Fidelity Points ??

[builditright]

I am referencing a mag. article and the same mag. plans. for a Classic model needing a radial cowl and in an effort to do things right I noticed the plans show one shape and the designer used a different shape (one that was mentioned in the article as available during that period of time and no longer available) so now I have come up with what I thought would be a simple ? to answer.

I am not trying to find out which is preferred,    I am trying to find out which is fidelity point correct?
 
#1 the mag plan

#2 the mag photos

Please keep in mind Fidelity Points .

[catdaddy]

I am not trying to find out which is preferred,    I am trying to find out which is fidelity point correct?
 
#1 the mag plan

#2 the mag photos

Please keep in mind Fidelity Points .

Both

[Eric Viglione]

Walter - As mentioned above, I'd say both, but lean towards the photo as the tie breaker, as the draftsman may not have gotten it right. You are after all trying to be faithful to the original model, not some drawing of the model.

It's asking a lot from a judge to know all the different models and their particulars. Perhaps if you bring a copy of the magazine and set it next to the plane during judging, that might be your best bet. At least it would help inform the judge as to what he/she should be looking for.

EricV

[Trostle]

Walter - As mentioned above, I'd say both, but lean towards the photo as the tie breaker, as the draftsman may not have gotten it right. You are after all trying to be faithful to the original model, not some drawing of the model.

It's asking a lot from a judge to know all the different models and their particulars. Perhaps if you bring a copy of the magazine and set it next to the plane during judging, that might be your best bet. At least it would help inform the judge as to what he/she should be looking for.

EricV

As mentioned above and in the other forum, both are correct.  If the design existed, either on paper or as an as-built model that can be documented, then either configuration is correct.

And in response to Eric's comment above about judge's knowledge of models with different configurations, it is not the responsibility of any judge to be familiar with what might be or might not be a "legitimate" configuration.  One of the fun aspects of OTS or Classic stunt is to compile the information of a less well know design or configuration, document it by whatever appropriate material that can be obtained like drawings, photographs, letters of authenticity, magazine articles or whatever and then be prepared to present it to the contest officials to authenticate what you have done.  I have several notebooks filled with support information for the various models that I have built for these events or might like to build in the future.  And these notebooks are growing much faster than I will ever be able to build.

Keith

[Paul Smith]

Does anybody still give fidelity and/or appearnace points for Classic?  Most the contests I can recall didn't bother with either.

---------------------------
I guess if I were judging, I would take off a few points for a modern power train, thereby saving a reward for the modeler who goes "all out" with the histroic engine, tank, spinner, and prop.

I would give full credit for any colours that were appropriate to the period.

[builditright]

Okay let me let the cat out of the bag... 

With focus on the Jack Sheeks award at V.S.C., most already know that we're doing the La Donna.
Jack has just reviewed and approved the CAD drawn kit plans. 

But what no one knew is that we have Jack's F5F Skyrocket in the works (plan preview below)
and we are looking at the fact that we can not get the Nieuport cowls anymore so we will most likely use the 4" Sig plastic cowl.
 













send all emails for the F5F-SkyRocket to: f5fskyrocket@builtrightflyright.com

[Trostle]

I too have  question on fidelity points At one contest here in the SE, my Cobra received 17 fidelity points. I never did find out why it didn't get the full 20.  1. It was not painted as per the original, but all gold with black trim. 2. The engine is/was an OS .40 FP.  3. The Cobra decal was one I obtained via the internet from a gentleman back east, and was not like the original, but actually a better rendition of a Cobra snake.

So, would these items taken as a whole prevent a Classic of known proportions and color and paint to not get the full 20 points?

Not a complaint, just a curious builder.  I love the Cobra, but hate pale green paint. Too many years of it on ships.

Hi Ty,

I cannot explain why the judges gave you the score they did. 

However, I would like to comment about fidelity points in general (and the same comments apply to some degree to appearance points.)

In the PAMPA rules for Classic Stunt, there are no definitive standards provided for fidelity points.  The degree of fidelity sort of becomes a factor of what is in the eyes of the beholder and it becomes a relative score to the other airplanes being judged.  Some judges might feel that to receive maximum fidelity points, all that is needed is that the airplane essentially be build from the same plans as the original.  Other judges may want to see period engines, period wheels, duplicated colors and color scheme, period spinners and props and on and on.  And then to get thesxe maximum points, there might need to be some documentaiton to show/explain how faithfully the entry duplicates the original.  But such a formal presentation is not required and some would probably prefer that such should never be required, except for the occasion when an obscure or otherwise unknown design is entered.

I cannot get too impresssed by the judges who might be familiar with a specific design and give points for duplicating an original accordingly and then turn around and not score another entry very high when the judge knows nothing about the original.

I think this is one of the problems in the Classic event when fidelity points are awarded because there is no standard as to award or not award fidelity points.

The other comment regarding relative scores.  It is possible that whatever standard that judge used, he also used the same standard for the other models he gave fidelity points to.  Then, the score becomes relative between your entry and the others.  Maybe you received a higher relative score than the others, perhaps less.  But unless you know how others were scored, you cannot really complain if he scored you high or low or improperly or whatever because you do not know how your entry compared to the others.  This same idea applies as well to the regular appearance points.

I am not trying to start an argument here and I understand that you are not complaining,   I am only trying to show that when there is no knowledge of how other entries were scored, there is room to wonder what standards were used to award fidelity points.

Keith

[Chris McMillin]

Nice model,
It might even coax me into trying one.

One of the factors about fidelity is that there wasn't one of the models built the same. All are correct in theory if they were done in the Classic time period. One cannot say that a wing mounted geared, inverted engined Smoothie is not correct if it was flown in the '67 Nats, for instance. The problem arises when the details are looked into, should it only get top points if it also has the Super Tigre C35, Spin-A-Flo muffler (anodised blue, not painted), Veco extension (3/4 or 1"?), three bladed 10x6 Tornado prop and Williams Bros spinner? Oh, and the Veco wheels, Perfect bullet wheel collars and Tatone instruments in the instrument panel with a Williams Bros pilot? Is that a Veco tailwheel, or Perfect?
It becomes a Scale contest when administered fairly, and a biased failure if not.  

The drawing per plans has the cowlings which actually look to me like the Sterling Waco cowling. Another difference is it has the long nose fuse.

The model Jack is holding in the picture has the short nose and Nieuport cowlings. With Veco or Froom spinners.

One can build it to feature either of these options and be true to the design. The cowling shape should be the same as the picture or the drawing. If they are glass it wouldn't bother me a bit. It would be great to include the option on the plans of the short nose and the shape of the cowlings in the picture on the plans, so one could carve those elegant shapes should they desire.

Chris...

  

[Paul Smith]

The F5F is  cool airplane and I might consider building one as a CARRIER plane, if I could assure myself that it actually qualifies as such.  As I read it, the US Navy ordered a proptype with the intent of shipboard operation, but I don't see as the where they actually landed one on a flattop.  I guess that still beats the ME-109, which is said to be "carrier-intended" although the Reich never even tied to build a carrier.

There is a bit of a conflict between "classic Fidelity" and "scale fidelity" in  that the plane existed from 1940 to 1944, so the 1947 star-and-bars are ahead of their time.  However the fictional Black Hawk Squadron flew fictional Skyrockets until 1949 with their unique marking.

[john e. holliday]

I myself do not remember getting fidelity points at any contest for Classic, even at VSC.  I have seen appearance points given at almost every contest.   Besides I think fidelity points complicate things as I only had one plane that I tried to match every thing on the design. 

Now Paul, as far as Carrier, the rules state the design was intended for carrier operation.  What would have done the MO-1 in was if the rules had stated hook must be in scale location.  I can even think of a few others that would have had problems meeting the scale percentage requirement that nobody really cares about anymore it seems like. 

Anyway model planes are supposed to be fun, even tho I lost that thought in one period of my life.  DOC Holliday

[Trostle]

The F5F is  cool airplane and I might consider building one as a CARRIER plane, if I could assure myself that it actually qualifies as such.  As I read it, the US Navy ordered a proptype with the intent of shipboard operation, but I don't see as the where they actually landed one on a flattop.  I guess that still beats the ME-109, which is said to be "carrier-intended" although the Reich never even tied to build a carrier.

There is a bit of a conflict between "classic Fidelity" and "scale fidelity" in  that the plane existed from 1940 to 1944, so the 1947 star-and-bars are ahead of their time.  However the fictional Black Hawk Squadron flew fictional Skyrockets until 1949 with their unique marking.

Paul, 

You should not have any trouble to "assure" yourself that the XF5F qualifies as a "CARRIER" plane if you are planning one for the AMA Carrier event.  The AMA Carrier rules state that for a scale model of a Carrier aircraft to receive bonus points, the "carrier aircraft is any man-carrying aircraft which was successfully flown and ... is designated as a carrier aircraft by an acceptable source (in cases where actual carrier-type takeoff and arrested landing are not documented)."

"Ordered as a prototype on 30 June 1938 by the US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics, the XF5F-1 was  ... intended as a twin-engined shipboard fighter ...."  (Ref: The Great Book of Fighters by Green and Swanborough)  "The XF5F-1 Skyrocket took to the air on 1 April 1940 ...."  (Ref: Grumman F7F Tigercat Naval Fighters Number Seventy-Five by Meyer and Ginter)  Drawings and photographs of the Grumman Skyrocket show a tailhook.  The attached drawing shows its longer nose over in front of the wing leading edge, modified from its original configuration where the fuselage nose was behind the wing leading edge.

The Messerchmitt Bf 109T was built to "meet a requirement for a shipboard fighter for operation from the carriers Graf Zeppelin and Peter Strasser.  Drawings of the Bf 109T show a tail hook.

For the record, your statement that the "Reich never even t[r]ied to build a carrier" is incorrect.  The German Carrier Graf Zeppelin was launched on 8 December 1938 but was never completed.  Its sistership, Peter Strasser was started at the same time as Graf Zeppelin but was never completed.

Keith

(edit for typo)

[Bill Little]

I was totally surprised (and very happy!) to win the Spirit of '64 award at the last East Coast Oldie Goldies with my Ares.  WE don't have appearance points anywhere around here, much less fidelity points.  The Ares had Veco Grasscutters, cloth hinges, silkspan, first generation OS 35S, etc., and I had really tried to use period parts.  It flew well, and the award was fantastic and not expected.

Mongo

[builditright]

plans progress