The appearance point "rules" are mostly non-existent. Almost anything goes, and it is entirely subjective. As mentioned above, several world-class modelers have provided their general guidelines, but usually that gets them a lot of grief, so I could understand why they might be a bit reluctant - and clearly nothing has changed.
In my personal opinion, Keith's were far and away the clearest and most reasonable, perhaps we can prevail upon him to post them again.
Brett
I have been traveling for the past several weeks and missed out on this discussion. Since Brett brought up the "guide lines" that were written several years ago regarding appearance judging, these are attached. This package was prepared by Charles Reeves and myself after a Nationals more than a few years ago. Charlie and I did the appearance judging at several Nats. One of those times, there was an uproar created when a particular model received only a moderate number of appearance points. Its builder had received the Concours award at the previous Nats. At this Nats, the builder had a new airplane. It was quite attractive, in fact from a distance, it was just outstanding. However, the bottom of the airplane was not finished in the same manner as the top and there were other quite obvious flaws in the construction and finish. The Event Director asked us what we saw in the airplane. We pointed out why we made the assessment we made and he understood our score. Nevertheless, there was a considerable discussion on the forums about the lack of any written standards on how appearance should be judged. So, around 2001, Charlie and I prepared an outline of what we considered to be a reasonable guide on how appearance of a model could be judged. This outline was published in Stunt News and later, it was published in an issue of Flying Models. This package was not intended to be a hard and fast "rule" on appearance judging. It was intended to serve as a guide for the various factors that could be considered while assessing the number of appearance points for any given model given what the rule book contains.
One interesting side note here regarding cockpit detail. Clear canopies, painted on canopies and cockpit detail is discussed in our package. Is a lot of cockpit detail necessary for maximum appearance points? I think not. I can remember at one Nats when I was an appearance point judge, there were maybe five airplanes on the front row, like the 19 point row. Three of those airplanes had painted on canopies.
Here is the package that Charlie and I prepared at that time.
Keith
From about 2001:
There have been some questions and discussions of the method of appearance judging at the recent Nationals, and in this article we will attempt to explain how we have done it for the last three years. In 1999, Arlie Prezler, Keith Trostle, and Charles Reeves did appearance judging. In 2000 and 2001, in Arlie’s absence it was done by Keith, and Charles.
In most local contests, the appearance is judged just prior to the contestant’s first flight, many times with the lines hooked on and the starting equipment close at hand. However, at the Nationals the judging is done on the afternoon prior to the start of flying competition, and all planes are judged together in one room in a two to three hour period. Initially during this process, the planes are roughly grouped with the better planes in the front of the room and the others toward the rear. Then each plane is closely inspected both on top and on the bottom for the quality of workmanship and its overall appearance for its final placing in the group. In general, the front row will be 19 or 20 points with the rows behind it receiving fewer points, as the judges deem appropriate. Only after the planes are arranged in the rows of similar quality are points assigned to each row. Sometimes there are enough planes of similar quality that two rows will be assigned the same appearance points. The appearance points assigned to a particular airplane/row in this process are relative to the appearance of other airplanes/rows. There is no set standard that establishes what score a model will or will not receive based on specific aspects of a model’s appearance. We emphasize that no particular plane is given a certain number of points unless it is judged to be so outstanding that it is given a perfect 20 point score. Similar points are given to each group of similar quality.
The inspection of each plane is as thorough as can be done in the time period allowed. In most cases, a particular plane is inspected several times prior to its final placing. Both judges inspect and agree to the placement of each plane before its final placing, asking each other if the plane is where it should be placed, or should it go one row forward or one row backward. They also consider if there is a plane in the row ahead of it or behind it that should take its place.
The quality of the workmanship is judged by many factors. Some of these are listed below. This list is not all-inclusive, but is our interpretation of craftsmanship and aesthetics that determine the appearance of a model.
FinishIf the plane has a painted finish, was enough paint put on the bottom of the plane to fill the grain of the wood or the pores of the covering material, or was just the top of the plane filled, painted, and rubbed to a high gloss? The bottom is judged just like the top, and the better planes look just as good on the bottom as they do on the top. We realize that sometimes less paint is applied to the bottom than to the top to keep weight down and improve the flying ability of the plane. That may help the flying, but it doesn’t help the appearance! It’s the pilot/builder’s choice. Models with film covered surfaces can receive maximum appearance points if the application of the film is accomplished in a manner that shows skill the overall appearance is attractive.
GlossSome paint schemes call for a high uniform gloss over the entire airframe. Other color schemes/airplane designs can be awarded high appearance points with a semi-gloss or even a matte finish if the finish is uniform and appropriate for the model and/or paint scheme. Inappropriate gloss of lack thereof, or the non-uniform appearance of the finish will result in loss of appearance points.
Color TrimThe color trim is judged higher if there are no places where the color has bled under the masking material, the adjoining trim colors such as checker trim meet properly, the edge is not discernible to the touch, and lines such as pin stripes are straight and not irregular in width. Use of many colors do not make a first class color scheme. Many colors applied well in and aesthetic manner do warrant consideration of higher appearance points.
Panel LinesIf you are going to put panel lines on your plane, make sure that the lines do not cross where they are not supposed to, that there are no runs under the straight edge, that the ends meet where they are supposed to, and that the screw slots start and stop where they are supposed to. Again, lots of panel lines do not make a first class job. Lots of panel lines done well do add to the appearance of most planes.
ConstructionQuality of the fit of components, glue joints, alignment, symmetry, and straight/unwarped flying surfaces all contribute to the appearance of a model. Poor construction techniques that detract from the appearance of the model will result in a loss of appearance points. An example would be flaps that are tweaked unevenly, or a tab added to a flap to correct a warped wing.
Cowl and Removable Panels/ComponentsA nicely fitted cowl and any other removable components with closely fit and barely visible parting lines and hidden bolts or at least flush mounted attaching bolts/screws are judged higher than a poorly fitted ones and/or those attached with visible bolts and/or screws, Particularly if the bolts/screws extend beyond the surface of the airframe. Flush or hidden methods of attachment are judged higher than extended and/or visible bolts, screw heads or threads. Uncovered access holes are a cause for loss of points. On some planes, the cowl extends or panels are used to cover the pipe tunnel (if the plane is so equipped), and if well executed will be judged higher than models with an open pipe tunnel. Generally accepted and uniform clearances around the power plant components that extend beyond the cowling such as the engine head, glow plug, needle valve, muffler or pipe exhaust are judged higher when done well than if such openings are wide open or not executed well or if the entire engine area is uncowled.
Landing GearA landing gear bolted on with no cover over the bolted connection is not judged as highly as one that is covered, with bolts hardly visible, or not visible at all as in some cases such as permanent gear. Socket head bolts used as axles on aluminum or carbon fiber gear should be cut off flush with the nut and filed or polished for maximum points. Wheel pants attached with a couple of screws with visible heads not flush with the mounting surface are certainly not judged as highly as those faired and filleted to the landing gear for a permanent attachment. Removable wheel pants that show a high degree of workmanship will be judged higher than those that appear just bolted onto the model. Wheel well covers and landing strut details if well executed will receive more appearance points that a poorly executed assembly. A tail wheel is judged higher if the attachment is not visible, or is at least recessed and faired in.
Hinge LinesClose fitting hinge lines with no paint sticking in them are judged better than widely gapped hinge lines with paint broken loose from the surfaces. Some pilots use hinge line tape to close the gap. That may help the flying ability of the plane, but it doesn’t help the appearance. In the case of cloth hinges, no deduction of appearance points will result if their installation is neat and consistent with the overall appearance of the model.
Canopy/CockpitWell-executed realistic cockpit detail enhances the appearance and contributes to the award of more appearance points. Bare, few, or poorly executed cockpit details detract from the appearance of a model. However, it is possible to have a Precision Aerobatic model design that does not incorporate any semblance of a cockpit or canopy, yet can receive maximum appearance points. This could happen if the model design is clearly for the function of flying Precision Aerobatics and its appearance clearly not be enhanced by the addition of a cockpit and/or canopy. A nicely fitted clear canopy with interior cockpit detail is judged higher than a painted canopy. However, a painted canopy with a simulated frame that appears straight and finely masked is judged higher than a clear canopy not faired in or poorly attached and finished. For instance, a canopy just glued on top of the fuselage with tape poorly covering the edge of it shows poor craftsmanship.
Spinner and PropellerA very closely fit spinner (or spinners) that matches the contours of the model is a sign that the pilot has worked hard to fit his engine(s) and spinner(s) to the front of the plane. A uniform 1/32” gap between the back of the spinner(s) and the nose ring(s) is excellent. A 1/8” gap isn’t. The spinner(s) should be cut to fit the propeller(s) closely, and highly polished or finished in a manner consistent with the rest of the finish/design of the airplane to get maximum points. The propeller(s) should be free of obvious service wear and tear. It is to be remembered that the propeller(s) installed for appearance judging is(are) to be the same propeller(s) or exactly similar in appearance to the propeller(s) used for the competition flights.
FilletsAre the fillets smooth or bumpy? Do they have paint bubbled over them? Do they have pits in them? Are they symmetrical and uniform? The smooth and uniform fillets with no paint bubbles or pits are judged higher.
Details and ProtuberancesOther details that might appear on the model not described in the preceding sections could include but not be limited to visible provisions for an adjustable tip weight and adjustable leadouts as well as visible tank vents, vent lines and fuel lines. Though these elements may be inherent to the overall function and/or look of a particular design, their appearance, if not executed in a neat and workmanship like manner will be cause for loss of appearance points.
Wear and TearThe model is judged as it is presented to the judges, not as it might have appeared at some earlier time. Visible service wear resulting in such things as scrapes, dings, weathering, age discoloration and deterioration, finish erosion due to fuel spills, and noticeable repairs all result in lower appearance points.
AestheticsThe judges try to ignore their own prejudices and preferences and asses the appearance of an airplane on the basis of what should be accepted as reasonable standards of visual appeal. However, some color combinations, decoration schemes and component shapes just do not fit on a model airplane regardless of how well the airplane has been constructed and finished. Simply stated, a model that looks attractive will receive more points than one that is not attractive.
(As a literary work, this paper would not score very high in a writing class. We have some inconsistencies where we use passive/active sentences and using past and present tense. Some of the sentences are too long. But if the purpose is to outline some guidelines that we use when we judge a model for appearance, we think this provides a basic foundation for that.)
Topic: Appearance Points (Read 9687 times)
