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