News:



Advertise Here

  • September 20, 2019, 06:49:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Appearance Points - Obsolete  (Read 2015 times)

Offline Dennis Adamisin

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3999
Appearance Points - Obsolete
« on: August 03, 2019, 11:11:44 AM »
By the end of the Classic Era (actually the early 1970's), Finish was only 1/4 of the Appearance Points awarded.  When everyone used dope finishes there was a 1:1 correlation between finish & effort. When engines were of marginal power it was also important that the finish had to be WORKED to keep it reasonably light, not just ladled on.  The game has changed. Modern engines make it easy to over-power just about anything we build - there is little incentive to really worry much about weight. Starting with Imron clear coat back in the mid 1970's and now auto finishes (which may or may not even be applied by the builder!), knee deep shine is now the EASIEST part of the finish equation.  How easy? the fastest auto plant in the world can churn out 118 new vehicles an hour, all with Base coat & clear coat.  In round numbers that is 30 seconds per CAR for a darned good finish that never even sees a buffing wheel.  How many "appearance points" should that be worth?

Close to always, appearance points come down to "shine".  Case in point, 30+ years ago Ron Burns' legendary F4F with the flat finish received no credit.  Everyone thinks that was an outrage - but NOTHING was done to FIX what was seen as an injustice. If someone showed up at next year's NATs with a similar work of art, there is no reason (except outrage against history & payback) to expect a different result.  Maybe it's because we are all grateful that shine now (as then) comes from a can, sprayed on by someone wearing a space suit.

Modern engines make it easy to over-power just about anything we build - there is little incentive to really worry much about weight. Starting with Imron clear coat back in the mid 1970's and now auto finishes (which may or may not even be applied by the builder), knee deep shine is now the EASIEST part of the finish equation.  How easy? the fastest auto plant in the world can churn out 118 new vehicles an hour, all with base coat & clear coat.  In round numbers that is 30 seconds per CAR-sized object for a darned good finish that never even sees a buffing wheel.  People rail about 'cote finishes - how many "appearance points" should that 30-seconds per car finish be worth?


There was a time that shine mattered (for only one fourth of the total appearance points) because it represented an extraordinary effort by the builder to work the finish products available - but that time has passed.  The biggest problem with finish points - and by extension, appearance points, is that they have been made OBSOLETE by modern technology.


Another angle is that the finishes we are compelled to use to get those EASY points are nasty toxic; its not nicknamed "death paint" for nothing!  It is no accident that auto plants spend HUGELY on their paint systems to make them environmentally friendly, and only let robots inside.  How does that affect us? AMA outlawed nitro-benzene and tetra-nitro for their toxicity more than for their effect on performance.  Since death paint impacts our competitive performance (through awarding points for shiny finishes) but at possible risk to the painter's health, shouldn't it also be outlawed?  Better still HOW are we going to enforce it?  One way is to take away the incentive for using death paints is to de-emphasize the main reason to use it.


I have always considered myself a stalwart for BOM & Appearance points, but the reality is that appearance points as now awarded are obsolete.  We need to find a better way to award them, or eliminate them completely.



Denny Adamisin
Fort Wayne, IN

"The good old days weren't always so good, tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems..." - Billy Joel

Online Tom Luciano

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 535
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2019, 11:48:55 AM »
I'm fairly new to the event so please excuse my ignorance but, BOM and appearance points are what drew me to the event. I felt in R/C and other events there was no appreciation for finely crafted and finished model. I feel I'm in an event amongst others that pride themselves on what they put on the ground for people to see and judge. I would also like to know how many in the top 3 rows were auto clear. I know of at least 3 that were dope. Yes, it does take a lot of work!! Also, there are more and more alternatives for finish products for one that thinks outside the box and especially for the electric guys. I've been experimenting with latex house paint for one. I know I can get great results with latex and  minwax poly acrylic  clear.
 I did watch last nights show and totally understand some of the points and agree with them. The only exception being the health hazard. I just feel that is a weak argument, you can take measures to protect yourself.
 Lets also remember that the guy who won the flying event did so with a 16 point airplane. So its not like you need 20 to win!


Again, this is just my feelings. I love the purity of STUNT!


Thanks,

Tom
AMA 13001

Offline Steve Hines

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 431
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2019, 10:00:28 AM »
Could the AMA be held liable for the promotion of cancer causing products? I know the AMA band some fuel additives for that reason



Offline Lauri Malila

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2019, 11:25:14 AM »
Could the AMA be held liable for the promotion of cancer causing products? I know the AMA band some fuel additives for that reason

The difference is that with those fuel additives there is a risk of poisoning others at the field.
If you poison yourself and your cat in your home workshop by neglecting health & safety, it's only yourself to blame.
L

Online Howard Rush

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6624
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2019, 01:30:38 PM »
By the end of the Classic Era (actually the early 1970's), Finish was only 1/4 of the Appearance Points awarded.  When everyone used dope finishes there was a 1:1 correlation between finish & effort. When engines were of marginal power it was also important that the finish had to be WORKED to keep it reasonably light, not just ladled on.  The game has changed. Modern engines make it easy to over-power just about anything we build - there is little incentive to really worry much about weight. Starting with Imron clear coat back in the mid 1970's and now auto finishes (which may or may not even be applied by the builder!), knee deep shine is now the EASIEST part of the finish equation.  How easy? the fastest auto plant in the world can churn out 118 new vehicles an hour, all with Base coat & clear coat.  In round numbers that is 30 seconds per CAR for a darned good finish that never even sees a buffing wheel.  How many "appearance points" should that be worth?

Close to always, appearance points come down to "shine".  Case in point, 30+ years ago Ron Burns' legendary F4F with the flat finish received no credit.  Everyone thinks that was an outrage - but NOTHING was done to FIX what was seen as an injustice. If someone showed up at next year's NATs with a similar work of art, there is no reason (except outrage against history & payback) to expect a different result.  Maybe it's because we are all grateful that shine now (as then) comes from a can, sprayed on by someone wearing a space suit.

Modern engines make it easy to over-power just about anything we build - there is little incentive to really worry much about weight. Starting with Imron clear coat back in the mid 1970's and now auto finishes (which may or may not even be applied by the builder), knee deep shine is now the EASIEST part of the finish equation.  How easy? the fastest auto plant in the world can churn out 118 new vehicles an hour, all with base coat & clear coat.  In round numbers that is 30 seconds per CAR-sized object for a darned good finish that never even sees a buffing wheel.  People rail about 'cote finishes - how many "appearance points" should that 30-seconds per car finish be worth?


There was a time that shine mattered (for only one fourth of the total appearance points) because it represented an extraordinary effort by the builder to work the finish products available - but that time has passed.  The biggest problem with finish points - and by extension, appearance points, is that they have been made OBSOLETE by modern technology.


Another angle is that the finishes we are compelled to use to get those EASY points are nasty toxic; its not nicknamed "death paint" for nothing!  It is no accident that auto plants spend HUGELY on their paint systems to make them environmentally friendly, and only let robots inside.  How does that affect us? AMA outlawed nitro-benzene and tetra-nitro for their toxicity more than for their effect on performance.  Since death paint impacts our competitive performance (through awarding points for shiny finishes) but at possible risk to the painter's health, shouldn't it also be outlawed?  Better still HOW are we going to enforce it?  One way is to take away the incentive for using death paints is to de-emphasize the main reason to use it.


I have always considered myself a stalwart for BOM & Appearance points, but the reality is that appearance points as now awarded are obsolete.  We need to find a better way to award them, or eliminate them completely.

If you think it's so easy, let's see you do it.  I daresay you have no comprehension of how much effort Jim Aron put into his airplane this year.  Sure, I have taken a combat plane finished with Lustrekote that looked like @#$% and given it a coat of Death Paint.  It still looked like @#$%, more so for being shiny. 

To expand on Lauri's point, tetranitromethane benefits only its user; a good finish benefits the sport. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Lauri Malila

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2019, 02:23:05 PM »
..besides, 2-component car clear does not come out pretty if you just spray it on. Just take a closer look at your car.
Those clearcoats are much more harder work to buff to perfection than dope. L

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 10042
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2019, 04:00:55 PM »
By the end of the Classic Era (actually the early 1970's), Finish was only 1/4 of the Appearance Points awarded.  When everyone used dope finishes there was a 1:1 correlation between finish & effort. When engines were of marginal power it was also important that the finish had to be WORKED to keep it reasonably light, not just ladled on. 

 Synthetic materials are *lighter* than an equivalent dope finish, quite a bit. Airplanes weigh more because the powertrains are much heavier, they are also much more effective, and, you have to build airplanes *much stronger* than you used to, because if you don't, the much better cornering will have them falling apart in a few months.
   
    The clear on this year's Concours winner was about an ounce and a quarter, same with the 20 point airplanes. That is hardly *ladling it on*. Don't criticize it just because you don't understand it.


Quote
Modern engines make it easy to over-power just about anything we build - there is little incentive to really worry much about weight.

    Again, these finishes are generally *lighter*, so what you are saying makes absolutely no sense. It's also not overpowered, you can dig out some of your old airplanes and take your chances,  if you want to find out. But you already know the answer.

Quote
Another angle is that the finishes we are compelled to use to get those EASY points are nasty toxic; its not nicknamed "death paint" for nothing!  It is no accident that auto plants spend HUGELY on their paint systems to make them environmentally friendly, and only let robots inside.  How does that affect us? AMA outlawed nitro-benzene and tetra-nitro for their toxicity more than for their effect on performance.  Since death paint impacts our competitive performance (through awarding points for shiny finishes) but at possible risk to the painter's health, shouldn't it also be outlawed?  Better still HOW are we going to enforce it?  One way is to take away the incentive for using death paints is to de-emphasize the main reason to use it.


I have always considered myself a stalwart for BOM & Appearance points, but the reality is that appearance points as now awarded are obsolete.  We need to find a better way to award them, or eliminate them completely.

    You know what would happen if you painted cars with lacquer? *Exactly the same thing*, because lacquer-based products like dope are both neurotoxins (why do you think they call it dope...) and carcinogenic.  "Death paint" was a bullshit term invented by Windy to lobby or get sympathy when the event started passing him by. I guarantee you aren't spraying lacquer in an industrial setting without exactly the same precautions.

   Not to mention that lacquer-based products are an environmental disaster, with 75%+ VOC, which makes it *illegal* in some areas, it is not available, or only if you sneak it in.  That's *why* these synthetic materials exist in the first place.

   We have been safe enough with dope, and others are safe enough with modern materials, because of occasional brief exposure as opposed to all day long every day, not because one is drastically worse than the other.

   Check out the construction picture of Chris Cox's Hellcat from SN. You haven't built an airplane to that level of quality, nor has almost anyone else, even before you put the finish on it. The finish shows the result of the exceptional workmanship from beginning to end, and I guarantee that wasn't *easy*.     

You don't get what is going on or how hard people like Jim, Chris, Howard, etc, work to get a very superior airplane.  They work harder AND smarter, the results show.

     Brett

Online Howard Rush

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6624
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2019, 06:24:38 PM »
"Death paint" was a bullshit term invented by Windy to lobby or get sympathy when the event started passing him by.

I may have independently coined the same term. I did it to try to influence its users to wear adequate respirators.

Amen the buffing difficulty. I remember trying hand rubbing DP with the Meguiars #2 that Iíd used with lacquer and having nothing happenó a little disconcerting the morning of Nats appearance judging.


How come you can use naughty words, but I canít?
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Dennis Adamisin

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3999
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2019, 11:52:51 AM »
Thanks for comments so far, like any discussion on Appearance points one must wear their Nomex undies! I had a longer windier reply prepared but have cut it back to basics, to wit:

The rulebook does not provide much in the way of critria for achieiving excellence in appearance, in practice it seems that shine = excellence if you are aware of any other criteria or practice please share it.

The basis of appearance points (and BOM) is that you get credit for what you do.  That thinking routinely leads to models being covered with 'cote finishes to be held back because the builder did nothing to generate the shine. However shine has become an automatic deliverable of modern paint systems. My premise is that automotive finishes deliver the shine by nature of their chemistry - just like 'cote finishes - but painted finishes are not held to the same accountability as 'cote finishes. Since we cannot just look at paint and see its chemistry, then the logical alternative is to IGNORE shine as a criteria for awarding appearance points.

Automotive paint systems were developed to be as easy as possible to get a excellent result on the FIRST try. Auto customers will not settle for bad paint and automakers cannot AFFORD to spend any extra time fixing things, especially on low margin small cars.  The paint MUST be right the first time because paint repairs are expensive, time consuming and environmentally challenging.  As a result, car paint finishes on mass produced vehicles are better than they have ever been. They also do not rely on post-application processing. You will have a very hard time making a case that folks use automotive clear because it is HARDER to get a deep shine and thus great finish points. Since we cannot just look at paint and see its chemistry, then the logical alternative is to ignore shine as a criteria for awarding appearance points.

I believe that at least part of the answer will be to restore (i.e., ressurect Workmanship & Finish categories) or create other suitable criteria for Event Directors to use in assessing Excellence in appearance.

Denny Adamisin
Fort Wayne, IN

"The good old days weren't always so good, tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems..." - Billy Joel

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2019, 01:07:30 PM »
I have always considered myself a stalwart for BOM & Appearance points, but the reality is that appearance points as now awarded are obsolete.  We need to find a better way to award them, or eliminate them completely.
<= #^ <=
"Make it So"
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Trostle

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2541
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2019, 03:58:30 PM »

Automotive paint systems were developed to be as easy as possible to get a excellent result on the FIRST try. Auto customers will not settle for bad paint and automakers cannot AFFORD to spend any extra time fixing things, especially on low margin small cars.  The paint MUST be right the first time because paint repairs are expensive, time consuming and environmentally challenging.  As a result, car paint finishes on mass produced vehicles are better than they have ever been. They also do not rely on post-application processing. You will have a very hard time making a case that folks use automotive clear because it is HARDER to get a deep shine and thus great finish points. Since we cannot just look at paint and see its chemistry, then the logical alternative is to ignore shine as a criteria for awarding appearance points.



I do not understand the apparent obsession with automotive finishes.  Maybe it has its place in our CLPA event, but few try it.

Keith
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 04:33:27 PM by Trostle »

Offline Trostle

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2541
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2019, 04:30:56 PM »
After the 2001 Nats, there were questions and discussion on the method of appearance judging.  Subsequently, an article was prepared by two of the three appearance judges at that Nats to explain how appearance judging was performed. This article was published in Jan/Feb 2002 Stunt New and later in the March 2002 issue of flying models.  There were no ground breaking revelations regarding appearance judging with this article.  It outlined the time honored method of aligning the models in rows based on their "appearance".  Then the article broke down the various aspects that contribute to the appearance of a CLPA model.  I will not copy the entire two page article here, but will outline some of the highlights.

Finish:  Looking for a uniform finish that is appropriate for the airplane/design.  "Models with film-covered surfaces can receive maximum appearance points if the application of the film is accomplished in a manner that shows skill and the overall appearance is attractive."

Gloss:  "Some paint schemes call for a high uniform gloss over the entire air frame.  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 or lack thereof, or the non-uniform apearance of the finish will result in loss of appearance points.

Detailed discussions were provided for each of the following items.

Color Trim

Panel Lines

Construction

Cowl and Removable Panels/Components

Landing Gear

Hinge Lines

Canopy/Cockpit

Spinner and Propeller

Fillets

Details and protuberances

Wear and Tear

Aesthetics

Needless to say, the article was cause for some controversy because a few outspoken critics assumed criteria in the article that were not even mentioned.  The article was NOT intended to be a part of the rule book but rather an outline to how the appearance of a CLPA model could be objectively judged.

If I could ever figure out how to post type written pages on this form, I would attach this article here..

Keith

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11285
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2019, 06:39:52 PM »
The rulebook does not provide much in the way of critria for achieiving excellence in appearance, in practice it seems that shine = excellence if you are aware of any other criteria or practice please share it.

I guarantee you that if you build the Worlds Shiniest airplane using mixing white you won't get full points.  Even if you write "STUNT AIRPLANE" in black block letters on the wing (remember generic groceries?) you still won't get full points.  It's not all about shine.

The basis of appearance points (and BOM) is that you get credit for what you do.  That thinking routinely leads to models being covered with 'cote finishes to be held back because the builder did nothing to generate the shine.

If you come to a contest where I'm judging with a 'cote airplane that's as shiny and smooth as a painted airplane, then I'll give it full points.  And I'll nominate you for a special award (or maybe call those nice young men in their clean white coats to come and take you away).

Models with 'cote finishes, if they're held back, are held back because they aren't shiny, or because of visible seams and ridges, etc.  If a judge judges a model harshly because it's finished in 'cote -- that's wrong.  If you've seen it, by all means post something.

However shine has become an automatic deliverable of modern paint systems. My premise is that automotive finishes deliver the shine by nature of their chemistry - just like 'cote finishes - but painted finishes are not held to the same accountability as 'cote finishes. Since we cannot just look at paint and see its chemistry, then the logical alternative is to IGNORE shine as a criteria for awarding appearance points.

Shine over poor workmanship looks terrible.

Bring on the shine.

How does automotive paint with embedded dust look?  What about automotive paint over deep sanding scratches?  Does it automatically look good?

Automotive paint systems were developed to be as easy as possible to get a excellent result on the FIRST try.

So?  Dope was developed to be as easy as possible, too, and surpassed all other painting systems of its day -- and it's not too bad.

I believe that at least part of the answer will be to restore (i.e., ressurect Workmanship & Finish categories) or create other suitable criteria for Event Directors to use in assessing Excellence in appearance.

Well, surely you know your way to the rules change proposal forms.  While you're at it, feel free to make appearance worth 40 points again.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Online Howard Rush

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6624
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2019, 07:02:30 PM »
I believe that at least part of the answer will be to restore (i.e., ressurect Workmanship & Finish categories) or create other suitable criteria for Event Directors to use in assessing Excellence in appearance.

I agree with you there.  Restore the four categories from bygone days.

I continue to disagree with your premise that polyurethane clearcoat makes a good finish easy.  I don't doubt that it's easier to finish robotically sprayed metal cars with polyurethane paint than with dope.  It makes for a good finish, although the orange peel on Mercedes and Teslas would set you back a couple rows at the Nats.  Putting a light finish on a stunt plane with a dope substrate is different.  I use car paint because it's good paint.  It doesn't fade, the pigments are good, and the polyurethane is fuel proof.  Technique is different, but not easier.

My favorite finish (over a well-prepared dope foundation) is acrylic lacquer.  It's as easy as dope, but it's extinct and not at all fuel proof.  It's even soluble in some synthetic oils. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Trostle

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2541
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2019, 11:40:39 PM »

I agree with you there.  Restore the four categories from bygone days.


There used to be four categories for appearance judging, each worth 10 points for a potential total of 40 points.  The four categories were Workmanship, Finish, Originality and Realism.

There were no guidelines on how each of these categories were to be scored.  (Yes, there are still no guidelines on how "appearance" is to be scored.)  The problems with the previous system were that no one could clearly define how Realism or Originality points should be awarded.  Taken to the extreme, the only model that would get the maximum 10 points for realism would be a scale model capable of winning the Nats scale contest.  Next in line would be models designed to the Rabe Super Semi Scale Stunt Ship (S5) approach.  Would clear canopies be dictated?  Instrument panels?  The question here would the rule dictate the type of model that some may feel is required to get those elusive 10 points.

Likewise, how can originality be scored in this event.  Paint most of the stunt ships at a contest gray, and they will look the same.  How can you determine originality?  As mentioned earlier in this thread, just putting a round rudder on a Nobler does not make it original.  It has already been done hundreds of times.

If a logical and easily understood set of criteria could be generated for Originality and Realism, there could be good reason to re-initiate these categories for appearance judging.

Keith

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2019, 08:20:11 AM »

If a logical and easily understood set of criteria could be generated for Originality and Realism, there could be good reason to re-initiate these categories for appearance judging.

Keith
I don't see any way that we can reintroduce those categories without making 90% of the ships we fly today obsolete.  "in the day" it was a modified Nobler.  Now it is a modified SV-11 which is an evolution of a modified Nobler.  So much for originality.  Realism is another issue but adding it would really force everyone at the expert level back into the semi-scale mold.  If we are going to have any appearance points at all, refining how we do it now may be the best way.

I like the row method but I don't necessarily like how they are placed in a row.  A lot of what we used to call Originality and Realism could easily be incorporated into workmanship.  Should a fully detailed cockpit be better than a balsa one for example.  We just need some guide lines.

I cringe at he thought of having had the 4 category system in place when I was judging back in the 80's.  Rabe and Gieseke were regulars at our contests.  If there was a 10 point difference in their flight scores it was because of some fluke.  Imagine awarding "appearance" points to that "little red airplane" and the Sea Fury under the old system?  I really don't want to go back to that.

Ken
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Trostle

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2541
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2019, 10:04:56 AM »

I don't see any way that we can reintroduce those categories without making 90% of the ships we fly today obsolete.  "in the day" it was a modified Nobler.  Now it is a modified SV-11 which is an evolution of a modified Nobler.  So much for originality.  Realism is another issue but adding it would really force everyone at the expert level back into the semi-scale mold.

Ken

BINGO!

Keith

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11285
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2019, 10:36:12 AM »
Maybe have some minimum level of realism defined (i.e. it's gotta look like it might be a human-carrying airplane), but make it clear that it's not a scale contest.  That'll keep me from showing up with a fuselage that looks like a shipping tube.

I think that the stunt world has proved that, at least for now, there's one shape that works, and you can't deviate from it much.  So if you want to get flight points, the originality needs to come in the form of how the thing is painted, and maybe fuselage shape (while still looking like it could be man-carrying).  I like bizarre, within reason, but I'd hate to have a bunch of people show up at a contest with bizarre looking, bad-flying pieces of @#$% and get all angry that they aren't maxing out on appearance points.

So, if we did anything, amend the rules someplace  so that realism is defined as "yup, there's a cockpit in there someplace", and that the airplane is obviously well-built.  And then bump the appearance points up to 40!  It'll penalize me, but so what?
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Trostle

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2541
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2019, 10:40:38 AM »

If we are going to have any appearance points at all, refining how we do it now may be the best way.

Ken

Instead of trying to define how appearance points should be determined in the basic CLPA rule book, one approach would be to incorporate a set of guidelines in the Judges' Guide.  Charles Reeves and I wrote that article that appeared in Stunt News and Flying Models after the 2002 Nats.  That article discussed that workmanship and finish are judged by many factors.  It explained an approach to interpret craftsmanship and aesthetics that determine the appearance of a model.  There were several vocal malcontents that took exception to the standards that Charlie and I used.  One  of their complaints was that we used standards not defined in the rule book.  In response to that, the article only outlined what we used to determine the appearance of a model to give a numerical number, much the same as any appearance judge might use though without a written outline on how to do so.  Another complaint was that we applied a standard to certain aspects of a model's appearance that would be difficult to do.  For example, we wrote that a 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 a permanent gear.  The complaint from one person is that he did not know how to do that.

The question came up about how we judged painted on canopies vice clear canopies with visible cockpit detail.  It depends on how well the canopy fits with the paint scheme of the model.  I can remember one year that Charlie and I did appearance points at the Nats where like three of the five front row airplanes had painted on canopies.  The painted on canopies in our opinion did not detract from the overall appearance of the model.  Call it judges discretion, just like any other aspect of the subjectively scored event.

If anyone is interested, I will copy that article here.

Keith

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2019, 10:58:21 AM »
The complaint from one person is that he did not know how to do that.
Can I use that argument to get out of doing an hourglass?

Regardless of how the standards are written there will be some that don't like them and no matter how hard we try there will be differences between judges.  So I say, put something out there and take a poll/vote within PAMPA then go with it.  Lets not let perfect become the enemy of better.

Ken
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline phil c

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2007
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2019, 08:10:57 PM »
....
Shine over poor workmanship looks terrible.

Bring on the shine.

How does automotive paint with embedded dust look?  What about automotive paint over deep sanding scratches?  Does it automatically look good?

Automotive clear does a very good job covering up defects.  My son got into car painting for a hobby.  He repainted a door in $300 a pint red.  He spent two days trying to get it really perfect.  After the second day I suggested he just put on the clear coat, which he did.  It looked as good as the factory paint, but if you looked really close in good light you could see the blemishes inside the clear.

We saw the same thing on a brand new Corvette.  The hood and rear looked absolutely perfect- very smooth, flawless finish, no hint of orange peel under the clear.  Below the break to the sides a different story.  From 5 ft away they looked perfect also.  At two feet a very distinct orange peel showed up under the gloss.  The finish was perfectly flat.

One thin clear coat, applied by an expert, will completely cover almost any defects in a Monocote finish- joint lines, trim edges,  minor wrinkles, etc.  It takes a 10-15 point finish to the 15-20 range easily.
phil Cartier

Online peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2019, 11:38:07 AM »
I am of the opinion that appearance points should be emphasized less and that the BOM should be abandoned.

I wonder if there is a ten year record of appearance points awarded at the Nats? Seems to me that very, very few presenters are awarded less than 10 points. That severely penalizes the Advanced flyer using an ARC or OP's plane.

Toss the BOM out and an Open flyer flying an ARF or borrowed plane spots the builders 20 points...a virtually impossible hill to climb, My 10 point idea might allow the ARF pilot to crack the top 20,

I believe that the BOM impedes growth of serious competitors and hurts the potential for growth in US CLPA...F2B seems to be growing around the rest of the World and pictures of the entries at the recent European Championships show a lot of "pretty" aeroplanes.

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2019, 03:07:33 PM »
I am of the opinion that appearance points should be emphasized less and that the BOM should be abandoned.

I wonder if there is a ten year record of appearance points awarded at the Nats? Seems to me that very, very few presenters are awarded less than 10 points. That severely penalizes the Advanced flyer using an ARC or OP's plane.

Toss the BOM out and an Open flyer flying an ARF or borrowed plane spots the builders 20 points...a virtually impossible hill to climb, My 10 point idea might allow the ARF pilot to crack the top 20,

I believe that the BOM impedes growth of serious competitors and hurts the potential for growth in US CLPA...F2B seems to be growing around the rest of the World and pictures of the entries at the recent European Championships show a lot of "pretty" aeroplanes.
i am bi-polar on this issue.  I see the Europeans really embracing the sport and I see it dying in the USA where it started.  I don't think it is the BOM rule that is doing it.  I think it is more the lack of places to fly and a youth culture that is into other things.  Perhaps with the electrics we can re-open some of our more traditional flying sites (football and soccer fields).  Kids get attracted to what they can see and nobody see's us fly anymore.

BOM is a "buy in" to the sport.  When you compete you know that everybody there has spent countless hours building what they are about to try and beat you with.  If we could simply redesign the sport to make it easier to win then we might start dropping maneuvers because some of them make it difficult for a lot of us to win.  I am sure that there are a lot of fliers that could make the top 20 were it not for their inability to build and trim a competitive ship just as there are plenty of first class builders that just can't seem to get the flying part right.

Honestly, is building a fuselage and applying a finish that much of a burden?

Ken
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Ted Fancher

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1838
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2019, 06:31:18 PM »
I'm fairly new to the event so please excuse my ignorance but, BOM and appearance points are what drew me to the event. I felt in R/C and other events there was no appreciation for finely crafted and finished model. I feel I'm in an event amongst others that pride themselves on what they put on the ground for people to see and judge. I would also like to know how many in the top 3 rows were auto clear. I know of at least 3 that were dope. Yes, it does take a lot of work!! Also, there are more and more alternatives for finish products for one that thinks outside the box and especially for the electric guys. I've been experimenting with latex house paint for one. I know I can get great results with latex and  minwax poly acrylic  clear.
 I did watch last nights show and totally understand some of the points and agree with them. The only exception being the health hazard. I just feel that is a weak argument, you can take measures to protect yourself.
 Lets also remember that the guy who won the flying event did so with a 16 point airplane. So its not like you need 20 to win!


Again, this is just my feelings. I love the purity of STUNT!


Thanks,

Tom

Exactly, Tom.  Thank you! 

IMHO, I think what you've just described is why we can still call STUNT "MODEL" airplanes and not toys.  It was the beauty and craftsmanship that got me hooked long before the desire to win something "big" ever crossed my mind.

Ted

p.s.  This in no way a put down of my very good friend Denny who initiated the thread.  We simply disagree on the value (and yes, nowadays, the uniqueness) of both treasuring and rewarding craftsmanship and artistry as a part...small but meaningful...of being a Champion.  One man's opinion worth no more than another's.

Offline TDM

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2019, 02:51:41 PM »
So far we have
"Death Paint" and other paint (that nonetheless  is still hazardous to your health), unclear rules that are implemented at random. This all screams why do we have BOM.
Declining hobby in the USA increasing on other parts of the world. Where the difference between FAI and PAMPA rules is technically the existence of BOM. I bet that 8 out of 10 new hobbyists entering in the hobby in the places where the hobby is growing would rather buy a model.  Most hobby that grow now have no BOM rule.

My first contest was in Romania and when I saw the models they built I said I will build a prettier one next time around because I wanted to satisfy myself and be proud of my achievement. There where no BOM rules over there. So the question is why cant we just build or buy to satisfy our soul or current social life situation be judged on how we fly and I f you want to have a separate voluntary Concurs of elegance separate of the flying, if you want to go participate in it go for it. If you like to build and want to be recognized for your marvelous creation then fell free to go and get the concourse prize. So you like to build and finish that you are good at that, that is super, go for it with all your heart because it makes you happy, and keep  in mind that doesn't give you the right to impose it on you peers. 
I am saying kill the BOM.

Each goal you meet is a moment of happiness
Happiness is the harmony between what you think and what you do. Mahatma Gandhi

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2019, 05:02:04 PM »
So far we have
"Death Paint" and other paint (that nonetheless  is still hazardous to your health), unclear rules that are implemented at random. This all screams why do we have BOM.
Declining hobby in the USA increasing on other parts of the world. Where the difference between FAI and PAMPA rules is technically the existence of BOM. I bet that 8 out of 10 new hobbyists entering in the hobby in the places where the hobby is growing would rather buy a model.  Most hobby that grow now have no BOM rule.

My first contest was in Romania and when I saw the models they built I said I will build a prettier one next time around because I wanted to satisfy myself and be proud of my achievement. There where no BOM rules over there. So the question is why cant we just build or buy to satisfy our soul or current social life situation be judged on how we fly and I f you want to have a separate voluntary Concurs of elegance separate of the flying, if you want to go participate in it go for it. If you like to build and want to be recognized for your marvelous creation then fell free to go and get the concourse prize. So you like to build and finish that you are good at that, that is super, go for it with all your heart because it makes you happy, and keep  in mind that doesn't give you the right to impose it on you peers. 
I am saying kill the BOM.
At least with the BOM rule you know that the other guys in the contest are on the same footing as you are.  Is it fair that the flier who can afford a $3,000+ ship gets the best there is and has hundreds of hours of extra time to practice while the rest of us are scraping glue off of our fingers just to be able to compete?  If the rich flier can afford to hire the best builder in the world to build for him, doesn't it seem fair that this same builder should be able to hire the best pilot to fly for him?

I could live with dropping the BOM for all but the NATS.  If the sport is not growing because of the BOM then getting into it, including competing, would solve that but if you want to get your name on the Walker, you have to build your own.  Personally I don't think the BOM has anything to do with the declining participation.  I think it is the limited exposure we have to the public and the "do nothing difficult" (especially if it means putting down their tablet) mind set of our kids.  When was the last time you saw a person enter the hobby by building their first plane anyway?

Ken

AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Trostle

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2541
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2019, 06:26:05 PM »

"So far we have ....  unclear rules that are implemented at random."


Please explain "unclear rules that are implemented at random."

Skill Classes do not require the BOM.  Some local contests completely do away with appearance points and publicize so in the announcements.  These are not "random" actions.  Rather, these matters are the deliberate decisions of organizers to suit local activities and are totally within the authority of those local organizers.

As long as there is a Walker Cup to recognize the National Stunt Champion, the Control Line Precision Aerobatics event, Event 322, will be applied at the Nationals with its BOM rule.

It is interesting to note that there are some Europeans that are beginning to think that a BOM rule would be acceptable for F2B competition.

Keith

Offline TDM

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2019, 06:38:23 AM »
Please explain "unclear rules that are implemented at random." Maybe random is a bad word choose. More like applied as whatever I feel like wanting to award with emphasis on flat shiny finish.

1 The rule book does not provide much in the way of criteria for achieving excellence in appearance, in practice it seems that shine = excellence if you are aware of any other criteria or practice please share it
This is a quote from Denis and this is rule book. Apparently, this is one very clear-cut written rule right?


2 Looking for a uniform finish that is appropriate for the airplane/design.
For sure this one is enforced you see a shiny semi scale war-bird that in reality has never seen a glossy paint job. In practice, the shiny war bird is moved forward. So much for the appropriate part for the airplane design. This is another rule that I very clearly applied.


3 Gloss:  "Some paint schemes call for a high uniform gloss over the entire air frame.  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.
So what if the modeler decides to combine gloss with flat? Real planes have the anti-glare flat black in front of the canopy and the rest of the paint has whatever they like to put on combination of flat with gloss and other things. I heard of a story of a beautiful war-bird done in flat colors that ended in the last row because it was not shiny.

4 Detailed discussions were provided for each of the following items. Color Trim, Panel Lines, Construction, Cowl and Removable Panels/Components, Landing Gear, Hinge Lines, Canopy/Cockpit, Spinner and Propeller, Fillets, Details and protuberances, Wear and Tear, Aesthetics
So if you include more stuff that is in the above listed items your model will go closer to the front row? Planes in the front row at this yearís NATS had no cockpit details except for one they had no panel lines, frankly the artistic part on some of them left some questions because it was loosely interpreted, how is it interpreted is a mystery anywise. It is all up to the person in charge of the thing and whatever he or she wants to see feels like awarding. Is there a real artist on hand to make art related interpretations? If yes how do we have the idea of what is considered aesthetic. I count 14 items including shine that is taken in consideration 70-80 models  on display roughly and hour plus to take all this in to account you end up to the floor look at the final layout and wonder how in the world some end up where they end up.


In the end, the only meaningful part of it is the pilotsí choice award for the Concourse of Elegance.
I still return to why can we do whatever makes us happy and stop imposing our views on others.
Each goal you meet is a moment of happiness
Happiness is the harmony between what you think and what you do. Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Avaiojet

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6751
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2019, 10:27:22 AM »
Quote
In the end, the only meaningful part of it is the pilotsí choice award for the Concourse of Elegance.
I still return to why can we do whatever makes us happy and stop imposing our views on others.

Interesting observation.

Trump Derangement Syndrome. TDS

Avaiojet Derangement Syndrome. ADS
 Please visit my updated Website! www.cfcgraphics.com  If you're Trolled, you know you're doing something right.  Alpha Mike Foxtrot.  Owner of CFC Graphics. "Model Airplane Graphics from a Model Airplane Builder."  "No one has ever made a difference by being like everyone else."  Marcus Cordeiro, The "Mark of Excellence," you will not be forgotten.  I look at the Forum as a place to contribute and make friends, some view it as a Realm where they could be King.  "Ya gotta love it when a plane comes together."  Proverb 11.9  "With his mouth the Godless destroys his neighbor..."  "Perhaps the greatest challenge in modeling is to build a competitive control line stunter that looks like a real airplane." David McCellan, 1980.

Offline Sean McEntee

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 775
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2019, 05:54:27 AM »
     This is a very compelling topic, of which I am on both sides of the fence. 

     On one hand, appearance judging is a time-honored tradition.  As far as I know, its the only one of itís type that is not a scale event.  The reward for effort is certainly favorable

     On the other hand, itís a bit of an Achilles heel.  A lot of the top FF modelers that I know submitted a rule proposal to eliminate the BOM rule in free flight.  The reason being that entires in FAI events were overwhelmingly higher than AMA events, and the elimination of the BOM rule was made in an attempt to encourage entry in those events.  Iíve seen positive results just this weekend.  A 20-something kid (listen to me...the guys in his mid 20s and Iím calling him a kid) blew everyone away in AMA HLG this weekend with 14 Maxís, flying a glider he obtained from someone else.  Could CL stunt see the same benefit from elimination of the BOM rule?  Maybe...

     My humble opinion?  Eliminate the BOM ruleóto include at the NATísó but bring back the craftsmanship points.  It would encourage participation but still require building/finishing skills to reach the pinnacle of our hobby.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 10042
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #30 on: September 02, 2019, 12:57:29 PM »

In the end, the only meaningful part of it is the pilotsí choice award for the Concourse of Elegance.
I still return to why can we do whatever makes us happy and stop imposing our views on others.

   The problem, of course, is that *you* are part of a tiny minority trying to impose your views on others, and in the process, break an event the rest of us like just fine. Every time this comes up, we do a survey, whatever, and it's very consistently 80/20 or so in favor of retaining the BOM.

   Note Keith's comment above about the FAI, the FAI F2B rules working group *accepted* a proposal to use appearance points in FAI, too. It was later killed, in the usual inimitable FAI fashion, by a bunch of non-participants.

   And, in fact, the Concours is *not* the only meaningful part of it. Appearance points have a very strong material effect on who wins, and in particular, who qualifies for the flyoff on Top 20 day. I have missed the Top 5 flyoff on at least 3 occasions due to appearance points, that is "meaningful".   It usually comes out about being the same as the winning margin in the Top 5, that is "meaningful".

    Ron Burn's situation will not recur, everyone, to a man, found it an aberration and extremely unjust. If something like that happens again, there will be a revolution, and I would personally submit a protest to get the entire thing redone.

    Dennis' original premise that "shine" is all that matters, and it's really easy is extremely offensive, particularly since I saw the extraordinary time effort it took Jim Aron, this year's Concour's winner, to achieve his results. And it's clearly a shot at one of my close personal friends. Weeks and weeks of 3 in the morning sessions, is not "easy", laying out multiple colors of trim that all align perfectly is not "easy". 20 trips back and forth to the car paint store getting colors that meld perfectly is not "easy".

   On the previous airplane, he actually asked me to come watch over him, while he was doing it, because he was getting so tired with the weeks of 18-hour days that he was afraid he was going to do something stupid and screw it up. That is not easy.

   If anyone thinks it's "easy", they are more than welcome to give it a shot and put the results down on the basketball court at the 1-Eighty building and see just how easy it is. 

  I and most other people think this extraordinary effort should be rewarded in the competition. A tiny number of (mostly) non-participants want to change it to make it easier on themselves. I get a vote, too, I vote no.

    Brett
     

 
 

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #31 on: September 02, 2019, 02:52:53 PM »
Every so often we go round and round over the B.O.M., appearance points, maneuvers, etc.  They really are all separate issues but I put them together as one - trying to bend the rules to make whatever part of the sport/hobby you are weak in go away.  When you think about it, when has the B.O.M. rule ever discouraged someone from picking up control line?  There is no B.O.M. rule for sport flying and nothing stops a club from having an ARF event or dropping appearance points or waiving the B.O.M. at the local level if it suits their needs.

I flew an ARF Nobler in Classic for 2 years with no appearance points.  So what, I had a blast, didn't win a thing.  I don't have the patience or skills to put a front row finish on my planes.  Is it fair to try and take the points away from the ones that do?

The sport is just fine as is.  We have a set of rules that work and except for fixing the wording, adding clarifications or including new innovation/technology, we should lave them alone and adapt to them, not have them adapt to us.  I would love to see the takeoff rules changed to allow for a longer roll before breaking ground so that the electrics could make more realistic takeoffs, but I wouldn't even think of suggesting it because doing that would be changing the rules to give me an advantage over IC.

Ken
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Tom Luciano

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 535
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2019, 04:17:16 PM »
Ken wrote:"There is no B.O.M. rule for sport flying and nothing stops a club from having an ARF event or dropping appearance points or waiving the B.O.M. at the local level if it suits their needs."

Boy, that is a very wise statement as far as society goes today. I was very involved in both youth football and baseball. That is exactly what parents would try to do so little johnny could be competitive. If they couldn't compete in the league you have to modify the league down!
On the East coast i don't see an influx of people coming in because we don't have appearance points.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2019, 05:52:57 PM by Tom Luciano »
AMA 13001

Online Dan McEntee

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2019, 09:28:44 PM »
     This is a very compelling topic, of which I am on both sides of the fence. 

     On one hand, appearance judging is a time-honored tradition.  As far as I know, its the only one of itís type that is not a scale event.  The reward for effort is certainly favorable

     On the other hand, itís a bit of an Achilles heel.  A lot of the top FF modelers that I know submitted a rule proposal to eliminate the BOM rule in free flight.  The reason being that entires in FAI events were overwhelmingly higher than AMA events, and the elimination of the BOM rule was made in an attempt to encourage entry in those events.  Iíve seen positive results just this weekend.  A 20-something kid (listen to me...the guys in his mid 20s and Iím calling him a kid) blew everyone away in AMA HLG this weekend with 14 Maxís, flying a glider he obtained from someone else.  Could CL stunt see the same benefit from elimination of the BOM rule?  Maybe...

     My humble opinion?  Eliminate the BOM ruleóto include at the NATísó but bring back the craftsmanship points.  It would encourage participation but still require building/finishing skills to reach the pinnacle of our hobby.

    Was that the blonde headed kid that was there last year flying one of Tommy T's gliders? Offer him the challenge of buildings his own exactly like it and see how he does. Would he stick with it if he didn't have winning gliders handed to him? It's true that it gave him a taste and he showed some aptitude for the event, but would he still participate if he had to build his own?
   Type at you later,
     Dad
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Offline Brent Williams

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 725
  • Making America Fly Stunt Again!
    • Fancher Handles - Presented by Brent Williams
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #34 on: September 03, 2019, 05:27:22 PM »
    Was that the blonde headed kid that was there last year flying one of Tommy T's gliders? Offer him the challenge of buildings his own exactly like it and see how he does. Would he stick with it if he didn't have winning gliders handed to him? It's true that it gave him a taste and he showed some aptitude for the event, but would he still participate if he had to build his own?
   Type at you later,
     Dad

Viewing this tale from a different perspective might be something to give a few extra thinks.  The above example is taken from the free-flight world, but it parallels the stunt world.

Obviously I wasn't there, but to summarize the story, some kid*, attended and competed at an obscure event and enjoyed it enough to do it more than one time. 

Perhaps for that kid (*man, dude, person, busy enthusiast), to compete and enjoy the camaraderie of fellow enthusiasts at a contest, it meant he competed with a purchased/gifted plane.  That is one more person enjoying a niche hobby that perhaps might not be able to be involved in any other way. 

I am failing to grasp how this form of active involvement in an obscure hobby is a bad thing. 
Laser-cut, "Ted Fancher Precision-Pro" Hard Point Handle Kits are available again.  PM for info.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/brent-williams'-fancher-handles-and-cl-parts/ted-fancher's-precision-pro-handle-kit-by-brent-williams-information/

Online Dan McEntee

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #35 on: September 03, 2019, 08:50:09 PM »
Viewing this tale from a different perspective might be something to give a few extra thinks.  The above example is taken from the free-flight world, but it parallels the stunt world.

Obviously I wasn't there, but to summarize the story, some kid*, attended and competed at an obscure event and enjoyed it enough to do it more than one time. 

Perhaps for that kid (*man, dude, person, busy enthusiast), to compete and enjoy the camaraderie of fellow enthusiasts at a contest, it meant he competed with a purchased/gifted plane.  That is one more person enjoying a niche hobby that perhaps might not be able to be involved in any other way. 

I am failing to grasp how this form of active involvement in an obscure hobby is a bad thing.

      It's not necessarily a bad thing, but what is he learning in the mean time?  Is the only way that he can succeed at anything in life is by having things handed to him ready to go?. Hand him a stack of balsa, a set of plans and the necessary supplies to replicate that model, and see what he achieves. If he is that gifted at picking air, and obviously his youth gives him a strong arm, but after winning a couple of contests that way, does he loose the sense of challenge he had at first?  It's the same in Free Flight as it is in stunt, build it, trim it and fly it. If you have built it, it makes the other two a bit easier. Put the whole package together and revel in the achievement of building a flying machine. That is the part he has not done and can not understand.
    Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee
AMA 28784
EAA  1038824
AMA 480405 (American Motorcyclist Association)

Online Tim Just

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Pilot
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2019, 12:45:17 PM »
What an interesting topic.  When I first contemplated entering this sport I knew my seldom used X-Acto knife and I were in for a challenge. The builder of the model rule has not hindered my progress at all.  With the availability of ARF models I have been able to develop my flying skills while building a competition model in parallel. 

It was a thrill to fly my first legitimate built by me painted by me model.  Unfortunately that thrill was rather short lived as that model created a divot reminiscent of my days attempting to play golf.  On the 25th flight the battery ejected itself at a very inopportune time.  The failure was caused by a very poorly executed glue joint.  While this was disappointing the lessons learned give me confidence that the next model will be better.  It would have been nice to have the model judged for appearance at least once to see where my personal bar was set. 

I must add in a moment of frustration as the last piece of my new plane slid to a stop that I attempted to throw the handle at the ground.  The safety thong thwarted that juvenile behavior. I had to laugh and remember this is my hobby.
Tim

Offline Jim Hoffman

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 305
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2019, 01:25:28 PM »
Rubbing shoulders with so many master craftsmen and continuously trying to improve my craftsmanship is one of my favorite parts of the hobby.  I believe that, many if not most, of those who actually compete in stunt agree

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Appearance Points - Obsolete
« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2019, 03:32:24 PM »
Rubbing shoulders with so many master craftsmen and continuously trying to improve my craftsmanship is one of my favorite parts of the hobby.  I believe that, many if not most, of those who actually compete in stunt agree
Thoroughly agree, even though my finishing skills suck, my building skills dont so I have very nice planes if you don't get too close.  Would I trade that for a shiny ARF - NEVER.  n1 H^^
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here