2025 Nats Qualification Groups, scores and final reports

[Dan McEntee]

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?

Orinanility -10
Realizem -10
Craftsmanship -10
Finish -10

    And maybe throw in some bonus points for spelling and grammar!!!

   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Dave_Trible]

I'd like to see the 4 category system come back.   If some think the 40 points is too much -which might have been the reason it was shelved in the first place- then reduce the four categories mentioned to just 5 points each.  It would carry the same weight it does now but become a little more than just a finishing contest.   When the rule was changed back when it took away much of the incentive to design new airplanes and largely killed semi-scale in favor of more cookie cutter types.  Someone would need to write up a rules proposal and submit it to see what happens......

Dave

[Ken Culbertson]

If we were to do that (I would vote for it), we would need some really good guidelines for Originality and Realism.  These categories were always a source for argument and would be again but after the arguments there would be a compromise consensus for judging them. Suggesting a rule change without a robust discussion would be a waste of time since any one persons ideas will indoubtedly not be universal. 

Ken

[RC Storick]

I'd like to see the 4 category system come back.   If some think the 40 points is too much -which might have been the reason it was shelved in the first place- then reduce the four categories mentioned to just 5 points each.  It would carry the same weight it does now but become a little more than just a finishing contest.   When the rule was changed back when it took away much of the incentive to design new airplanes and largely killed semi-scale in favor of more cookie cutter types.  Someone would need to write up a rules proposal and submit it to see what happens......

Dave

I disagree with 20 points. The building is one maneuver in the total exercise and should be judged as such with equal value, up to 40 points.

[RC Storick]

    And maybe throw in some bonus points for spelling and grammar!!!

   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

Shoot, I didn't know this was a spelling contest. Guess I'll have to brush up on it.

[Brett Buck]

   I would rather strongly object to the "realism" standard. Form follows function, and CL has nearly no correlation to full-scale aviation. I do not want to be tied to trying to emulate a real airplane - even though most of the designs I have considered are fairly reasonable to envision as real airplanes.

    Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

   I would rather strongly object to the "realism" standard. Form follows function, and CL has nearly no correlation to full-scale aviation. I do not want to be tied to trying to emulate a real airplane - even though most of the designs I have considered are fairly reasonable to envision as real airplanes.

    Brett

I would agree that the airframe is not how we should define realism.  Cockpit interiors, panel lines and that kind of stuff is what I would call adding realism.  Maybe just keep it as it is and work up some guidelines that give official recognition for things that are above necessity.

Ken

[RC Storick]

   I would rather strongly object to the "realism" standard. Form follows function, and CL has nearly no correlation to full-scale aviation. I do not want to be tied to trying to emulate a real airplane - even though most of the designs I have considered are fairly reasonable to envision as real airplanes.

    Brett

I agree with you, but it was asked what the categories were. Things like cockpit detail and panel lines can be considered as factors for realism.

[RC Storick]

I would agree that the airframe is not how we should define realism.  Cockpit interiors, panel lines and that kind of stuff is what I would call adding realism.  Maybe just keep it as it is and work up some guidelines that give official recognition for things that are above necessity.

Ken

Absolutely, a doable thing. I am sure there will be some whining, but it puts this event back to the spirit of the sport, which is a modeling event and not just a fling event. For that event, there is FAI

[M Spencer]

Discus & frissby are Fling Events .   https://www.ebay.com/itm/388678210100?chn=ps&mkevt=1&mkcid=28&google_free_listing_action=view_item

The Olde Construtors Champ. AND Driver - in Formula one . were two separate  ' cups ' just for the record .  AEROMODELLING is NOT just flying . 

[RC Storick]

This type of scoring would have put Ron Burns' Hell Cat on the front row and at least righted that wrong. Should an SV 11 garner as many points as, let's say, Paul Walker's bomber or Bob Hunt's twin? These are truly original designs and not cookie-cutter airplanes. Not to say an SV 11 could not gain top points (10), but you would need to be, let's say, one of the first 10 to show one, not one of the first 1000. I hope everyone gets the drift.

Now, let's say you build an SV 11 but modify it like Vick McCaluso's F-14, which would earn top points, just one example. It doesn't mean every SV must look like a scale plane; it just means your SV should have the same lines as the other 10 sitting in the row next to it.

[Doug Moon]

This discussion pops up from time to time and it makes no sense to add categories to our appearance judging.

I absolutely disagree with this approach 100%! This is a control line aerobatics event that requires us to build our own models. We need to be able to build our models to best perform the prescribed maneuvers.  We do not need to be hamstrung into building something or adding something to the model that doesn't help it perform the maneuvers. Adding a cockpit detail or drawing lines on my plane does not make it fly better.  If you want to do that and you can do it in a way that helps present your model positively for appearance judging and does not take away from its ability to perform please do so. I love a cool cockpit detail as much as the next guy. But in no way shape or form does it add to the ability of the plane to fly the maneuvers properly.

Realism? There is nothing realistic about control line stunt planes. They are so far out of scale its funny. I am not talking about war birds only either. If you want to build scale planes that can stunt go right ahead and do it. But I can guarantee you it wont fly nearly as well as your purpose built stunt plane. It simply cant. Don't impose a rule that would hamper flying in any way in order to get max static points.

Originality. Not only do I have to build some kind of a semi-scale plane to get max points now I have to come up with some original design that hasn't been done....good luck on that one. I have heard alot over the years about the Ron Burns planes and seen many pics and they are cool for sure his work was second to none. I have never heard that they flew superior. Remember what we are doing here, flying stunt.

Bob Hunt explained it to me back in the late 90s and it's the best I have heard to date. He touched on exactly what Robert talked about when a more complex model is placed for appearance vs a profile or a simple straight forward stunt plane. He said appearance judging in stunt is simply "the execution of the attempt" The judge doesn't care what color it is, how many engines it has on it, cockpit/no cockpit, what design it is, where it came from, how many times it's been done before, who's it is and so on. NONE of that matters. It is simply the execution of the attempt. This years concourse winner is a perfect example. It is an elegant stunt plane design with flawless execution on the attempt.

This is a contest to determine the over CLPA Champion, keep it that way.

[Derek Barry]

This discussion pops up from time to time and it makes no sense to add categories to our appearance judging.

I absolutely disagree with this approach 100%! This is a control line aerobatics event that requires us to build our own models. We need to be able to build our models to best perform the prescribed maneuvers.  We do not need to be hamstrung into building something or adding something to the model that doesn't help it perform the maneuvers. Adding a cockpit detail or drawing lines on my plane does not make it fly better.  If you want to do that and you can do it in a way that helps present your model positively for appearance judging and does not take away from its ability to perform please do so. I love a cool cockpit detail as much as the next guy. But in no way shape or form does it add to the ability of the plane to fly the maneuvers properly.

Realism? There is nothing realistic about control line stunt planes. They are so far out of scale its funny. I am not talking about war birds only either. If you want to build scale planes that can stunt go right ahead and do it. But I can guarantee you it wont fly nearly as well as your purpose built stunt plane. It simply cant. Don't impose a rule that would hamper flying in any way in order to get max static points.

Originality. Not only do I have to build some kind of a semi-scale plane to get max points now I have to come up with some original design that hasn't been done....good luck on that one. I have heard alot over the years about the Ron Burns planes and seen many pics and they are cool for sure his work was second to none. I have never heard that they flew superior. Remember what we are doing here, flying stunt.

Bob Hunt explained it to me back in the late 90s and it's the best I have heard to date. He touched on exactly what Robert talked about when a more complex model is placed for appearance vs a profile or a simple straight forward stunt plane. He said appearance judging in stunt is simply "the execution of the attempt" The judge doesn't care what color it is, how many engines it has on it, cockpit/no cockpit, what design it is, where it came from, how many times it's been done before, who's it is and so on. NONE of that matters. It is simply the execution of the attempt. This years concourse winner is a perfect example. It is an elegant stunt plane design with flawless execution on the attempt.

This is a contest to determine the over CLPA Champion, keep it that way.

I have to disagree my friend.  This is not just a flying event, its a building, finishing and flying event. 

I add an extra ounce or two to all of my planes, because I refuse to build a plane without cockpit detail. This is a personal choice, and sacrifice that I make. Should I not be rewarded for my extra effort? I also put wheel pants on all my planes, yet guys with plain wire gear end up in front of me occasionally at appearance judging. 

As far as the categories.  Realism is out. Its not relevant to our event. Something like cockpit detail could, and should take its place.

I know that you know the reason this is being discussed.....

Derek

[Doug Moon]

I have to disagree my friend.  This is not just a flying event, its a building, finishing and flying event. 

I add an extra ounce or two to all of my planes, because I refuse to build a plane without cockpit detail. This is a personal choice, and sacrifice that I make. Should I not be rewarded for my extra effort? I also put wheel pants on all my planes, yet guys with plain wire gear end up in front of me occasionally at appearance judging. 

As far as the categories.  Realism is out. Its not relevant to our event. Something like cockpit detail could, and should take its place.

I know that you know the reason this is being discussed.....

Derek

Of course it is a building finishing and flying event. Never said it wasn't but it is a stunt event over all.

You are rewarded for your cockpit detail when it adds positively to your presentation of your plane. Execution of the attempt. If you did it poorly it would take away. But if you're saying you should get extra more points because you installed a cockpit detail vs planes that don't now your opening a new discussion.  And you know with the established builders we have in this event a head on a balsa floor will not compete with what some of these guys are capable of, sliding bubble canopies with pilots turning their heads and all the dials and doodads you can think of. 

Yes I do know........

[SteveMoon]

I agree with Doug here. While I have done cockpits with detail in the past,
there is no way that it should be a requirement. It doesn’t help the plane
fly any better. Panel lines. Please! Only a scale or semi-scale plane should have
panel lines. To me, putting panel lines all over an SV11, Bear, Saturn, etc
looks silly. Realism. Please again! How can anybody say a Bear, Genesis, Impact,
etc has any connection to ‘Realism’.

Building and finishing are a part of our event. But, to add categories that have
absolutely no effect on how the planes fly is silly.

Steve

[Brett Buck]

I know that you know the reason this is being discussed.....

   Of course. The issue is not how the judging works, because any system we have yet considered still depends on the honor system to enforce. As long as we are unable/unwilling to state the obvious - and thus single people out and create an an ugly incident involving people we generally like - I don't see any good way to get past it.

    If going to 40 points (with any allocation) was going to fix the situation, I would be for it, despite the fact that I have been disproportionately affected by appearance points over the years. Of course, that is my own fault, not the fault of the rules, I make compromises to accommodate my specific situation and this is the result. But I don't think this fixes the underlying problem - in fact based on everything we have seen to date, it just makes the situation worse. Where did the airplane(s) in question wind up in appearance judging?

    For myself - I know whose accomplishments I respect and whose I question and have clouds over them. This, again, despite the fact that I would have personally benefitted and  would probably have 2 wins and maybe 3 otherwise.

    A potential solution is to require documentation if the airplane "closely resembles a known commercial product (ARF, ARC, RTF or something like that). You previously called me naive, which is probably fair, I have at best a vague idea what commercial products are available. I could spot the 80s-90s custom-built one-off models from a mile away, but not the iron curtain types, mostly because I have no interest in them

   We have long been tiptoeing around the "pre-built components" like pre-sheeted foam wings and pre-built wings, maybe we have to give up on that. I think that would quickly devolve in to a continuously-changing laundry list, which is highly undesirable and bad rule-making.

     Getting rid of BOM is a non-starter, that is not fixing the problem, it is destroying the event and we will lose 50% of the competitors the first year, probably including me.

     Brett

[Dan McEntee]

I agree with Doug here. While I have done cockpits with detail in the past,
there is no way that it should be a requirement. It doesn’t help the plane
fly any better. Panel lines. Please! Only a scale or semi-scale plane should have
panel lines. To me, putting panel lines all over an SV11, Bear, Saturn, etc
looks silly. Realism. Please again! How can anybody say a Bear, Genesis, Impact,
etc has any connection to ‘Realism’.

Building and finishing are a part of our event. But, to add categories that have
absolutely no effect on how the planes fly is silly.

Steve

     How the models look is part of the equation for the event, and what attracts a high number of it's participants. It always has.  Otherwise we could all just fly gray SV-11's or Yatsenko Sharks, save a lot of time and money and the event would still continue to shrink. Take your above comments and apply them to Al Rabe if he would be able to show up and put his Mustang, Bearcat, or Sea Fury down to get judged. Ron Burns Wildcat also. All models that also flew very well. They are 2/3 of the equation and the last 1/3 is the pilot. I think the airplanes can still have some individual creativeness, and still perform to a high level in the event on any given day. Todd Lee's Opus Mustangs are another example. Gig Atkins or Bob Whitely's Laser models were outstanding aerobatic models or real aerobatic airplanes. Semi scale designs aren't being done these days and that is another sign of the decline of the event, unfortunately. No more Jack Sheeks, Al Rabe, Bill Simons, or any of the others that could work their wonders with a stunt model that has realistic outlines and shapes. The scale details such as cockpits and canopies may or may not affect how an airplane flies, but they have been and should be part of the equations. I may get arguments about it , but I think the "cookie cutter" effect on design doesn't really do anything to help draw anyone to the event or encourages anyone to apply themselves to do the extra work to try and garner those extra points. Dave Trible is one of the last of that genre. But after having said all of that, we face another dilemma and that is qualified people to do the appearance judging these days. If things were to swing around to going back to the 40 point appearance, it would be necessary to have fairly large group of knowledgeable people to draw from to judge the models so you can allow then to have a break from the chore now and then. It's a sizeable problem with no easy answer.
    Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[Derek Barry]

The categories are an attempt to give the judges some leverage. As it stands, and as Brett points out, our BOM is based solely on the honor system.  If someone says they built their plane, we must accept it, and the judges are to judge fairly.  As with everything in life, there will always be those who try to bend, or flat out break the rules. The categories wouldn't have to be those listed, but after reading the post from Doug, Steve, and Brett, I can see that new problems may arise, and it might not be fair for everyone.  Or they could just do cockpit detail... 🤣

The idea about requiring documentation, especially for know production models has merit.  I document my own builds, as I know many people do. This is mainly so I can remind myself what to do, when I build the next one, a few years later. I generally have 200-300 photos of the construction and finishing process. 

Of course, with technology today, just about anything can be faked....

Derek

[Doug Moon]

>>>> Or they could just do cockpit detail... 🤣<<<<

Now I gotta learn something new! 

I take pics so I can see all the mistakes I am making.

[Derek Barry]

Now I gotta learn something new! 

I take pics so I can see all the mistakes I am making.

🤣

[Howard Rush]

I tried taking pictures while building, but it takes too many hands.

[Doug Moon]

 

I tried taking pictures while building, but it takes too many hands.

 

[Doug Moon]

>>> I generally have 200-300 photos of the construction and finishing process. 

Derek

I take pics while building and breaking ribs and send them to my friends so they can talk me off the ledge when I am ready to just light my plane up and start over,,,,remember this one? 

[Matt Colan]

I take pics while building and breaking ribs and send them to my friends so they can talk me off the ledge when I am ready to just light my plane up and start over,,,,remember this one?

You should have burned that wing when you had the chance and saved a perfectly good prop!

[Trostle]

I have been involved with this event in some way for a number of years.  My first Nats was in 1966.  I have judged appearance at the Nats more than a few times, including this last Nats.  Appearance of a stunt model depends on a number of factors, all of which are difficult at best to quantify.  However, I think most will agree that it is easy to see the workmanship that goes into producing a model that looks "nice", however you want to define "nice".  Also, it is easy to see if the model has a good finish.  Some color schemes may be more attractive than others (to some at least), some color schemes may be more complicated than others, but a good finish is nonetheless a good finish.

The purpose of this post is really to discuss two of the old categories used in appearance judging: originality and realism.

On originality:

Just because a different shaped rudder or wing tips on any of the hundreds of stunt designs that have appeared over the 70+ years of competition, it does not really constitute a "real" original design.

When someone first showed up with a B-17, that deserves some originality points, though when the first appeared, it still was a conventionally configured aircraft with a wing and a trailing stabilizer.  Same with a B-25 (been done), an almost scale Wildcat (been done), an F7F Tigercat (been done), and the countless other "near scale" or "semi-scale" models that have appeared over the years.  The first person who appears at a contest with a twin pusher canard with a conventional stabilizer would be eligible for full "originality" points.  The second person to appear with that configuration would not because his was not "original".  A person with a triplane would not get originality points - it has been done before.

Some new definition of what "originality" really means for our precision aerobatic models would need to be developed before originality could be reinstated as a criterion for appearance points in our event of Precision Aerobatics.  I do not have the slightest idea on what that definition could be.

On Realism:

Does a "semi-scale" model of a jet fighter with a propeller on the front represent "realism".  Some might not think so.  Cockpit detail may look nice and might help with the overall impression on the "appearance" of the model, but does it really help with how "real" the airplane looks?  Up close maybe, but from a few feet away, so what if there is a complete "realistic" cockpit in the thing?  Panel lines?  Done well, panel lines might contribute to the "realistic" look of a model.  Poorly done panel lines do not help with the appearance of a model - if anything, they detract from the overall appearance of "realism".  If panel lines were intended to be a part of the overall appearance to garner "realism" points, that is up to the eyes of the beholder.  Panel lines might not be a positive factor.

Regarding painted on canopies as part of "realism" for appearance points.  I can remember one Nationals (around 1999) where I judged appearance with Charlie Reeves and Arlie Prezler.  After we had things sorted out with the top models in the front rows, we realized that four of the top five models in the front two rows had painted on canopies.  So, what does that say for the need for cockpit detail?  If cockpit detail is the preference of the builder (which is my preference), then so be it.  But a rule should not be such that cockpit detail to any level is needed for the overall appearance of a stunt model.  Same with semi-scale designs.  If that is the preference of the builder, then again, so be it.  A rule should not be in effect that dictates that a model must be a semi-scale or near-scale replica of a full scale airplane to garner full appearance points.  If someone wants to build a semi-scale airplane, or at least something that could be called a semi-scale airplane, then fine.  Others should not be required to do so to get so called "realism" points.  If you want a semi-scale contest, set up a contest to do it.  We do not have to change our Precision Aerobatics rules to do so.

If someone wants to add some criteria for what garners appearance points, then do so.  The current rule for appearance points covers workmanship and finish without specifically mentioning them.  To add "Realism" and/or "Originality" into appearance scoring creates problems that do not need to be introduced into this event.

Just my own unbiased opinions.

Keith

[Brett Buck]

If someone wants to add some criteria for what garners appearance points, then do so.  The current rule for appearance points covers workmanship and finish without specifically mentioning them.  To add "Realism" and/or "Originality" into appearance scoring creates problems that do not need to be introduced into this event.

  I am curious - when these were specific categories, how was it handled? Surely they had the same issues.

     Brett