Profile Appearance Points

[Tim Wescott]

I'm thinking that since I can stagger through the beginner's pattern, with all the maneuvers being recognizable and often even remembered and remembered in the right order, that I'm going to move myself up to intermediate next year.

Since I pretty much build my own planes anyway (or rebuild ones that are given to me in good faith) I may as well build with an eye toward appearance points.  I have no intention of going to full-fuselage yet, so I'm wondering:

What sort of appearance scores does one expect to see for a profile?  Clearly, at one extreme there's the "butt ugly but flyable" plane.  I've got one of those (and it flies great!).  I actually see two other extremes: one is that one builds a "regular" profile (slab fuse, stuck-on gear, external controls, etc.) but lavishes as much time and attention to the finish as one would a 20-point full-fuselage stunter; two is that one builds a "profile" within the rules of NW Profile, but pulls out all the stops on making it look good: a full-body nose, landing gear buried in fuse or wing, controls buried in the rear fuse, etc.

So -- if you set those two hypothetical "all stops pulled" profile aircraft next to a real full-bodied 20 point winner, what scores would you expect them to get?

And: what are the things that the judges look for when they're subtracting points from a 20-point perfect finish?  Things like wood grain, dings, scuff marks, wrinkles, uneven hinge gaps, etc., are all obvious -- anything else?  Or it it all just subjective?

[peabody]

Hi Tim
I would wager that, should you build a full fuselage plane, you'll find it no more difficult than a profile, and I would also wager that it will fly better....

That said, appearance points are pretty much based upon fit and finish.....colors, and color schemes aren't as important as either fit or finish...

I am one that thinks a good monocoat job can garner high appearance points as well...Dennis Toth does great film finishes, as does Mike Cooper...

Have fun!

[Mark Scarborough]

Tim,
having just not to far in the past been where you are right now,, I suggest that the = or- points for appearance are FAR outweighed by spending the time you would have spent finishing, on practicing,, GOOD practice will far ans away make up for any appearance points you gain. if you were to get even 10 more points by doing a really nice profile,, that is about 1/2 point per manuever,, pretty insignificant really.

build something you are not ashamed of,, fly it aggresivly,, crash it with panache' rebuild it and fly it again,, repeat as needed.
Please learn from me, build something reasonable,, and fly the crap out of it,, when you start scoring 425 consistantly, then make something really pretty....

[Bill Little]

At least y'all even have Appearance Points! LOL!!

Big Bear

[Tim Wescott]

Mark:

But I like building.  I'm not planning on a maximal score finish -- I'm pretty much going for the "not ashamed of" target at the moment.  But I'm curious, I like to think things through well ahead of time, and if I can make a point or two difference by sticking on a decal or re-doing a wrinkled covering job on a wing tip, it might be worth it.

I scored 239 points yesterday with a flight that contained only the nine maneuvers* that most resemble a beginner's pattern.  If you take that average of 26 or so points per maneuver, assume** that I could do as well on the other six, then add in pattern points, the result breaks 400.  I don't expect to do nearly that well all the time -- if I remember the whole pattern, and if I don't crash, then I'm expecting that I'll be consistently breaking 300.  (Of course, that 239 points came immediately after a 198 point flight -- "consistent" does not appear to be in my vocabulary yet).  Mostly I'm expecting that I'll be forgetting a maneuver or three each time I fly.  But that 239 points on nine maneuvers had me thinking ahead...

Peabody:

If you read Mark's comment you should understand why I'm not planning on building a full fuse ship.  Because even if he's a bit traumatized by the thought of me taking the effort to rebuild a Flight Streak, he's correct in his assessment of where I am in my training.  If I didn't just plain like building I'd be buying ARFs from Brodak and forsaking appearance points altogether.  Even there, though, it's not so much the building time -- it's more that a profile ship will be more rugged and take less time to fix when the earth rises up and smites it.  I basically started this whole CLPA effort seriously last spring and in the last 18 months I've gone completely through one profile ship***, left another one aesthetically maimed but flyable, and retired a quite repairable Nobler until such time as it'll live for a month after the rebuild.  So I don't think it's time to start building super-zoot full fuselage ships just yet.  For at least the next year my future is full of profile airplanes and -- if I'm lucky -- scores in the 300's.

* Takeoff, reverse wingover, insides, inverted level, outsides, inside squares, horizontal eights, overhead eights and landing.

** And you know what happens when you break the word "assume" into it's three constituent pieces, yadda yadda yadda.

*** It's repairable, technically, but it's in a sad, sad state.

[Bob Reeves]

When I was flying intermediate with a monokoted Twister I would consistently receive 12-14 Aperance points. It takes allot of effort for those last 6 to 8 points...

[Brett Buck]

And: what are the things that the judges look for when they're subtracting points from a 20-point perfect finish?  Things like wood grain, dings, scuff marks, wrinkles, uneven hinge gaps, etc., are all obvious -- anything else?  Or it it all just subjective?

  A profile once received 20 points at VSC.

    Brett

[Bill Little]

  A profile once received 20 points at VSC.

    Brett

Uncle Jimby's??

Big Bear

[Bart Klapinski]

     A Ringmaster garnered 20 points at a VSC and it was flawless. A great building and finish job on a profile should be rewarded.

                               Bart

[Russell Shaffer]

I would bet that Bob's Monokoted Twister was one of the very pretty ones.  A medium ugly orange and blue one that you may remember just scored 10 points at Salem.  I think they give me credit for admitting that I actually built it.  Once more, LISTEN TO MARK!!  I'm telling my flying buddy Bill the same thing.  Build it straight, cover it enough to keep the fuel out, and fly the thing.  Us bottom feeder guys have all improved greatly in the past year and we sure are having fun.  And, yes, you should promote yourself to Intermediate.  Even if by some chance you elect to not do all of the tricks, you are certainly advanced beyond Beginner.  I think the Skyray suits you well, you have confidence in it and it flies very well indeed.  When you break this one just tear out a rib for a template and make a couple more airplanes just like this one.  Remember what that little kid told me about your plane.  

[Tim Wescott]

Remember what that little kid told me about your plane.  

Yes, but if I have my nephew paint it I won't get my 10 appearance points.  Besides, he's not 11 any more.

And Mark said "build something you're not ashamed of".  When you get right down to it, that leaves a lot of leeway for setting the bar.

[Mark Scarborough]

Tim, I had a twister that used to get me 16 to 17 points pretty consistantly, well for the three contests is survived anyway,,
My Gee Bee profile that you have seen forever used to get me 14 to 16 and it wasnt as nice as it once was,, it was however unique,, and had great "presence"
so, perhaps finding something that you can create a unique appearance with that is still suitable for monokote, ,( or preferably Ultracote) and use the interesting shape to help garner the points may be one way to think of it.
I will agree to a point that a built up will tend to fly better * given an equal state of trim at least*

however, I think a profile , something like a fancherized twister, or the Brodak p-40 wing morphed into something interesting, like my Gee Bee would be a great approach. I HIGHLY recommend that you try to get up into something like 570 to 600 inches of wing area, it will tend to be a bit more friendly to fly, plus you can mount up the LA 46 and be in fat city,,

[Russell Shaffer]

Mark really shouldn't have put in the ashamed part, knowing you.  How about Butt-ugly?  Really, really, ugly, and you just fly it.  After all, the kid in Salem thought the Skyray was the coolest plane he'd seen all day and it really isn't a 20 pointer. I was proud of you for just patching the Skyray back together and flying it.  That's my redneck heritage, I guess.  After all, I have, out of maybe 12 planes hanging in my garage, 1, yes one, that doesn't have some type of battle damage showing. I've flown that one very conservatively and not very much.

[Russell Shaffer]

Mark, you do know that we are only practicing our typing skills here?  I listened, but Tim has a hearing disability. 

[Tim Wescott]

I'm kinda thinking that the next thing to go down on the building board (after a Ringmaster S1) is going to be a Fancherized Twister, disguised as an Extra 230.  I'm not sure if the Extra 230 part will hold up long enough to make it to the building board -- but the Fancherized Twister is looking pretty good.

[Joseph Patterson]

 Tim if you wanna build a "top notch" profile with superb fit and finish, you should be rewarded with high appearance points. I have seen a couple of profiles down here get 19pts. It is the fit and finish that count. One of the profiles had a good ,but typical paint scheme, and the other was a little more unique, but it was the outstanding build quality and spotless gleeming finish that was the most noticeable quality in both. It does not matter to me whether its full fuse or profile, if its "PURTY" its "PURTY", and should be rewarded accordingly.
      Doug

[wwwarbird]

     A Ringmaster garnered 20 points at a VSC and it was flawless. A great building and finish job on a profile should be rewarded.

                               Bart

 Right on.

[Bill Little]

I'm kinda thinking that the next thing to go down on the building board (after a Ringmaster S1) is going to be a Fancherized Twister, disguised as an Extra 230.  I'm not sure if the Extra 230 part will hold up long enough to make it to the building board -- but the Fancherized Twister is looking pretty good.

Hi Tim,

The Fancherized Twister is a great choice, as would be a Doctor, Medic, Trophy Trainer, or Banshee with some slight mods.  AFAIK, they all have a constant chord wing for quicker building and quicker repairs.   In the past I tended to make templates of the kit and build extra models as needed.  And somewhere around here I have my old drawings of the IMPULSE, a 48" profile version of the Impact I did around 1993.  It still flies really, really well.  Long story on how I drew the plans.

The original Twister actually does a great job and I picked up a NIB kit on Ebay a couple months ago for $25 and $8 shipping...... $33 for a complete new kit in the shrink wrap is pretty decent, can't buy the materials for that cheap.  Also, I might just be installing an electric power train in it.    I have seen the Twister in original form win in Intermediate and come very close in Advanced (both with good fields to fly against).  Kit bashing the Twister is a long held tradition, so go for it!

Right now I would say that Pat Johnston's Ringmaster 576 is right at the top of list of profiles out there, and it uses a .46LA to boot!  Other very good flying profiles exist in the Brodak Warbird line, I particularly like the first ones designed by Mike Garmon which use a modified Nobler wing.

Like Mark said, get a good sized profile they also fly better and are easier to get trimmed out.

One last thing, if you are dead set on crashing, you will continue to do so.  Contrary to popular opinion, the tearing up of a dozen models is not necessary to becoming a good stunt pilot.

Big Bear

[Dennis Moritz]

Somewhere, somehow, I got 13 appearance points for a Tanager turned into a JD Falcon look like profile. Initially I received 11 points. I told the judges by BOM qualified, I meant that I was the Buyer Of the Model, not Builder Of the Model. They then upped my appearance points to 13.

At the last NATs in Classic I flew a cheater Flite Streak with an ARF wing. The judge kept asking me if I built the Streak from a kit and I kept telling him it has an ARF wing. 9 points.

Warren Tierhart many years back awarded me 11 points for a legit built Galaxy with flaking blue dope and a castor oil sheen. Picking it by finger tips, his evident revulsion an autonomic response. Always a gentleman, in this case betrayed by hard wired instinctual behavior. 11 points. My nifty sort of Fancherized Twister, built pretty well, looking pretty good, never got any points at the big B, for one reason or another. One time F-Twister was pushed off to the side on the front lawn while I wasn't looking. The judges never saw it. Thanks to my friends.