‘Classics’ list- where is it?

[Dave_Trible]

I was checking something in the rules for Classic and stumbled across a line that says PAMPA is supposed to maintain a list of allowable designs (also N30 and OT).  A look here and I found something on N30 but really nothing else.  At that it looks like it’s been years since any updates.  If we can get these lists and update them we will keep them on the PAMPA website.  Please help if you can.

Dave

[Trostle]

I do not know who is maintaining Dave Day's web site but it is still up.  A portion of it is at

https://www.tiburondesigncompany.com/DaveDay/cl.htm

From there, it shows his listings for OTS and Classic designs.  Both lists are more comprehensive than what is in the Tom Morris books.  However, there are still a few published and possibly kitted eligible designs that are not in these books.

It would be good if PAMPA could generate the OTS and Classic legal lists.  Between what is in the Tom Morris books and the Dave Day listings, it would be a great start.

Keith

[Brett Buck]

I was checking something in the rules for Classic and stumbled across a line that says PAMPA is supposed to maintain a list of allowable designs (also N30 and OT).  A look here and I found something on N30 but really nothing else.  At that it looks like it’s been years since any updates.  If we can get these lists and update them we will keep them on the PAMPA website.  Please help if you can.

   I don't have any more recent list than you have.

   I would caution everyone (and every CD) to use the list for what it was originally intended for - if a design is on the list, it's OK, but if a design is NOT on the list, it may still be OK. It is not intended to exclude legitimate models that just happen to not be on the list. And really, for N30, how could you possibly keep it up to date, it changes literally every day.

    I mention this because *I know that the list has been used to exclude people* with legitimate models from time to time. If I show up in Nostalgia 30 with the Imitation XL, it won't be on the list, but was actually being flown more than 30 years ago (actually 32). A lot of people are in that boat.

   I was very uncomfortable with (and voted against) the use and even existence of the "PAMPA list" for this stuff when it first came up, because I know that someone, somewhere was going to use it as the sole list of eligible designs (much like the GSCB OT-legal list), and that was certainly not the intent. It was never intended to exclude anyone, or be a "gotcha" list.

     Brett

[Dave_Trible]

I do understand your point Brett,  well taken.  I do think the lists need to be somewhere at least for a general reference for those not knowing about the airplanes they want to build.  The rules and bylaws seem to say PAMPA should be doing this,  especially since these are specific PAMPA events.  I think what you say brings a good point to write a paragraph of guidance to go with the lists to lean toward being inclusive unless shown otherwise.  It seems to fall to PAMPA to approve ‘new’ additions to the lists.  An example I’m thinking to add is a twin engine Shark 45.  Our local area ‘pro’ in the 60’s had one.  I’m likely the only one still alive who knows of it and saw it fly.  There needs to be space to add such things.

Dave

[Brett Buck]

There aren't as many people with axes to grind now, as opposed to when it was instituted, so I am not that concerned. It should come with a preamble describing how it is intended to be used. Obviously, if it is not maintained, the world doesn't end, as long as you have the caveat - since it hasn't been maintained for a long time and the world continued spinning.

    Brett

[john e. holliday]

Hey Dave the old DOC remembers the twin engined Shark that Ray Rheinschmidt flew at Swope Park.  Don't know if he is till with us or not.   He was one terrific pilot who competition was Ken Kreibel another fantastic pilot.   Asked why he never flew in the NATS, his reply "Why should I".  Ray was also the one who had gorgeous planes sitting on the wheels, but turn them over and the finish did not match.    Another statement of his at the time, "They never look at the bottom of plane when it is on the ground".  This was when the Shark kit first came out.

[Dave_Trible]

Ah I didn't know you had seen it.  I think it was a little heavy and wasn't one of his favorites but I'm sure built almost entirely out of the kit wood.  I have an early RSM Shark kit with feather light wood and a few .35s laying around..........But that helps to verify the airplane and should be made legal to enter classic.

Dave

If I can get Ty to send me anything he can on the lists.....and I'll check out Dave Days site.....

[Dan McEntee]

I do understand your point Brett,  well taken.  I do think the lists need to be somewhere at least for a general reference for those not knowing about the airplanes they want to build.  The rules and bylaws seem to say PAMPA should be doing this,  especially since these are specific PAMPA events.  I think what you say brings a good point to write a paragraph of guidance to go with the lists to lean toward being inclusive unless shown otherwise.  It seems to fall to PAMPA to approve ‘new’ additions to the lists.  An example I’m thinking to add is a twin engine Shark 45.  Our local area ‘pro’ in the 60’s had one.  I’m likely the only one still alive who knows of it and saw it fly.  There needs to be space to add such things.

Dave

     As a long time lover of the Jetco Shark and builder of two of them, I would LOVE to see a picture of that!  I wonder if anyone has specs on it, like nacelle spacing and such, and if the rest was stock kit parts? That would be all you need.
  I have plans for a Classic Legal 60 size Nobler! A gentleman named Jerry Jack showed up at the SIG contest a few years ago with a large Nobler with a short shaft Fox 59 in it. He said he built it back in the early 60's just for the Fox .59 and hand drew the plans but I forget the percentage he enlargement was.  No Kinkos back than! It was in amazingly good shape, but we never got the chance to fly it. Jim Lee did some checking when he got hoke that year, and he actually had a dated photo of it from a contest in Iowa, I think in that time period to authenticate it. A local guy named Jan Rumery got Jerry's sketches and drew up a decent set of plans for it along with a copy of Jim' photo on the plans and an affidavit from Jerry. I'll have to get to that one one of these days with a ST.51 in it.
   Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[Dave_Trible]

     As a long time lover of the Jetco Shark and builder of two of them, I would LOVE to see a picture of that!  I wonder if anyone has specs on it, like nacelle spacing and such, and if the rest was stock kit parts? That would be all you need.
  I have plans for a Classic Legal 60 size Nobler! A gentleman named Jerry Jack showed up at the SIG contest a few years ago with a large Nobler with a short shaft Fox 59 in it. He said he built it back in the early 60's just for the Fox .59 and hand drew the plans but I forget the percentage he enlargement was.  No Kinkos back than! It was in amazingly good shape, but we never got the chance to fly it. Jim Lee did some checking when he got hoke that year, and he actually had a dated photo of it from a contest in Iowa, I think in that time period to authenticate it. A local guy named Jan Rumery got Jerry's sketches and drew up a decent set of plans for it along with a copy of Jim' photo on the plans and an affidavit from Jerry. I'll have to get to that one one of these days with a ST.51 in it.
   Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

Dan all that exists are the memories that Doc and myself have of the airplane.  I held and launched the airplane for Ray the first few flights of the airplane when it was new.  It appeared to be quite stock except the dual nacelles and a rounded nose on the main fuse-like a twin Piper whatever.  He used Fox .35s on everything he flew.  I will dig out my plans and draw the modifications as best I can remember.  I'm pretty sure he used Grish three blade silver nylon props, three blade.  If I build one I might use Enya .35s for more power and perhaps smoother runs.

[Dennis Saydak]

   I don't have any more recent list than you have.

   I would caution everyone (and every CD) to use the list for what it was originally intended for - if a design is on the list, it's OK, but if a design is NOT on the list, it may still be OK. It is not intended to exclude legitimate models that just happen to not be on the list. And really, for N30, how could you possibly keep it up to date, it changes literally every day.

    I mention this because *I know that the list has been used to exclude people* with legitimate models from time to time. If I show up in Nostalgia 30 with the Imitation XL, it won't be on the list, but was actually being flown more than 30 years ago (actually 32). A lot of people are in that boat.

   I was very uncomfortable with (and voted against) the use and even existence of the "PAMPA list" for this stuff when it first came up, because I know that someone, somewhere was going to use it as the sole list of eligible designs (much like the GSCB OT-legal list), and that was certainly not the intent. It was never intended to exclude anyone, or be a "gotcha" list.

     Brett

Guys here's just one example of a legitimate classic era design that not many people know about - Val Ure's Tumbleweed. Val is a very prolific designer of flying things who lives in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He is now in his 90s. Val has a flying wing stunt design published in FM and Tom's book.

Sorry but the original pencil drawing is longer than my scanner bed so the tail is cut off. I did draw up a full size Tumbleweed plan but somehow my original got lost. I believe I still have a copy though. Maybe one day I'll get around to building one for myself.

[Brett Buck]

Guys here's just one example of a legitimate classic era design that not many people know about - Val Ure's Tumbleweed. Val is a very prolific designer of flying things who lives in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He is now in his 90s. Val has a flying wing stunt design published in FM and Tom's book.

   My point was that there are almost certainly many more legal designs than there are on any published list, 10-20x as many. That's why the list has to be inclusive, not exclusive.

    Brett

[Jim Mynes]

I’ve said this before, but I think it bears repeating.
Rather than a couple of OTS lists, a Classic list, and a N-30 list, we simply need one, wait for it....
MASTER LIST
A list of every design we can conjure up, with as much data as is available, and arranged in chronological order.
One list is easier to maintain than several.
N-30 will be updated by default, just look for today’s date 30 years ago. Anything above that line is legal.
We need to capture this information before it’s gone from the hive’s knowledge base.

[bob whitney]

sounds like a good job for u

[Brett Buck]

We need to capture this information before it’s gone from the hive’s knowledge base.

      Since it can never be comprehensive, we will always have to allow designs not on the list on a case-by-case basis, so I don't really see why we need a list at all.

     Brett

[Dave_Trible]

I have found myself more than once using these lists to determine if a particular design is a classic or N30. ( or falls in the strange 50s gap-too new for Old Time but not competitive for Classic-like the Super Ringmaster).  In the case of the Kolesnikov KA 5 I recently built it wasn't on ANY list so had to find other ways to an answer.  I got looking at the Dave Day list last night and found quite a few I had forgotten about or never knew of.  I think it helps to keep us out of 'another  Nobler' rut , especially for those newer guys who never knew about so many other designs out there that could be used and might give a clue where to start looking for plans.  In any case it is still interesting to look at.

Dave

[Randy Powell]

I understand Brett's point. I have plans for a plane I designed in 1971. I've never built it again as I only have a couple of pictures of it from back in the day and my original plans on butcher paper, now yellowed with age. But it was never published and only a few ever saw it fly. Cool plane, too. I wouldn't want to build it again and take it to a contest, only to be disallowed.

[Dave_Trible]

Randy start building.  The misunderstanding here is that the design DOES NOT have to have been published.  The rules only ask for reasonable proof if only a written affidavit vouching for the design in the time period if challenged.   You only need to express that the design was done in the given time period.

Dave

[Ken Culbertson]

I only had a dated picture of me holding a plane I designed in the early 60's.  I never had any problems entering it.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

I understand Brett's point. I have plans for a plane I designed in 1971. I've never built it again as I only have a couple of pictures of it from back in the day and my original plans on butcher paper, now yellowed with age. But it was never published and only a few ever saw it fly. Cool plane, too. I wouldn't want to build it again and take it to a contest, only to be disallowed.

     Don't worry about it, it doesn't have to be on the list, the vast majority of all legal design are not and will not be on the list. Everybody will take your word for it - particularly around here. Only a few humorless bastards were ever trying to "catch" people with supposedly "cheater" designs, and those people are mostly long gone - much to our benefit.

   Bear in mind also that there is actually no provision for disqualifying or excluding *any* airplane for *any* reason in the existing rules. Extreme deviations (like building an Impact straight from the planes and calling it a "modified Nobler") are supposed to be discouraged by awarding low or zero "fidelity points". In many cases, fidelity points are not used, in which case there is no rules penalty at all.

     Of course, that defeats the entire point of the event, and no one does it, because 99.999% of the participants are not jackasses looking for a $4  "Southeast Fargo Stunt Criterium Nostalgia 30 Grand Champion" trophy by weaseling out an unfair advantage. That's why making elaborate rules to close every loophole is not important or worth doing. You can count on the integrity of your fellow competitors, and the occasional difference of opinion is not worth the effort to avoid. That's also why you don't actually need the list.

     Brett

[L0U CRANE]

Regarding the first 3 posts (Dave, Keith and Brett)(Supporting, not criticizing!):

The idea of a "list" of eligible designs dates back to John Miske's GSCB list of "known" OTS eligibles."

John intended his list to be a starter shopping list, not a closed final list. He mentioned he'd like to see other designs added.

His list also omitted most "1/2A" or even .09 models of the era.  ...for the simple reasons that those were less popular in the OT era.   

...AS  there were few usable small sport engines,
...AND making that few work enjoyably was more work than hanging a Fox/K&B/?VECO? on something about Ringmaster size, and was less fun. The fun of reliving earlier, simpler days with what we flew then - or wished we had - were the important things, he suggested.
    ...BUT we did have the strict interpreters vs the looser interpreters of  "cutoff dates."

 One f'rinstance  was Elliot's Black Tiger - appeared in an early  1953 magazine. Back then, and largely today, magazines are dated for the month after they are issued, and of course, the work of preparing content had to be completed before that. (duhh...) Longer lead times applied before the days of computer-file compositing and much more rapid printing... But, still, there were pretty hard feelings from both sides.

BTW, doesn't Dave Day's list include a large number of UK designs, mostly diesel and mostly rather smaller than ours in the USA? Keith, didn't you fly a PAGAN at a few VSC a while back? From Dave Day's resources? That's an example...

[Trostle]

(Clip)

BTW, doesn't Dave Day's list include a large number of UK designs, mostly diesel and mostly rather smaller than ours in the USA? Keith, didn't you fly a PAGAN at a few VSC a while back? From Dave Day's resources? That's an example...

Indeed, the Dave day listings for both OTS and Classic shows the designs that appeared in in the British Aeromodeller and Model Aircraft magazines.  (The MA magazine was similar to Aeromodeller in format and ceased publication in 1965.)  It was really a semi-scale design of a  small deHavilland race plane.

I found the Pagan design in the 1951 Aeromodeller Annual long before there were any Dave Day listings.  The Pagan is an interesting airplane.  In 1951, this had an inverted cowled engine and a tapered wing with dihedral, not often seen in OTS designs.

Keith

[John Hammonds]

Always liked the Pagan.

I uploaded my copy of the plan to Hip Pocket some time ago.

https://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_plans/details.php?image_id=4294

In all these years I never noticed it had dihedral. 

Sure is a pretty Airplane though.

TTFN
John.

[Brett Buck]

Regarding the first 3 posts (Dave, Keith and Brett)(Supporting, not criticizing!):

The idea of a "list" of eligible designs dates back to John Miske's GSCB list of "known" OTS eligibles."

John intended his list to be a starter shopping list, not a closed final list. He mentioned he'd like to see other designs added.

  Right, but at least some people figured "not on the list, it doesn't fly", and/or, after-the-fact , used the list to claim so-and-so was "cheating", whether that was the original intent or not.

At least for the "PAMPA List", it was certainly never imagined that it would be used that way.

    And it's not in any way important to catch or exclude "cheaters". They are so few and far between that it's a problem not worth addressing, and certainly not worth taking a chance on kicking someone out just because it didn't make someone's list.

   Brett

[Steve_Pollock]

In keeping with this discussion, I've had an interest in a model which was shown on Dave Day's web site.  The model is the "Handkerchief" by Joe Wagner.  Everything known about the model is shown in the figure below, which Mr. Wagner presented in an article entitled "Stunt Outlook 1951".  I had an email dialog with Mr. Wagner about this plane; unfortunately he did not draw up full plans, but he did build one.  The thought of a vintage-legal 64" stunter powered by a Veco .29 is mind-boggling, as are the optional 18% and 25% airfoils.  The name of the plane comes from the fact that he covered it with silk handkerchiefs obtained from (I think) a local F. W. Woolworth store.  There are drawings of wing-tip details, rib locations, and tailplane construction.  Is this enough information to build and fly this plane under Vintage Rules?

[Dave_Trible]

I'd say if you do the version he actually built and flew it should be fine.  I think Joe is still around.  You might ask him to verify in case anyone ever has any doubts.  He sometimes sells plans on Ebay.

Dave

[Dan McEntee]

  I am of the opinion that the lists are helpful just to go shopping for something different that isn't a Nobler or a Humungous or Jamison. Tom Morris' books are fun to look through, but don't have near what should be out there. A list that at least shows any documentation or source adds to the thrill of the hunt to find what interests you. That is all I am after. I do think, though, that N-30 should be discontinued and just have Super 70's with a cut off date of 1979 as the class up from Classic. Time has passed along far enough that you are getting into modern designs, more or less, and in my opinion very few  have any historic value to me,. just some airplanes that I might like to build is all.
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Jim Hoffman]

In keeping with this discussion, I've had an interest in a model which was shown on Dave Day's web site.  The model is the "Handkerchief" by Joe Wagner.  Everything known about the model is shown in the figure below, which Mr. Wagner presented in an article entitled "Stunt Outlook 1951".  I had an email dialog with Mr. Wagner about this plane; unfortunately he did not draw up full plans, but he did build one.  The thought of a vintage-legal 64" stunter powered by a Veco .29 is mind-boggling, as are the optional 18% and 25% airfoils.  The name of the plane comes from the fact that he covered it with silk handkerchiefs obtained from (I think) a local F. W. Woolworth store.  There are drawings of wing-tip details, rib locations, and tailplane construction.  Is this enough information to build and fly this plane under Vintage Rules?

Steve,
My opinion is that if you can document that the drawing you presented existed before Dec. 31, 1952, a model built and scaled to those sketches would be OTS legal.

Attached are the PAMPA OTS rules.  Refer to para 3.0 for Model Requirements.

BTW- That is a super cool design and you would be a rock star at any OTS event in my world.

Jim Hoffman

[Trostle]

Steve,
My opinion is that if you can document that the drawing you presented existed before Dec. 31, 1952, a model built to those sketches would be OTS legal.

Attached are the PAMPA OTS rules.  Refer to para 3.0 for Model Requirements.

BTW- That is a super cool design and you would be a rock star at any OTS event in my world.

Jim Hoffman

The article by Joseph Wagner, "Stunt Outlook for '51" including the 1/2 page drawings shown above was published in the March 1951 issue of Model Airplane News, covered 5 pages, starting on page 9.   Flaps were fairly new at that time.  Here is what Wagner wrote about flaps:

"What about flaps?  Well, let's put it this way:  a perfectly good stunt model may be had without using flaps (witness the Senior and Open Stunt Winners at the '50 Nationals), but performance can be bettered with them.  The reason for this is that deflected flaps change the symmetrical airfoil to a lifting airfoil (the lift actin either upward or downward, depending on whether the flaps are down or up) and this lift, acting in conjunction with the elevators, permits tighter maneuvers without stalling.  To be fully effective, flaps should be full span, about 25% of the wing chord at their widest point, tapering to the tips to avoid tip-stalling the wing.  Flaps should move opposite to the elevators, and their movement must never exceed 30% of the elevator movement."

Wagner extols the virtues of thick airfoils "with rather sharp leading edges", giving the coordinates for both the NACA 0018 and NACA 0025 airfoils.  He also suggests a "15% symmetrical airfoil" for the stabilizer and elevators.

So here is a design in March, 1951, for a 64 in span, 600 sq in area, "powered by a 29" and a weight of 30 oz, with an NACA 0018 airfoil.

This would make a fantastic OTS model.  It is certainly OTS legal by PAMPA rules, even if one was never previously built.  One problem with it is the flap penalty.  So, who is the first to show up with a 600 sq in, 18% wing section, good looking OTS ship, inverted cowled engine, that weighs 30 oz?  Hmmm.

[L0U CRANE]

... just a minor addition to mine about John Miske's original GSCB list...

It was not any prejudice against small models:   the 1951-52 AMA Rules specify ... recommend, actually ... line length to be no longer than 70' from handle to model centerline and no shorter than 52.5'.

There were simply NO 1/2A or A engines back then that could pull a model on that length. Might be a few today, but it would still be mucho challenging.

OK, back to the 'Classics' list topic...

I believe Doc Holiday should have a pretty good classics list, himself. How 'bout it John?

[john e. holliday]

I just have the books from Tom Morris.  I truly thonk Dan Mcentee could make a list from his library of magazines as well as Keith Trostle.