2025 Nats Qualification Groups, scores and final reports

[John Paris]

Everyone,
Here are the flying groups for qualification for the next 2 days.  Best score from each day will be combined to determine who moves on to the next round (semi-finals for Open and Finals for Advanced). 
John

[Tom Luciano]

Thanks for posting, John! Missing a chunk of Nats regulars I see. Wishing all the best!

Tom

[Ken Culbertson]

Why does group "A" only have 8?

Ken

[Howard Rush]

Why does group "A" only have 8?

I can’t see the download on my phone, but it’s no doubt because Open is on four circles, Advanced is on three. Group A has only Open, the others have both.

[Ken Culbertson]

I can’t see the download on my phone, but it’s no doubt because Open is on four circles, Advanced is on three. Group A has only Open, the others have both.

Ahh!

[John Paris]

Howard is correct.  1 group of Open only and 3 groups of Open and Advanced. 

Beautiful weather today.

Don Jenkins won the Concours Trophy and was awarded at the end of his flight.

Tomorrow will be qualifying rounds 3 and 4.

John

[Mark Romanowitz]

Any scores from Day 1?

[Howard Rush]

Good to see that about Don. I thought he had the best plane a couple years ago, and I heard reports that this year’s is spectacular.

[John Paris]

Any scores from Day 1?

Mark,
I used to post the scores but do not now during the event so that there is no exposure of them to the judges.  I will get a list of qualifiers at the end of today though.
John

[Mark Romanowitz]

Ahh yes. Indeed.. Thanks, John..
Mark

[Rusty]

Good Luck, Brett Buck.  Kick some tail feathers!!!!

[Brett Buck]

Good Luck, Brett Buck.  Kick some tail feathers!!!!

     So far, so good. But just to manage expectations, my real competitor is myself and while I have show a few indications of being competitive, it pales in comparison to the consistency of most of the other pilots. Still, of course I am going to give it a go! Thanks for the encouragement!

   Brett

[John Paris]

Everyone,
Here are the results from the qualification rounds and the flight orders for tomorrow.  Going to be a good day.
John

[Howard Rush]

A full Moon

[John Paris]

Everyone,
Here are the Advanced Final and Open Semi Final results as well as the line up for Friday.
John

[Steve Berry]

Looks like Orestes Hernandez is our 2025 Nats Open Champion and likely Walker Cup Flyoff Winner!

Congrats to a great group of competitors!

And a tip of the hat to our own Sparky who was one of the Finals judges - great work, Sparky!

Steve

[John Paris]

Everyone,
Here are the final reports from today.  Good time appeared to be had by all.  Was nice to have decent weather for the event.
John

[Don Jenkins]

Good to see that about Don. I thought he had the best plane a couple years ago, and I heard reports that this year’s is spectacular.

Thanks Howard, you have an excellent memory.  My red Dreadnought was next to your beautiful plane at appearance judging in 2023.  Here is my new plane for 2025.

Don

[rich gorrill]

Congrats to Philly Fliers own Mike Palko finishing in the top 10, way to go Mike. Also big shout out to Joe Daly for his fifth place finish.

[Rusty]

Congratulations to all who competed. 

I sure missed the live streaming.

Question:  Is there anyone who did 100% of the work building their plane?

Rusty

[Steve Berry]

Question:  Is there anyone who did 100% of the work building their plane?
Rusty

Well, Sparky for sure. He has it all on video.

Steve

[john e. holliday]

Thanks for the reports.  This old man sure misses being at the NATS,  but physical problems stop me from attending.  Now for every one to get home safely.

[Dave_Trible]

Congratulations to all who competed. 

I sure missed the live streaming.

Question:  Is there anyone who did 100% of the work building their plane?

Rusty

Me.   Design,  build,  tank,  prop,  pipe,  control system,  finish.  Well 95%-  Dub Jett built the engine.

Dave

[Dan McEntee]

  I saw a video on FB of the models spread out at the appearance judging and near the start of the video, near the camera, was a profile P-40 model done all in silver. Does anyone know anything about that airplane, who the pilot was, and any other det6ails of the airplane? Thanks in advance!

  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Brett Buck]

Congratulations to all who competed. 

I sure missed the live streaming.

Question:  Is there anyone who did 100% of the work building their plane?

Rusty

    Depends on how you define “100%” I can’t speak for anyone else, but I built everything that isn’t traditionally defined as “hardware”, and at least some of the hardware. This includes designing it, drawing it,cutting the foam wing and tail, and most of the control hardware.

I would guess almost everyone did the same, a few probably pushed the boundaries of the current CLPA BOM definitions. A few, including the Concours winner, have build threads here, you can see exactly how it was done.

     Brett

[Dave_Trible]

  I saw a video on FB of the models spread out at the appearance judging and near the start of the video, near the camera, was a profile P-40 model done all in silver. Does anyone know anything about that airplane, who the pilot was, and any other det6ails of the airplane? Thanks in advance!

  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

Dan I don't recall any PROFILE P40s there.  My silver P40 full fuse airplane was there.

Dave

[Ken Culbertson]

I don't know of any serious flier that doesn't build their own including for many even the design.  The exception might be wings blanks, especially foam.  Personally, in 60 years at the "expert" level I have only built two planes where I did not build the wing and both were situations where I needed to get into the air quickly and did not have a shop.  Do I see it a problem, no.  The rules allow a major component to be built by others and still comply.  Nobody should look down on anyone following the rules.
I do it simply because I like building and I want to build the wing. 

Ken

[Dan McEntee]

Dan I don't recall any PROFILE P40s there.  My silver P40 full fuse airplane was there.

Dave

    I was hard to tell from the video because it was just a passing shot and it's such a slim fuselage. It was in row 14. I just found a better still photo of it on the PAMPA FB group page and can see that it was a full fuse model, just very slim.  Silver with pre/early WW-2 markings. Is that your model?  Really nice and clean! Did you fly that in Open? Your design?

  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Dave_Trible]

    I was hard to tell from the video because it was just a passing shot and it's such a slim fuselage. It was in row 14. I just found a better still photo of it on the PAMPA FB group page and can see that it was a full fuse model, just very slim.  Silver with pre/early WW-2 markings. Is that your model?  Really nice and clean! Did you fly that in Open? Your design?

  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

Yes Dan I did and yes my design.  This was it's first major outing and I have a ways to go on final trim but it will make the Lpad again.  I plan to build another soon to back-up.  I needed a paint job I could see against trees and such so the natural metallic base works.  The actual scheme is of the base commander's personal 'jeep',  1940,  Fighter School Chanute AFB,  Illinois.  The full scale ship still exists.  RO Jett .76 (or .67)  68 ounces  680ish  sq.

Dave

[Don Jenkins]

Dave's P-40 is absolutely beautiful in person!  Looks great in the air too!  I want one!

Don

[Dan McEntee]

Yes Dan I did and yes my design.  This was it's first major outing and I have a ways to go on final trim but it will make the Lpad again.  I plan to build another soon to back-up.  I needed a paint job I could see against trees and such so the natural metallic base works.  The actual scheme is of the base commander's personal 'jeep',  1940,  Fighter School Chanute AFB,  Illinois.  The full scale ship still exists.  RO Jett .76 (or .67)  68 ounces  680ish  sq.

Dave

      OK, thanks for the details. Draw that puppy up !! In Don's photo I can see the tip of the exhaust deflector under the fuselage bottom. I have only done one P-40 in my lifetime and that was a Midwest Warbirds Series profile a LONG time ago and have always wanted to do another. I got one of Larry Richard's kits stashed, and RSM kit, and could even just build something from scratch using the Midwest fuselage as a base and add a better wing. I've always wanted to do an E version, in AVG markings, like Robert L Scott's plane. A later Q version with the bubble canopy would present well I think. I have the Hutchinson plan for that and I think Bill Simmons did  one that is classic legal??  Got to bust out the copy of "Flying Tigers" video and watch it for some inspiration!
    Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee
   

[Dave_Trible]

Thank you Don!   A very nice comment coming from the Nats Concours winner indeed.   Actually I do have buildable plans drawn for the airplane,  hand lettered.   I might consider ........

Dave

Just this morning ordered enough wood to build two with a little overage to pluck out the warped pieces.   $428.00  - ouch!

[RC Storick]

    Depends on how you define “100%” I can’t speak for anyone else
     Brett

[Bruce Shipp]

Was Rookie of the Year awarded? Highest placing first time top 20 qualifier?

Most of the top 20 names look pretty familiar.

[John Paris]

Tim Stagg was Rookie of the Year.

[Ken Culbertson]

Does anybody know how old the oldest rooky qualifier was?  That is on my bucket list.  Just asking.

Ken

[Matt Colan]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Matt Colan]

    Depends on how you define “100%” I can’t speak for anyone else, but I built everything that isn’t traditionally defined as “hardware”, and at least some of the hardware. This includes designing it, drawing it,cutting the foam wing and tail, and most of the control hardware.

I would guess almost everyone did the same, a few probably pushed the boundaries of the current CLPA BOM definitions. A few, including the Concours winner, have build threads here, you can see exactly how it was done.

     Brett

I can think of one example where BOM is pushed beyond BOM and into FAI…

[Rusty]

Yes Dan I did and yes my design.  This was it's first major outing and I have a ways to go on final trim but it will make the Lpad again.  I plan to build another soon to back-up.  I needed a paint job I could see against trees and such so the natural metallic base works.  The actual scheme is of the base commander's personal 'jeep',  1940,  Fighter School Chanute AFB,  Illinois.  The full scale ship still exists.  RO Jett .76 (or .67)  68 ounces  680ish  sq.

Dave

Well, I apologize upfront for saying this, but "if" you are the only person who fully built your own plane, YOU ARE THE WINNER.  The logic is that if there was a real BOM rule, the other guys who had help building their models would not be competing.

[Dave_Trible]

Well it has about always been that a certain amount of prefabrication is allowed, ie typical kits for example.  Also purchased accessories like tanks, props, wheels, spinners etc.   Had it not been so we probably wouldn't have a hobby today.  A few of us are just obsessed almost to the absurd and fanatical about certain details and have more time to invest than others might.   The rules were somewhat amended some time ago that would allow something like a ready-made wing to be used in BOM events-which are now down to the Nats OPEN class and not much else.   Years ago I was a little uncomfortable with the idea of ARFs in any level of competition.   Fine for me but I can now understand that some would have walked away from the sport altogether if they were required to build the whole project for various reasons.   Then there is the logic that goes "do NASCAR and INDY racers build their own cars?"  If they did the sport would have ended when running shine was normal business.   I'm glad we retain the rule for Nats OPEN.  I hope it stays.   But I also think it is reasonable these days to allow use of bought, borrowed or stolen stuff when the Walker Cup is not involved.  I also applaud those stalwart CDs who retain the rule at their local events.   Those who attend know the rules....

Dave

[Rusty]

Well it has about always been that a certain amount of prefabrication is allowed, ie typical kits for example.  Also purchased accessories like tanks, props, wheels, spinners etc.   Had it not been so we probably wouldn't have a hobby today.  A few of us are just obsessed almost to the absurd and fanatical about certain details and have more time to invest than others might.   The rules were somewhat amended some time ago that would allow something like a ready-made wing to be used in BOM events-which are now down to the Nats OPEN class and not much else.   Years ago I was a little uncomfortable with the idea of ARFs in any level of competition.   Fine for me but I can now understand that some would have walked away from the sport altogether if they were required to build the whole project for various reasons.   Then there is the logic that goes "do NASCAR and INDY racers build their own cars?"  If they did the sport would have ended when running shine was normal business.   I'm glad we retain the rule for Nats OPEN.  I hope it stays.   But I also think it is reasonable these days to allow use of bought, borrowed or stolen stuff when the Walker Cup is not involved.  I also applaud those stalwart CDs who retain the rule at their local events.   Those who attend know the rules....

Dave

I certainly understand and agree with you.  The BOM rule by virtue of it existing means building (however much) is a counted factor.  The value of that factor is what I think is wrong.  I think the guy who, personally, does the most work on his plane should get more points, the same as judging the pattern.   I started in the hobby in the early 60s.  If you could not build a model (or somebody else) you was SOL.   Some of the things that present BOM allow to be made by someone else, like the wing, is ridiculous.  Why would you allow someone else to build the most critical part and still say they built the plane?  I consider the current BOM to be the same as DEI. 

[EricV]

I certainly understand and agree with you.  The BOM rule by virtue of it existing means building (however much) is a counted factor.  The value of that factor is what I think is wrong.  I think the guy who, personally, does the most work on his plane should get more points, the same as judging the pattern.   I started in the hobby in the early 60s.  If you could not build a model (or somebody else) you was SOL.   Some of the things that present BOM allow to be made by someone else, like the wing, is ridiculous.  Why would you allow someone else to build the most critical part and still say they built the plane?  I consider the current BOM to be the same as DEI.

I get what you are saying, but I don't think it really applies here because the rule applies the same to everyone. No group is singled out as part of a class that doesn't have to build their own wing or fuse while forcing others to still do so.

[Ken Culbertson]

I agree with EricV.  Anything that you do within the rules should count the same.  It is hard for me to make a competition quality wing because I don't have a shop.  Should I quit?

Ken

[Rusty]

DEI applies because the guy who builds the entire plane himself, because of it, cannot get a higher score than the guy who partially builds his plane.   It would not apply if for instance, the score for building the entire plane yourself is 50 points and goes down from there.  If you don't build  your control horns, that's 45 points.  If you don't build your wing that is 35 points, etc.   

I think you should consider a class that mimics slot car racing where the track supplies the cars and controllers.  A class where the AMA (or whoever) supplied the airplanes, control lines and handles, ALL BEING THE SAME, that would be a true measure of flying ability ONLY.   

Giving someone points for an airplane they did not build their self tilts the pin ball machine, without the machine sounding an alarm and locking up.   

[Ken Culbertson]

Since no part of the plane "built by others" is visible to the judges how do you plan to police it?  Should we perhaps deduct points for using a kit or OMG, using plans that you didn't draw up or a design you didn't come up with?

It's Precision Aerobatics, not professional wet sanding......on second thought, I design, draw up plans, build everything, design and make most of my own hardware, cover, paint and trim my planes...Humm, Good Idea! 

Ken

not


 

[Brett Buck]

It's Precision Aerobatics, not professional wet sanding......on second thought, I design, draw up plans, build everything, design and make most of my own hardware, cover, paint and trim my planes...Humm, Good Idea! 
 

 

1. Applicability.
 These rules specify the requirements and judging criteria for Control Line Precision Aerobatics. This is a subjectively-judged event combining modeling craftsmanship skills and the precise and accurate execution of prescribed aerobatic maneuvers.

    Brett

[EricV]

DEI applies because the guy who builds the entire plane himself, because of it, cannot get a higher score than the guy who partially builds his plane.   It would not apply if for instance, the score for building the entire plane yourself is 50 points and goes down from there.  If you don't build  your control horns, that's 45 points.  If you don't build your wing that is 35 points, etc.   

I think you should consider a class that mimics slot car racing where the track supplies the cars and controllers.  A class where the AMA (or whoever) supplied the airplanes, control lines and handles, ALL BEING THE SAME, that would be a true measure of flying ability ONLY.   
.
Giving someone points for an airplane they did not build their self tilts the pin ball machine, without the machine sounding an alarm and locking up.

I think you meant completely built... but anyway, like most things, a compromise is something 2 opposing sides aren't completely happy with, so in that respect, I consider this rule a pretty good success. The ARF/ARC camel had its nose under the tent, this rule just codifies what had been going on as fairly common place and still stemmed the tide from things getting worse via misinformation and personal rules of thumb. While I'd agree a guy who builds his own engine deserves some kudos, scoring things like that would be problematic. I think making an event that emphasizes the extremes on either end is a mistake (too lax, then deeper pockets tend to win, too tight and only a tiny fraction with very unique specialized skill sets can be competitive).

And this is probably where I should bow out before the conversation turns from polite friendly banter into something else. Y'all have fun.

[Ken Culbertson]

    Brett

Sorry, that was "tongue & cheek"!   I have no problems with appearance (except when they forget to put it on your score sheet) in fact I miss the 40 point method even though I suck at finishing.

Ken

[Rusty]

I think you meant completely built... but anyway, like most things, a compromise is something 2 opposing sides aren't completely happy with, so in that respect, I consider this rule a pretty good success. The ARF/ARC camel had its nose under the tent, this rule just codifies what had been going on as fairly common place and still stemmed the tide from things getting worse via misinformation and personal rules of thumb. While I'd agree a guy who builds his own engine deserves some kudos, scoring things like that would be problematic. I think making an event that emphasizes the extremes on either end is a mistake (too lax, then deeper pockets tend to win, too tight and only a tiny fraction with very unique specialized skill sets can be competitive).

And this is probably where I should bow out before the conversation turns from polite friendly banter into something else. Y'all have fun.

I forgot, you have guys that make their own carbon fiber muffler, that should warrant extra points.    No need to be serious.   I mostly made the post to celebrate Dave making his entire airplane.  I guess being the only one that did, it is worth some recognition.    Sorry if I offended anyone.  After the kudos, I was being humorous.   

[RC Storick]

Sorry, that was "tongue & cheek"!   I have no problems with appearance (except when they forget to put it on your score sheet) in fact I miss the 40 point method even though I suck at finishing.

Ken

Bring back the 40-point rule, and all is moot. Building a plane for most takes a year, so why would it not be worth the same range of scoring for one maneuver?

Originality -10
Realizem -10
Craftsmanship -10
Finish -10