What other early designs do you suppose had an effect on other designs?  Talon - slight effect on the original Novi? 

Jim Pollock   

Well, we know that at least from an aesthetic standpoint, the USA-1 was based on Jerry Worth's Apterix (or NASA-1), although the aerodynamics were different.

Junhani Kari's "NAKKE" is based on the Veco T-Birds that Juhani flew before it.

Louis Grondal's "AMA Special" was built from a Green Box Nobler kit.

The fact that there were definite styling "trends" makes it plausible that as one design became popular, more people put there own twist to it.

Bill <><

Matt,

I wasn't talking about the Olympic, I know it's a modified Nobler.  The Sting Ray on the other hand has an elevated elevator built on a raised fuselage extension.  So does the Barracuda, which preceded the Sting Ray by two or three years.

Jim Pollock   

There are styles that come and go...

Jim Kostecky wrote a funny, and I mean gut-busting funny if you're in the right mood, article -possibly for the TALON, iir. He aimed the model's appearance, markings and finish at the US Navy "volunteers" who were trained to judge at Navy Nats, 'back in the day'.

Model was of sharp, jet-style, forward cockpit, wing-root airscoops, swept-back fin appearance in shapes. Markings and finish were to echo the grand traditions and current first-line fighters of the USN. Buttering up the judges, right?

W-e-e-e-l-l, not quite. Find a copy of the article and read it.

The Navy Nats era, when many Nats were at Navy Air stations, for public relationships and recruiting enhancement reasons, may have pushed the jet-style look. Of course, state-of-the (at that time)-art stunters should look like state-of-the-art high performance people carrying aircraft, no? (We were still, as a nation, pretty "air-minded." Airplanes were not just noisy things that bother us in our new houses developed right up to the fences of airports...)

There was a tribute to Kostecky and Dave Gierke at the VSC this year. The original NOVI III was there. Sadly, its tissue covered I-Beam wing was in tatters. Shrinkage, over the years. The fuse and tail were somewhat yellowed with age, but still stunning in finish and detail.

John Miller and Gordan (that's not a mispelling!) Delaney had Gierke ALL-AMERICAN EAGLEs, newly built for the season. Tom McClain had the original Jim Kostecky PATRIOT, somewhat the worse for the years a friend had stored it, but still a knockout! Alan Brickhaus has mentioned his current Gialdini RAYETTE project in his FM column - it was there, too. These models were all parked together in the grass strip between the flight pits and the spectator tape-line, and the family - or perhaps 'style of the times' - resemblance among them was really apparent! Tom McC took a commemorative flight on the PATRIOT for the benefit of those who had never seen it in the air... - didn't stress it, of course! Any one of us would hold back, lest we destroy an important historic artefact, right?

Kostecky, Gialdini, Gierke... legendary names in our arena... subtle differences in shapes among the models, but still kin. There have been other paradigm shifters, too. The Big Jim/NJ era, powered by OS35S, ST46 and ST60, also resulted in many (to be cruel:) look-alike or (to be more accurate:) similar models which followed a similar approach in proportion, in sheeted foam wings, in general 'presentation.' It worked. Judges saw models "like that" fly REALLY well, so others built models in that mode to tinker with judges' preferences - or so they thought. (It STILL took a Hunt, Lampione, Shaeffer, Casale, Simons, etc., etc. to fly the things so well.) And the larger engines first reappeared from Lexington, KY: Lew McFarland's SHARK/K&B Greenhead 45...

Even today there is a great similarity among modern designs; in fin shape, planform, checkerboard trims, etc. Or, for another example, the Russians and their odd looking, high and short canopies... Like clothing, styles come and go. For our stunters, with our nostalgic events, we can - in effect - go around in bias-knit bell bottoms for this event, in high and tight haircuts and fedoras for that one. And it is all in fun!

They may all be developed NOBLERs, but, hey, if it works, use it!

Well there are some pretty good reasons for not going too far out of the box.   Like Lou said, "trends come and go" but in my opinion the basic outlines remain close to the same.

There are a few people that will push the outside of the design envelope trying something new.  Some having some degree of success and other times, complete failures.  Ask me how I know this .  A competitive flyer must weigh the amount of time it takes to develop a totally new concept against the time that is required to maintain the competitive edge.  That's the reason many people go with a proven design and make cosmetic changes for a different look.

Later

Mikey       

With the Stingray, it's an optical illusion. If you look at the plans, the stab centerline, thrustline and wing centerline are pretty conventional. The aerodynamic layout is not at all out of the norm for the time. The construction of the fuselage makes it look like the stab is high in the rudder, but it's only the structure design. Same with Shultzie's Avenger.

For clarity...take a look?

One interesting thing is that you can now have any mass distribution you want.