Dual purpose plane for profile and classic?

[BYU]

Well I was interested in the answer to this one myself and as the other post by C Carter has gone rogue on us . . .

It's my understanding / misunderstanding that full bodied planes can be "profiled" and be legitimate.

i.e. the profile oriental, profile nobler etc.

Is this the case?

[Trostle]

Well I was interested in the answer to this one myself and as the post has gone rogue on us . . .

It's my understanding / misunderstanding that full bodied planes can "profiled" and be legitimate.

i.e. the profile oriental, profile nobler etc.

Can one of the "grown ups" chime in here and set the record straight?

Thanks

I do not claim to be "one of the grown ups" for this discussion, but I will submit my thoughts on this.

From the PAMPA Rules for Classic Stunt:  "It is expected that contestants will comply with the spirit of the event and enter only qualifying models which as closely as possible accurately reflect the aerodynamic layout AND APPEARANCE of the original."  [empahasis added]

The PAMPA rules allowed deviations from an original design if "the contestant has convincing evidence of the design's compliance. ... It is suggested that contestants provide reasonable proof that the model presented was actually flown during the period of eligibility ... and that the model accurately represents the model as flown during that period."

These PAMPA rules rules also introduce the concept that "Fidelity points ... will be awarded for fidelity to the concept of the original design and confirmation to the spirit of the event."  At least for the past 30 plus years, I am not aware that this idea of awarding "fidelity points" in the Classic event was ever practiced.  It would seem that documentation of some kind would be required in order to receive any "fidelity points" and the concept has essentially been ignored.

It is my opinion, that unless there is "reasonable proof" that some deviation from or a change in configuration of a classic design is available, for instance a profile version of a known classic design, then the model presented does not "comply with the spirit of the event".  Just because some Contest Director allowed a deviation from a known classic design that did not really "comply with the spirit of the event" does not give that deviation a universal approval.

It is also my opinion that the idea of "fidelity points" has led to the idea that deviations carried to various levels from the original design are acceptable, though fidelity points in reality are not awarded.  Again, this my opinion, this approach has led models being flown in the Classic event that go far beyond the "spirit of the event".  Just claiming that a profile or flapped version of designs that were not profile or did not have flaps could have been flown in the classic era does not make those models classic legal.

I think the idea of "fidelity points" has not been accepted because it has an inherit problem.  For a judge to award fidelity points, documentation of some kind is needed to show the source of the design, details of the design, including construction and materials used.  Without documentation of some kind, a "fidelity point" judge must be familiar with the minute details of hundreds of designs  (400+ from the classic era plus 400 + from the OTS era).

Disclaimer:  The views expressed here are my own and are in no way to be construed to be an "official" PAMPA position regarding the PAMPA rules for classic stunt.

Keith

[Dennis Moritz]

Check with CD, I too thought profiles of a Classic qualify in Classic. It appears, in any case, that a profile Nobler would qualify for nostalgia 30, if George built one in 1973. Contest CD makes determination. Judgements and interpretations vary.

[Dan Berry]

The Oriental flies as a profile in Classic.
Dee said that they existed back then.

[L0U CRANE]

Charles,
Around late 1991 I copied or saved a lot stunt model mag articles. It helped to have a friend who was clearing out his mags. Text and line copy quality was quite good, images were usually poor by today’s standards. For Classic (models kitted or published before 1970) AND profile, my files show:
      Sources:
   American Aircraft Modeler: - last surviving descendant of AirTrails, which went through several names, and carried AMA news before Model Aviation mag began.
   Flying Models also put out two ‘FM Decade' books, collections of plan pages from their published RC, CL and FF articles.
     Items Found:
    Rayette                   Gialdini               Feb 67         America Aircraft Modeler
    Excalibur                 Mathis              May 67,        Flying Models
    Piper Cherokee        Mathis              Sept 64         FM Decade
    Novette                  Norm Dion           Jul 68         FM Decade
    Me-109                   Vince Micchia      Jun 69         FM (and MidWest Kit)
NOTES:
      Many have commented on Bob G’s Rayette’s excellence. It is his takeoff on his Stingray.
       Excalibur is also highly praised. Dick M also published an Excalibur 2, but after the Classic era.
      Dick’s Piper Cherokee may have been one of 3 smallish, near identical M&K kit profiles. The others were a high wing Cessna Cardinal and an Ercoupe. Great fun, but hardly suitable contest stunters. From Ty's comment. there may only have been two - Ercoupe and the high winger - in the little kits.
      Norm Dion’s Novette. may have been a takeoff on one of the NOVI series.
      Mathis’ Coyote is a large, unflapped model of surprisingly good performance
      Micchia’s   Me-109 was one of three MidWest warbird stunt profiles that appeared at the same time. The others?  Bell KingCobra (tricycle gear) and P-51 Mustang. Very similar, decent stunters, a bit large for Fox 35; kit wood often heavy. (Modern technique and trimming could make them nice on modern power.)

If you can’t find enough info to build any of these, I can probably find my copies, scan and email them to you. The mags are defunct (sob;) copying is, in effect, “sharing a working copy made to preserve the original,” No  charge, but if it comes to large postal costs (e.g., enlarging plans and snail mailing them,) I’d hope to get that back.

Keith's comments on Fidelity Points are, as always, excellent! E.g. the Excalibur mag article had very presentable color & markings, likely good to use. The Midwest kits had cover art representative of warbirds  used in combat. Like Carrier "Scale" a general appearance "like" the original??

[Steve Helmick]

Ran into problems loading the other thread on this topic. It was very odd, so I'm curious as to why.

The "Trophy Trainer", Excalibur (Mk1) and Profile Oriental would be high on my list for a Profile/Classic combo.

IIRC, there are 3 variants of the Excalibur and not all are Classic legit. It has a sharp LE, which might be "improved" by substituting a larger LE strip and rounding it as much as you can. That's legal! Very nice looking aeroplane, IMO.

The Trophy Trainer was designed by the late Tom Warden, well suited to a .46 LA. Brian Massey has been flying one for some years. He's a member here, and you might dig into the member's list and send him a PM. I think it would be top of the heap in flying potential, despite the ugly fin/rudder.

IMO, you can't just make a profile fuselage for every Classic design and make it a legitimate Classic. There has been no evidence that there was a "Profile Nobler" built and flown prior to 1970, so IMO, that is not legit.     Steve
 

[James Mills]

Ran into problems loading the other thread on this topic. It was very odd, so I'm curious as to why.

The Trophy Trainer was designed by the late Tom Warden, well suited to a .46 LA. Brian Massey has been flying one for some years. He's a member here, and you might dig into the member's list and send him a PM. I think it would be top of the heap in flying potential, despite the ugly fin/rudder.

The Trophy Trainer works well with an electric set as well.

James

[Mike Griffin]

Just as a side note here.  I remember years ago Allen Brickhaus was flying a Rayette and he let me fly it one day and I was really impressed with the way it flew.  This was back when I first started kitting some models and I called Bob Gialdini  and asked him if I could kit the design which he graciously gave me permission to do so.  I did not sell a lot of them but everyone who built and flew one agreed it was a great flying model.  I then asked Bob to kit the Stingray and possibly later the larger Eclipse, which he also agreed to let me do.  This progression is kind of backwards to what the thread applies to.  We tried several prototype versions of the Stingray but never did release a kit because of some of the issues we ran into when you are adapting a design to a kit .  Some designs just lend themselves to a "one of" type build rather than adapting to a kit.   The full bodied Stingray proved to be one of those.

Some years back, I converted Lew McFarland's Shark 35 to a profile.  The wing and tail feathers were exactly the same as the original full bodied model, we just made a profile fuselage.  It flew great but was not a great seller.

My point being, that at least from a kit production standpoint, it has been my experience that profile copies of full bodied stunters do not seem to go over that well.  But, there are those people in the hobby who just like profiles for whatever reason and that is all they fly. 

What this has to do with this thread, I am not sure but it just triggered these thoughts in my head and I wrote them down.

Mike

[Dennis Moritz]

Time is short. Life likewise. I’ve had some luck recently working with Brodak ARCS and ARFs cobbling together BOM qualifying stunters including Classic models. Brodak often has available component parts of their ARF and ARC models. For instance I recently purchased an Oriental wing. Swap out the controls cut a profile fuselage cover and finish. You have a BOM profile eligible to fly Classic and PAMPA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dennis Moritz]

I had success with a Galaxy. Does the pattern surprisingly well, at least for me, when I don’t stall the bird over controlling the big flapper elevator. Classic and PAMPA legal. No flaps. Easy to build. Mine has survived 15 years of neglect and at least one lawn dart crash. FP40 power. Small OS Venturi. Three and three quarter ounce chicken hopper. Great on a windy day. Be bold and reckless. It’s an over powered profile.

Yep. A light Magician flies great. Hook up the flaps. They help. Especially when the stab is lengthened by one third and moved to the rear of the fuselage. Classic legal. Sort of. Depending on where and when you fly. Mine was Tower 40 powered. Midsize venturi. Thirty three ounces. Looked great flew great off the L-pad.
.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robert Zambelli]

As I recall, there was a profile called the Lieutenant that flew quite well.
Does it fall into the requested categories?

Bob Z.

[Trostle]

As I recall, there was a profile called the Lieutenant that flew quite well.
Does it fall into the requested categories?

Bob Z.

There was a model published in the January 1958 issue of Model Airplane News by Leroy F. Ducharme called The Lieutenant.  Built up fuselage, no flaps, straight LE, elliptical shaped TE, really thin airfoil.  About a 48" span, maybe 500+ sq in.   Builds light at 30 oz.

I cannot find any record of a profile called the Lieutenant.

Keith

[peabody]

What Keith said.....

The issue is that someone built a profile version of a "Belchfire" and justified it because the profile was the same as the built up and was willing to sacrifice some fidelity points at a contest. It was argued that, since the flying structures were as plan, and the outline was authentic, not too many fidelity points should be given up, With a shiny/pretty aeroplane, a profile fuselaged Belchfire could be competitive with against less pretty but plans built Belchfires.

The fact that the awarding of fidelity points is spelled out as "optional" in PAMPA rules lead to more and more profiles being flown in Classic.

While Dee may have built and flown a profile Oriental, I asked both George Aldrich and Bob Palmer if they had ever built profiles as test beds and they both replied "NO". This was at the Brodak contest. George said that it was "impossible to get a good motor run" with a profile.

An issue that clouds enforcement of many "rules" that we use in both Classic and OTS is the fact that the planes used are both "old" and fidelity to design is left up to the presenter/flyer.

I wager that those that Lou listed, as well as the Oriental, are the only profiles that could earn full fidelity points.

Have fun!


   

[Sean McEntee]

A light, well-trimmed Ringmaster can be a triple-threat.

[Bob Hunt]

I had a profile model called the Trixy many years ago. I think it was an Andrews kit. It flew extremely well and was quite large. Of course I was smaller then, and it just probably looked big to me... It was bigger than a Flite Sreak or a Ringmaster, and even bigger than a Magician as I recall. It had a swept wing and no flaps. I do remember that it was a very good flying ship, given my limited skills of that era.

Later - Bob

[BYU]

As I recall, there was a profile called the Lieutenant that flew quite well.
Bob Z.

Are you 99% sure?

[Mike Griffin]

A light, well-trimmed Ringmaster can be a triple-threat.

Joe Gilbert is living proof of that.

Mike

[peabody]

Way prior to Joe, David Fitzgerald proved that a lightweight 'Ring could be competitive anywhere...using, I believe, a Veco 19.

[EddyR]

There is a model that is called the profile Nobler. It has nothing to do with George Aldridge. It is 500+ sq inches and uses a ST/46. It is classic legal aand the plans show a normal and thick airfoil. I got my plans from Broda..it was one of the best flapped profiles I ever flew.
 I forget what magazine it was in.
Ed

[Ted Fancher]

I had a profile model called the Trixy many years ago. I think it was an Andrews kit. It flew extremely well and was quite large. Of course I was smaller then, and it just probably looked big to me... I was bigger than a Flite Sreak or a Ringmaster, and even bigger than a Magician as I recall. It had a swept wing and no flaps. I do remember that it was a very good flying ship, given my limited skills of that era.

Later - Bob

Are you sure you were bigger than a Flite Sreak back then, Bubba?

Ted

[Charles Carter]

Lou,

Is the ME -109 as big as the Rayette? I couldn't find a copy of ME-109 to view.  How good would the Rayette land and take off on grass?  The Trophy Trainer is high on my list so far. 

Charles

[Dave_Trible]

Many places fly N-30 or Classic/N-30 combined.  There are a bunch of profiles qualified for that.

Dave

[Ted Fancher]

Way prior to Joe, David Fitzgerald proved that a lightweight 'Ring could be competitive anywhere...using, I believe, a Veco 19.

Yup, P'body.  He did indeed at a VSC some years back.  IIRC, winning Classic.

Of course, that was only after he had crashed my Veco 19BB powered Ringmaster three different times (the last being more or less fatal) when (every time) he was showing off doing repeated vertical square eights after the pattern when the little Veco quit in the inverted intersection coming down hill and the previously spectacular classic winning  beast turned back into just another Ringmaster and, each time again, pancaked upright with full up control proving a futile attempt at salvation breaking the tail off at the trailing edge of the wing.  The first two times he was able to glue it back together and return it to me with a guilty grin on his face.  Alas, he did it three times.

Ted

p.s.  Those ~70s/80s vintage Rings were flown using four pitch props just shy of peaked out for launch (10X4 IIRC).  We were pretty smart a&s in those days but not yet smart enough to question our six pitched/four stroking Foxes and OS's etc. on our "Pro" stunters!

[L0U CRANE]

Charles, to your post #20 -

I don't recall the numbers, and of the MW Kits I'd only built one Me-109. Sadly, was experimenting with epoxy paints on that one and it wound up way too heavy for a Fox 35 -should have stuck one of my ENYA 35s in it...

No direct knowledge of the Rayette, but the reference to Allen's fits its general reputation.

Enjoy whatever you come up with! And, SMILE (it bugs them!)

[Brent Williams]

Big. Profile. Classic.  That narrows the field considerably.

The Trophy Trainer is one of the few that fit those definitions.  It at least has a moderately thick airfoil (2"), a round leading edge radius, and enough squares to carry some weight.
 
Stick an LA46 on it and enjoy.  (or electric)

[Scott Richlen]

In the sixties I was given both a Nobler wing and a Thunderbird wing from wrecked planes and I built a profile Nobler and a profile Thunderbird with them and flew (and crashed) them for years afterward.  So, I would have no problem building one of those profiles and entering them in Classic.

[Jim Kraft]

As I posted before, the Midwest  Magician is a great flying plane it builds fairly fast, and is a solid performer. I built four of them, all with moveable flaps. The secret to getting them to fly right stock is to move the balance point aft about an inch with flaps. And of course the lead outs also. They all came out between 36 and 38 ounces. The first one had a stock Fox 35 stunt and flew well. that last three were powered by McCoy 40's. You could probably change the wing offset and lengthen the stab, but then it would not be a Magician. It comes out of corners very flat and predictable the way it is. Nice all round plane for profile, classic, and PA.

[Charles Carter]

Reply to #26

Jim,

As a kid the Midwest Magician was my favorite airplane that I had built.  It was a pleasure to fly.  I learned how to fly inverted with that plane.

Charles

[RC Storick]

Big. Profile. Classic.  That narrows the field considerably.

The Trophy Trainer is one of the few that fit those definitions.  It at least has a moderately thick airfoil (2"), a round leading edge radius, and enough squares to carry some weight.
 
Stick an LA46 on it and enjoy.  (or electric)

The Trophy trainer came about for a movie called Flight Streak With Tom lay. Tom Wardens Continental was featured and Tom Lay asked Tom Warden if he could fly it. Warden said no and the Trophy Trainer was it's double to be flown in the movie.

[Roger Vizioli]

As I recall, there was a profile called the Lieutenant that flew quite well.
Does it fall into the requested categories?

Bob Z.

Bob,
Leroy Ducharme designed and flew a full body Lieutenant in the 50's. We worked together on  "programs"    in the late 80's, the 90's and early 2000's. He built a Lieutenant in ~ 2000 and flew it at a KOI, early 2000's. Dont remember a profile BUT Larry Scarinzi would. Leroy, Larry and Red Reinhart flew together back in the mid 50's. Larry had a nickname for the Lieutenant related to the "far aft placement" of it's vertical fin and rudder. Cant remember it.

Take care my friend,
Roger V.   

[Bob Hunt]

Hi Roger:

The name Larry gave to the extended aft fuselage of the Lieutenant was "The Ducharme Hangover Theory." It referred to how much the fuselage extended aft of the elevator hinge line.

Ted: Yeah, yeah, I fixed that... 

And Eddy: It's Aldrich, not Aldridge... 

Bob Hunt

[Steve Helmick]

In the sixties I was given both a Nobler wing and a Thunderbird wing from wrecked planes and I built a profile Nobler and a profile Thunderbird with them and flew (and crashed) them for years afterward.  So, I would have no problem building one of those profiles and entering them in Classic.

Have you got pictures? Or have a lawyer to write up an affidavit for you to sign?  Steve

[Scott Richlen]

Have you got pictures?

Yes, but they are pretty grainy and fuzzy and show my profile Nobler running through a forest glen and ...

Oh wait.  Never mind.

[Elwyn Aud]

(Quote)The Trophy Trainer is one of the few that fit those definitions.  It at least has a moderately thick airfoil (2"), a round leading edge radius, and enough squares to carry some

Jim Phillips had a trophy Trainer at the Wichita Contest about 2006. Here is  shot of a practice flight right before sundown.

[Steve Helmick]

It might be worth building the "Trophy Trainer" just so it could be called "Atrophy Trainer"? Further recalling of Brian Massey's "Trophy Trainer" was that he had an engine run problem with it and went through a bunch of suggestions, but finally bailed on the IC and changed it to electrons. Dammit Jim!

I don't know how Brian built the nose, but I would start with using a bit firmer balsa for all the ribs under the center sheeting and double sheeting the area from spars to LE. Relieve the center ribs to allow for that, of course. Bonding the two layers together with thin CA  wicked into pin holes would really toughen that area up and help transfer flex/vibes into the wing structure. I'd expect the nose itself to be plenty stiff with two layers of 1/8 plywood and 2 layers of 1/2" balsa...but I'd be thinking about putting the plywood on the outside of the sandwich to increase the stiffness even more...and wouldn't actually use 2 layers of 1/8 plywood for that...maybe "lite-ply" or maybe backing off to 1/32" ply on both outer sides. I'm still a fan of 1/64" ply on both sides of the aft fuselage with a Warren Truss core. Makes me want to go down in the shop and build a profile. I better sit down and wait for the urge to pass...  Steve

PS: Nobody mentioned the Profile Cavalier, which Tom Morris kitted for awhile. Nice design and a legit classic. A bit small for a .46LA, but would be nice for a good .25FP, .35S or Magnum XL .25/.28. I think Ty has built a bunch of them.