consuming and gets old quick. It was very smart of you to bring it up in the context of classifying airplanes. I need to get a set of these CD's myself but I just hadn't got around to doing it yet. Oh Well.  

Randy, you may have a point about the points for originalty and realism impacting design in the mid 60's. Good thinking on your part.
In addition, I also think that bold, original and new design is also it's own reward because it satisfies the human need to create, so well. Thanks Randy!
P.S. I believe you are correct about Bill Sawyer and the Continental kit and the Continental is a beautiful plane.

So Shultzie,
Would you consider your Avenger and other designs to be "Jet Style" or to be
"New Wave" style of design? Inquiring minds want to know!  

Once again, I want to thank everyone for your contribution. This has been an interesting and thoughtful thread because of you guys.  Good Stuff!!

                                                              Pat Robinson

Big Bill, Got a question for ya! 
Exactly where would this new USA-1 fit into your building "Priority List".
I haven't kept count but it seems you have mentioned a lot of different projects either underway or in the planning stages so I was wondering how this new USA-1 would fit in all of that  . You be a busy , busy boy. 

Hi Pat,

The USA-1 is not going to be on the table real soon.  But, then again............!!!!!!!!!  It is so easy to frame one up that I might just do it on the spur of the moment.  Aaron, and I, have cut all the small parts to build 2 '62 Ares so I could build one of those at any time, also.  I have never had a '62 Ares, only the '58 and '59.  I have already had the USA-1 and now a Vulcan, so I am closing in on Billy's Classic planes!   The Super Ares, however, had never really tripped my trigger. 

The Hunt Mustang *should* be the next plane off the boards.  A set of Lampione Sabre wings are built and sitting in their lost foam cradles waiting!  Plus I have two other planes near completion, and a Randy Smith *Classic* to build from foam cores.  There's a Werwage P-47, Genesis 46, Formula S, a magazine article plane, and a few more sets of foam cores in the shop.  All projects accumulated over the recent past, one thing at a time.  So, I am not even sure what I am doing! LOL!!!!!!!!

You will be among the very first to know what is next, though.

I totally forgot!!!!!  I have everything necessary to build a Playboy from Bill Sawyer.  I think it is a VERY SEXY (no pun intended, ie: Playboy!) stunt plane!

That one is another MUST DO!

You would almost think that either the Air Force or Navy would want to pick the NATS back up out of the reasons the Navy forst hosted them.   Advertising dollars can be spent in the millions for NASCAR sponsorship, which is a dwindling fan base, so a few hundred thousand to sponsor a NATS and get the publicity of that would not be a huge investment.

Bases can be monitored just as strictly as they are now.......  face it, if a crazy wants to do something, he will. 

What cha' think, Ron??

Hi Guys,

Hi Ron,
Like I said to Randy you could very well be right that originalty points was the real driving force that changed the look of stunt design back then.
In fact, Your Silhavy story pretty well confirms that to be a valid motivation for the change that occured.

Many of todays airplanes have been adapted to work with the pipes and power systems we have today. The "Traditional Style" of yesterday has been updated to what I guess could be called a "Neo-Traditional Style" that captures the "feel", of planes from the past, but functions as a modern PA machine. Many of these new planes like their "Traditional predecessors had a certain "sameness" in their overall shape, but are each, an inividual finished work of art.
There are still original minded guys like Randy Powell ( look at photos of his framed but unfinished new plane) that are creating outside a "conventional style of design" box.  I also know that to a certain degree the expression "form follows function" also does apply to a modern plane design.

This brings me to wonder what would happen to modern design if "originality points" were added back to appearance scoring. What wonderful shapes and forms would be created as a result of that change.  What do you guys think?

Electric power is another force that will probably drive airplane design change just as tuned pipe power systems was a driving force in current airplane design.  So far, electric planes seem more often to be adapted from IC design rather than a fresh electric design that started from a blank sheet of paper.
Ron, you are someone who personally know's something about electric power so where do you see electric design going? 

Ron, your post was thought provoking and I appreciate your input.

Hey Big Bill,
I also have a "Playboy kit but I am still waiting on my motor from the tuner so I haven't started on it yet. I plan to incorporate part of Norm Whittle's paint design but change the colors ( see above photo for paint design ).

Bill, do you like the term "New Wave" design ? 
Does the terms "Scale-Stunt" design and "Traditional Design" work for you?
Does Dennis A's definition of "Jet Style" work for you?
Bill,would you agree ,that If a design is Not Scale-Stunt and is also Not Traditional, and, in addition,  does not meet the rules for "Jet Style" then it should be called a "New Wave" design.

I guess for me, the point is that there were a lot of wonderful, unconventional designs created that finally deserve to have a "cool name" to describe them.
That is why I started this whole thread. What do you think?

Ron and Bill, I want to thank both of your for weighing in. Thanks!

                                                   Pat Robinson

Hi Pat,

"New Wave" is a very nice sounding name.   Old Time, Classic, Jet, Scale, New Wave, Modern.  Whew....... a lot to keep up with!

About "Originality" and AP, not wanting to start everyone back onto that, but since you are very much closer to Club headquarters, and can get to many more meetings than I can, maybe you can tell me why the MCLS decided to drop the BOM/AP at our meets??  No one, so far, has done so for me.

THANKS!

Hi Guys,

Well I put a post on here yesterday that is not here. I have been having issues with my DSL provider. Anyway, I wiil try again. 

Okay, The First thing I want to do is to apologize to everyone for not effectively communicating ,clearly, what I WAS trying to discuss.
 I have absolutely NO interest in starting any discussion about appearance points or the, ever dreaded, BOM or even bringing it up as a topic.

What I was trying to do was build on Ron King's assertion that "originalty points" were a major driving force in the explosion of new and different design styles that occured in the early 60's that continued even beyond the classic era.  I brought up the hypothetical possibility of adding "originalty points" back to appearance judging.

( I am NOT advocating for or against this or any other rule. The focus and )(point of my discussion was only THE POSSIBILITY for NEW DESIGN        )

I have no interest in discussing any rules , my only intent was to discuss Possibilities for new design. I am sorry I didn't communicate that more clearly.

For example, The early 60's were a time of societal change where questioning and challenging the "status quo" commonly occured in many areas of life and perhaps stunt airplane design was just another area where change happened.
So , I am not exactly sure that adding "originality points" , today,  would lead to the same trend of sweeping airplane-design change that started in the early
60's.  It could very well be that what happened in the 60's  was a one time and unrepeatable event in history and "lightning really doesn't strike twice".
It could also be true that 10 -15 extra "originalty points" could actually have an impact in closely contested NAT's competition. I don't know the answer  and that subject was not the point of my discussion.
My hyothetical "originalty points" was simply a "tool" to jump start a discussion about new possibilities for airplane design.

Another aspect to consider, when discussing New Design possibilities,  is that ,"Form Follows Function" ,which is to say that there may be a finite number of shape configurations that will produce a viable and competitive design. Have we exhausted all of those options, in the many decades that stunt has been flown, or do new possibilities still exist ?

Ron King, when asked about design changes created by electrics said that the
"aerodynamic requirements" are the same for both IC engines and electric motors and is a valid observation with current setups.
On the other hand if you change from a 8-12 ounce 2-stroke engine to a 15 oz. 4-stroke engine you will probably change your design by shortening the nose by several inches because the "Form Follows Function" to produce a workable design so a change in power can and will change the design.

However, new technology is near, like counter-rotating prop electric systems.
A clever guy, named Randy Smith related to me that he used his counter-rotating prop system on a plane that didn't have enough side area to handle precession problems, and solved those problems by using that system.
So, It may be that these new systems may open the door to a wider range of design styles that can still deliver the performance required.

Bob Hunt's electric twin and others who are also trying electric twins may also open the door to make twin powered stunt planes more common for the rest of us which in and of itself would be a significant change in design.

I think we all admire guys like Bob Hunt, who see new possibilities and then acts to make them real, that expands"what is possible", that keeps our hobby fresh for the rest of us. Ron, I guess these are the kind of design possibilities for electric planes, I was asking about but may not have said it as clearly as I should. Sorry.  In any event, Ron, I want to thank you for your input.

Hey Big Bill,
 
I want to thank you for your answers and your input which is always welcome.

Let me see if I can clear up some of these terms that are getting tossed around in this thread to provide a little clarity.

First we have terms for "Time Periods" in the history of stunt.
     Old Time
     Classic
     Modern

Second we have terms for "Design Styles" to help us describe different airplanes.  The reason I started this thread is that I saw a gap where there was no term to describe a whole group of wonderful airplanes with similar design qualities so I asked "what do you call them?" and Bob Hunt weighed in with Bill Simon's term "New Wave".

Now, Here are the list of Design Styles:
___________________________________________________________
Old Time - In common use "old time" seems to be used as both as a time period and a design style.
____________________________________________________________

 Classic Era: During the Classic era I see 4 "Design Styles" that evolved and continued to be used even past the classic era.

"Scale Stunt" : Any plane that derived it's basic form or design intent from a real airplane, I would consider to be a Scale Stunt design. F-86 Sabre , Stuka , P-51 Mustang and etc. should all be considered Scale Stunt even if liberties were taken from the scale outline.

"Traditional Design" - These airplanes came in 2 forms, the turtledeck form like Nobler and Ares, and the top-block and Canopy form like Thunderbird and Skylark. Even an special design like Gialdini's Olympic seems to fit into the overall "traditional" design style.  There were a lot of planes that fit in this design style to the point it became the "norm" for it's time.

"Non-Traditional Design" - Because "Traditional" design was such a dominant "norm" in stunt design, any airplane that didn't fit in that design style could best be decribed as "Non-Traditional" Design Style.
For those of you who want minimize terms I guess  we could leave it at
1. "Scale Stunt" design , 2.  "Traditional Stunt" design and 
3. "Non Traditional Stunt" design.

However, other terms for some of these "Non-Traditional" stunt designs have already entered common use within the hobby so you really can't put that terminology back in the bottle. A popular term for some of these "Non-Traditional" Style of  stunt designs is "Jet Style" stunter , which has a nice ring to it but that leaves a whole group of other great designs without any name or term to adequately describe them at all. All of which led me to starting this thread to ask what do you call them.

So for the sake of clarity in describing Design Styles I recommend dividing "Non-Traditional" Designs into 2 groups:

"Jet-Style Design Stunters" - I would define a "Jet Style Design" as an original designed plane with "jet like" overall looks, which has "jet-like" design features.
Dennis Adamisin provided these guidelines:
1. Most jets are trikes - but not all trikes are jets.
2. Canopy located over the nose
3. Real or stylized jet intakes

"New Wave Design Stunters" ( or whatever name everyone could agree to)
This term would be used to describe all the other unique "Non-Jet Style" and "Non-Traditional" airplanes that currently don't have a descriptive term.

So Bill that is it. There are only 4 Design Styles and these same four Styles  show up even today in modified form in contemporary stunt designs.
now Bill, does that seem a little clearer, more understandable, and simpler.

The term "modern"is at best vague and has a somewhat limited life span.
What is "Modern" today may be called "Old School" next year. lol 
The word "Contemporary" is defined in the dictionary as happening at the same time. which means a "comtemporary stunt design" means a design that is currently in use or is currently state of the art.  Randy Smith's latest SV design would be considered a "Contemporary Design" but a 30 year old Stilletto is by the rules considered a "modern" design for use I guess, on someones Plans List, but, it is otherwise, a somewhat less useful descriptive word.
I guess, the term "Modern" is just a catch-all phrase ,we in the stunt world, have used for all the designs that were created after the Classic Era.

Bill, I guess to whole point of this whole terminology discussion is to facilitate all of us being able to more easily and accurately communicate with each other when describing various Design Styles and hopefully by giving a name to a whole group of designs we may increase our awareness of them.

Now Bill, I may very well be barking up the wrong tree ,and a lot of guys out there may not give a "rat's ka-toot" about any of these terms and about this whole discussion and might see it as a total waste of time.  If that is the case, well then, so be it.  I am okay either way, but I saw something that I thought needed to be asked about and I am glad that I did because of all the thoughtful responses that have been posted in this thread.
Once again Bill, thanks for joining into the discussion.


Clint, One thing you might keep in mind that the term "New Wave" for a description of stunt design was used over a decade before the the music fad New Wave occured so the "stunt term" takes precedence over the music term.

However, Clint, if you simply can't live with the term "New Wave" please feel free to suggest some other "Cool" name that would suggest the same departure from the "norm" that is expressed in the term "New Wave".
Asking for names was the main reason I started this thread, so feel free to have at it, with some other name. Go for it!  Also,Clint, Thanks for weighing in, as I would never have even thought that music fad at all. Thanks! 

Hopefully, this post brings a little more clarity that avoids misunderstandings about what I am trying to communicate.  Again, thank guys for your input.

                                                Pat Robinson

I'm with Pat on this design thing.  From a shape standpoint, designs (all types) had to figure out how to package a typical IC engine - and cowl design is a major trademark of our designs.  Go electric and the chin scoop really is not needed, or it can be sculpted to some new shape better suited to cooling the motor and batteries.  Heck the scoop might move well aft like on an F-16!  Cooling an electric motor probably works better with a radial cooling opening or as Rudy Taube (I think) noted side scoops like a Extra 300 might work better.

Building a twin using IC engines is possible - but a chore to campaign.  Thus twins remain a curiousity.  However, an electric twin is so easy its almost cheatin!  Thus I think we will FINALLY see really viable CLPA twins, with lots of potential to be explored.  Don't forget pushers and canards - these get easier too as the powerplant masses can move to favorable locations.

Did I mention practical Retract systems?

Not to worry, there will ALWAYS be room for the dirt simple designs, and there will still be lots of profiles too.  Only those profiles will not get there noses vibrated off by an IC engine..!

Stay tuned, the best is still coming!

Dennis,

I've already got some wild ideas for cowl design in an electric. I think you could do a lot of interesting things with that small, round motor in the front. 

AMEN!  Looking forward to your TWINS too!

I think it will also be fun as some of the shapes get "re-interpreted" with electric design features.

Pat,

>>What led us to Dennis Adamisin's and Randy Powell's fascinating posts about design possibilities was the earlier suggestion by Randy Powell and the follow-on assertion by Ron King that "originality points" in appearance was the key driver in the explosion of new shapes and new design that started in the early 60's.  I asked what designs could be created if you hypothetically added back "originalty points" today.<<

Truth is, I don't think much about points when I designing or building a plane. Were there still originality points, I would be happy, but it would change how I go about things much. I design and build planes to make me happy, to appeal to my sense of style or in more cases than I'd like to admit, flights of fancy. A lot of it is the influence I had growing up and flying at Whittier Narrows when I was a kid. Those guys would try all sorts of stuff. Also the time I spent as a kid flying Free Flight has a lot to do with my sense of structure. But in the end, I just draw stuff that appeals to me on some level. Were I to just build an Impact or Trivial Pursuit, I'd probably do better as far as scoring. They are solid designs. But they wouldn't appeal to my sense of style and creativity. The stuff I design is pretty middle of the road as far as aerodynamics (now, at least) and I've put my effort into designing shapes, layouts and structures that I like, but in the end, they are not really too far out there. Well, maybe occasionally.

This hobby is a great outlet for anyone that has an artistic sensibility, I guess. You can stay within reasonable design specifications and still come up with some interesting looking aircraft. Unfortunately, my designs often have more in common with Roger Dean than Paul Walker and that my be to my detriment.

Happy Birthday to all the old farts, and the young'uns, too!

Dennis,

Yea, looks that way. I'd love to read this whole article. Perhaps it would motivate me to finish the partialy completed X-35 that has sat in pieces for about 4 years.

Man oh Man, these planes are killing me baby!!! End the builder of the model rule-I don't think so!!!
Windy Urtnowski really said it: "I love all model airplanes but,stunt ships are just so beautiful."

Hi Randy,
I am not very familiar with low riders so I am not very clear about what you are referencing. I guess this is just another gap in my knowledge that I didn't even know about.  Oh well!  We Be Cool , anyway 
                                               Best wishes,
                                                                  Pat Robinson