The Proof of Scale rule para. 6.3.b. allows for published art as an acceptable form of support for color & marking documentation. I just looking for a confirmation that Cal Smith American Modeler cover art complys with this requirement.

Thanks.

Bob

I wouldn't worry too much about shades of color:

• Ancient prototypes before color photography became common.
• Color photos run through publushers and reprinting
• Continuous sunfading of prototypes

It would be  a cheap shot to downgrade a model for difference in shade.

I agree with Fred.

Red is especially prone to sun-fading.  It starts to bleach out from Day One.  You don't need color chips at all, just a color photo or painting.  If you had the marking in the right place and some sort of red, it should get full points.

This kind of stuff comes up constantly and is one of the challenges of scale building, whether it be planes, trains, cars or boats. It gets even worse when you try weathering a model.

I think it is a mistake to try to figure out in advance what you think might please a judge.  Build for your own satisfaction, what looks good is good.  What I have always felt is that we are creating an illusion and there can be a lot of artistry in doing that, a lot of understanding of human perception of the model's overall impression.  The idea of competeing  with scale models is sort of spurious, but we do it anyway, mainly (for me) as an excuse to show off our work to a group of peers and hang out with a bunch of like-minded fliers.

There has been a huge amount written about weathering, color perception and how to achieve a particular effect. Give your best shot and don't be shy about bring your work to a contest. And don't get upset when a judge doesn't agree with you, he may be one of the nearly 20% of American males who is red-green color blind!

BTW, I don't think I have ever seen a model of the Shoestring that gets that chartreuse color right.

And welcome to the fascinating world of scale.

John Witt

The plane with sponsor decals is what I would consider the definitive version. My first choice would be to use the Cal Smith art as proof of color & markings.

As far as the scale drawing, the only one I have at this time is by Bob Hirsch. It has flaws and omissions. I am going to Bob Banka to see what his assortment looks like. However, the regulations do allow for a selection of photos to serve as proof of outline. There are enough photos available with the plane in this form to do a decent proof of scale package. So...

Again, thank for the constructive comments.

As I understand it their is a maximum number of pages allowed in the scale documentation book - but no minimum.  So at what point is a package declared "Not Enough" by a scale judge.  For instance the 3-view and photos I have do not show the bottom of the aircraft.  So I have very little to go on for detailing the bottom - How does all this play out? 
 

To expand the scope of this discussion a bit:

I'm referencing my questions / comments to Event 509; Control Line Sport Scale. Event 524 and F4B are not on the radar screen for now.

Allowing one (1) page for a scale drawing and one (1) page for the color plate leaves six (6) pages for photos to document the overall appearance of the airplane. I'm looking for a basic walkaround showing port side, front, starboard, and rear. Those will be 8 x 10. The 5th page will be an 8 x 10 that shows some underwing detail. The 6th page will probably be four (4) 4 x 5 prints showing important smaller details.

Unfortunately, bottom plan photos are rare, unless the plane is hanging or someone caught it in the air. At some point you have to give it your best shot. As far as what is enough, just put your self in the judge's position. What would you hope to see?