this is a simple question that I don't know the answer.

on a profile scale model, is the wingspan reduced by the width of the fuselage?

What  about multi pod airplane like P 38 or a F82?  It could look a little funny.   

What is the right way deal with this? 

It's my understanding that overall diminutions don't change.  You just shrink the fuselage and expose more wing at it's root.  The overall length, height, and wingspan must be correct. Only fuselage width changes.

     I guess the quick answer is you follow the rules. Then the long drawn out answer is you pick your plane very carefully. I think when it came down to this part of the profile rule they opted for the present rule that the overall dimensions had to be to the actual scale eventhough on the profile planes some of them will look a little odd. For instance with the Bonanza I just had to build I found out when I got to the main landing gear legs I didn't know where to put them. Do I put them real close together or do I move them further apart so it would look like the full bodied plane? I think thats why when you look at profile scale planes sometimes they look a little off. If I wasn't so darn old I would attend some scale contests (good luck on finding some) and see and questioned just how they do things before I started on a plane of my own.
     I read the rules several times trying to understand the question that you are asking (after I started building) and then asked here and got the same answer plus read the rules and still have trouble believing it but that's the rule and everyone builds by them (I guess). Eric

Of course it would.  The gear would look like it was wider than it is because of the relationship of the full fuse to the thinner profile fuse.  It would end up looking like a drunken cowboy! LOL  OK, not that bad, but you know what I mean!

Of course it would.  The gear would look like it was wider than it is because of the relationship of the full fuse to the thinner profile fuse.  It would end up looking like a drunken cowboy! LOL  OK, not that bad, but you know what I mean!

Mr. Reach,

We seem to have a communication problem.  The Bonanza has a tricycle landing gear.  The wing is located at the bottom of the fuselage.  Per the Profile Scale rules, the wing is essentially to be scale as to planform and span.  Each main main landing gear leg is located around 1/4 to 1/3 span from the centerline and somewhere around mid-chord of the wing.  To locate the main gear at a non scale location would really be an unnecessary deviation from scale and if the deviation is significant, then that would be justification for a significant point reduction.  (Any point reduction would be significant if the reason for it could be completely avoided.)  When observed from the bottom of the wing to look at the landing gear, the width of the fuselage above the wing would have little bearing on the appearance of the main landing gear position other than the knowledge that the fuselage is quite narrow which, I am sure you can comprehend, is a requirement for profile scale and overall scale appearance of the model is somewhat diminished because of the profile concept.  I would think the judges would be checking the appearance of the landing gear location in relation to the entire wing and the fact that the fuselage is quite narrow at the LE and TE would not affect the appearance of the landing gear position.  As soon as profile concept is applied to the model design, many things become compromised.  The rules are written such that something on the wing, like engine nacelles are to be positioned relative to the wing planform, not a "scale distance" from the side of the fuselage.  There is an exception to this, however, in that any LE cuffs next to the fuselage should essentially be scale shape relative to their extension from the fuselage side.

Yes, I understand that you are a "sport flier" and not interested in competition.  Maybe I have wrongfully assumed that this profile Bonanza is being planned/built for competition.  If this model is for competition, the scale location of the gear with relation to the entire wing will be important.  If that be the case, there should be no reason to locate the gear in any other position, "drunken cowboys" considered.

Keith

Well either way, I am going to agree to disagree with Mr Trostle.  One thing I will agree whole heartedly is, thats a beautiful ship and I hope to see the build here on the forum.  Please?

   I know this subject has probably been beat to death before, but how was the conclusion reached not to eliminate the portion of the wing that would otherwise be enclosed in or on top of, below, etc the fuselage on profiles.  Profile is already pretty subjective and if the purpose of scale is to build models that appear as much as possible, like the prototype aircraft, doesn't building the wing to include the center section shoot that in the foot?  Not only is this a problem on gull wing and multi boom aircraft, but it also makes the overall model appear much less faithful to the original in that any scale details on the wings will be further from the fuselage sides and items such as struts will be at a significantly altered angle if they are attatched to the wing and fuselage in a dimensionally correct location.  I would also think that this would diminish the number of scale subjects that builders would choose from as one of their big concearns is going to become " can I build this model without it looking weird".  The fuselage width  has already been eliminated on a profile, (decidedly unscle and innacurate demensionally) why hold on to that section of the wing?

Do the judges actually measure this stuff or is it by eyeball according to 3 views?    If it looks scale to you, go with it.

Profile is judged statically at fifteen feet.

Jim Fruit

(Clip)

If I were to go to a contest and compete with my rule built plane that looks a little off and I got beat buy a "like" plane that looked really nice I would have to ask the judges for a measurement of the winning plane to verify that it was built to the rules and would hope that everyone involved would understand and be comfortable with my request.  Eric

Oops!!  Eric, you are venturing into a "sensitive" area.  First off, the AMA profile scale rules provide that the appearance/fidelity to scale judging is done in the same manner as the sport scale event -- from a distance of something like 10 or 15 feet.  Measurements are not taken.  In fact, even in precision scale, the "scale ruler" that translates measurements from the required 3-views to those of the model is no longer required.  So, even in the precision scale events, the appearance/fidelity to scale dimensions is a matter of "eyeball observations".  I do not think I have seen judges use tape measures or rulers at a scale contest of any kind for years.  You are essentially outlining a situation where you are protesting the judges' subjective scoring of the model.  I cannot see how any subjective score in a scale event could be protested.  (Same thing regarding the subjective score of a maneuver in the stunt event - protesting a stunt maneuver subjective score is just not done.)  I think that any CD or ED would rule against any protest of any subjective score in these toy airplane contests of ours, the available appeal procedures notwithstanding.  Oh, I guess you could request measurements of some kind to be taken, but to what standard?  Such a request, even if not a formal protest, probably would not be "warmly received" by the CD/ED or the judges.

In the scenario you describe, what would you be asking the judges to measure and to what standard were they to use?  I think it would be rather awkward to ask for measurements to be made when the rules do not specify any measurements to be taken.  As a judge or CD or ED, I would be a bit perplexed on what to do or how to proceed or what to determine whatever the outcome would be or mean.

Perhaps a more satisfying alternative would be to draft a rules change that clearly delineates how certain dichotomies in the profile rules should be clarified and written.  Sounds easy to do doesn't it?  It will be easy until you start putting words that clearly explains what you are trying to do into a formal change proposal.  Our profile scale rules have created flying anachronisms.

Keith

Just to put the "measurement" thing to rest, it is specifically forbidden in the rules for all scale events.  It used to happen, but not any more.  15 feet is it, and I assure you, until someone puts a proposal through that I'm unaware of at this time, 15 feet it will stay.

Now, as to the philosophy of the profile event, I'm greatly outnumbered, but I agree with the gentleman above, don't remember who it was, that to reduce the wingspan by the amount the fuse' was reduced would make a much better looking model, and, at least in my opinion, make a bunch more sense.

As a judge, I bite my tongue every time profile comes around because of some of the gosh-awful looking top views I have to look at.  Sorry Clancy, my friend, we're totally in opposition here on that one.  Hasn't happened very often though, has it?

Wow, Mike, that is very well said!  I like it.

Mike
You get my vote!

When I have Static Judged Profile Scale I ignore the body when looking at the front view.  I try to estimate the spacing between features on the three views and then look at the model to see if they are the same ratio.

Example:  The landing gear spacing: on the three views the gear spacing looks about 20% of the wing span, then is the gear spacing about 20% of the wing span on the model?  Yes or No?  If not then how much off scale / deduction small or large?

Before you complain offer to help Static Judge at a contest!  After the first time I static judged at a contest my static scores improved because I began to understand what the judges look for on my models.
Clancy