Larry,
Only the early Olympic(s) had the Nobler wing. Some has I-beam type wings, and the version published and more recently kitted had much more leading edge sweep back.

H Larry,

I'm losing what *little* bit of mind I have left!  I coulda swore I replied to this a while ago!  Anyways........

One choice is Mr. Louis Grondal's AMA Special.  During conversations before his untilmely passing, he said he built it from a Green Box kit.  He had two planes at the World Championships, a kit Nobler and the AMA Special.  His "Grondal Nobler" was built to fly the AMA pattern which was the last flight during the championships he said.  He had two (at least), one black and red (I'm going to do that one) and a later white and light blue one.  All were powered with Fox 35 Stunt engines.  The best plans for it aer from Paul Tupker, and Tom Dixon has a set he drew.  I *think* he also has the Tupker plans.  Since you already have the wing, Tom's plans would probably work fine.  Different wingtips, a bubble canopy, and slight changes to the tail feathers.  It does fly great, after all, it's a Nobler!

Larry: Try this  http://members.tripod.com/~TomDixon/order.htm

Larry,

Yes, according to the Dick Mathis article on his Chizler in Flying Models, Dick suggests that the kit Nobler wing could be used.  However, the magazine plans showed an airfoil that was slightly thicker, like by the width of an ink line or slightly more, than the kit airfoil.  However, I have not done precise "overlay" comparisons of the root and tip ribs from the two airplanes.

Keith Trostle

Here is an old photo showing Bob Gieske pointing out on that flying shirt with the Gieske Nobler plan exactly where he states to: "if you are using a kit nobler wing..be sure to trace around the ribs with a "fat ball point pen" (or apx. 1/8" larger in outline or to that effect.)
(photo I shot at the 68 nats---before the bullet winds started.)
Winds...huh? not in kansas?

another attached photo showing Keith...doing a little gamesmanship. When asked after his flight..."HOW HIGHS DA VIND' PAAAPA!" Keith grabbed his wiping rag...leaned into the wind with his flight suit and wiping rang fluttering loudly....THUS PROVING ONE PHOTO IS WORTH A WHOLE BUNCH OF SILLY WORDS!
You ought to have seen the eye balls a poppin' from all his fellow competitors while Keith was doing his wind dance, know soon we too, would have to experience the thrill or agony of that INFAMOUS KANSAS WIND!

Dennis,
That is a great looking airplane.

I have a few pictures of "Adamison" airplanes taken at the '69 St Louis team trials.

Your family has quite a few airplanes that are definitely "Classis Legal"

It is interesting that you and Jim Kostecky both had airplanes named "Spirit of America". I flew Jim's "Spirit of America" at the end of the '69 trials.

Dennis,

Has to be published, kitted or designed before 12/31/1969. You plane definately qualifies. Didn't have to be published, just proof of it being designed before the deadline. You have pre-deadline pictures of the plane. That's good enough.

Dennis,

Thanks for the the excellent picture of Jim. If that airplane has a conventional landing gear it is the airplane that I flew. Bob Hunt had told me the it is named the "Spirit of America"

As to Classic eligibility: I am proud to say that when I was the PAMPA District 2 VP, before moving to Texas I was instrumental in having the "Classic" eligibility changed to to include "reasonable proof", such as photos, magazine pictures, etc.

There is a very important reason for this.  During the "Classic" appearance requirements included "originality" This contributed to the rapid development of stunters, and many very good modified and new designs. Every area of the US, and for that matter of the world, had winning designs that should be seen again.

As a result of "reasonable proof" being added, we have more recently seen the Flying Models "Classic Series" , "Classics" published elsewhere. This allowed us to have airplanes like "Ballerina III" (FM), "Jerseyan" (MA), Kostecky's "Patriot" (FM), Billy's "' '61 Ares" , and more available to all of us.

I had Artie Meyers's "60 NATS Sr. Stunt winner, "New Yorker" in my possession until I moved to Dallas. I have the original pencil drawing, and I took about 70 pictures. I also have pictures taken when the airplane was flown in 1960. This certainly is a future article, that Bob Hunt and I have discussed.

Thankfully these airplanes are eligible, due to "reasonable proof", they deserve to be seen again.

I had sent a copy of a magazine article on the '69 team trials, to Big Art several years ago that includes your "Typhoon" and and other  "Adamison" airplanes. I can send you a copy if you like. This is certainly "reasonable proof".

YES, there are many "Adamison" airplanes eligible for "Classic Stunt", along with many more designs, I am sure.

Dennis,
While the reduction of Appearance point from 40 to 20 was probably not a bad thing, the changing of the descriptions to just "appearance" was terrible.

I personally feel that appearance is an important part of our event. The old categories should be included in the description of what to look for. I recall that Keith also agrees with me on this one.

Tom & Bill - Great comments & great thought starters!

I think that Originality, Workmanship, Realism and Finish are all vital elements of the aura of CLPA.  I think it IS possible for ARF's to be rated relative to original designs.  Heck, the guy who added some stripes and ironed out the wrinkles in his Arf deserves credit versus the guy who did not.

The guy who has a paint job done by his buddy deserves less credit than a well-done iron on.

To Tom's point: I do not really disagree that 20 points was necessarily worse than 40 points.  BUT given the aura of CLPA and the spectacle that is apperance judging (i.e. a BIG part of the event):  I think that Appearance could be as important as one manuver score...

Guys

A comment from the F2B world if I may.

Remember, that BOM disappeared from F2B years ago and while there were opponents to the change, they all moved on.

Looking on from the other side of the Pacific, I like the idea of authenticity and originality in current design classes.

I find it very difficult to get my head around points for originality in Classic.

That said, however, authenticity would be good.  Warbirds with other than flat camo should be marked down—camo that the girls could apply makeup in because their reflections are so clear is, to me, bizarre.

There are plenty of warbird Reno racers with shiny finishes for any shiny model fan.

What do others think?

Geoff

"Opps!" I got caught with my lame brain panties down...huh? Living in the past...takes it tole.
Yes, I too agree that Appearence points and achievement awards should be given for exceptionally outstanding examples of stunt models. 

I mearly was reflecting of the years and years that control line precision aerobatics scores and final outcomes were yoked in shackles of shame...by those beautifully finished and built model always taking the top three spots.
When in fact at any contest are filled with extremly good flyers with beautifully crafted models and then considering that the scores that are seperated by mere points. How UNFAIR THAT ALWAYS SEEMED. For years, it had always boggled my britches that that it was virtually impossible for an exceptionally great pattern flown by a gifted flyer WITH A BEAT UP OLD STUNT MODEL that he would forever have to take that "back of the bus seat on the winners stand"...simply because of the color and skin of his shabby worn looking old stunt model.
Hummm...just another ramblin' from an old worn out modeler from the past, floggin a dead "HOBBY HORSE!"

Don't knock golf, even though I don't play the game.  I read an article last year about a mid-thirties golf champion and pro(from New York I think), who did make his own clubs.  Sold quite a few sets too, I believe, because he knew that the clubs were the least part of the equation.

LL~Our good modelbuildin and flyin brotha' Bruce Kimble makes his own beautiful golf clubs...

Don't knock golf, even though I don't play the game.  I read an article last year about a mid-thirties golf champion and pro(from New York I think), who did make his own clubs.  Sold quite a few sets too, I believe, because he knew that the clubs were the least part of the equation.

Hi Phil,

I had a company ofr a while where I built and repaird golf clubs.  Even some for a few of the touring pros.  Right now, I build mine from a buddy who works in the Tour Dept for one of the big companies.  The club heads and shafts used on Tour are not readily available for "normal golfers"! 

Arnold palmer always built his own clubs in the '60s and '70s.  He even gave me a 1 iron that he made and used on tour back when i was on his Advisory Staff.

Not a lot unlike the prebuilt wings and other components from high end builders now in the upper levels of CLPA.

Bill <><

Larry,
My Hienz 57 used a Nobler wing with different tips and flaps. I flew it at VSC in 2004.

Gordy.