Super-70's class: sideburns and bell bottoms

Current Stunt News article describes the history behind the very first VSC and that got me thinking. I may have an explanation why so many people would like to fly in a Super-70 class but noone actually does. Please bear with me as I try to explain it.

Why has Classic class been getting more and more popular over the years? Design cutoff date does not move. The number of people that actually flew in the 50's and 60's relative to the overall number of contestants is getting smaller. Both of these factors should have made the class extinct by now but here we are in 2004 and the event is more popular than ever!

I think I know the answer. It's kits! That's right! The number of classic designs available as kits is tremendous compared to any other design era's. Anyone can find a design they like, get the kit, build a very good version of the original and compete with it.

Based on the above premise, I think I know the answer as to why super-70 event does not get any traction: lack of 70's era designs in a kit form! Think about it. How many kits do you know of that are based on a 70's design? I can only think of only one: Derringer.

I think that if we get more 70's designs out there in a kit form, more people will start building them and entering them in contests!

Steven Yampolsky

Steve,
I'm afraid you're a little off on your analysis of the PAMPA membership trends... Your assumption is that as the older members (the ones who prefer the '50s and '60s designs) leave the organization / hobby, the younger ones join in. Not true! Most PAMPA members either never left the hobby (very small percentage) or are retreads from long, long ago. Popularity of CL stunt in the US in the late 1970's, 1980's, and early 1990's has declined severely, partly due to the changes in lifestyle (less time to build/fly), and partly due to the increasing popularity / affordability of RC. You and I consider the '70s "classic", but how many stunt flyers in their 30's do you know these days? Kit availability has nothing to do with it. Demographics is the key word. The art of gluing wood sticks together and making them fly will virtually disappear in 10-15 years.

Mike,
I seem to remember reading somehwere here that the average PAMPA member age was late 50's. That means half of PAMPA members where in their teens or early 20's when the seventies hit. I am sure they saw the USA-1s, the Genesys' and Stilettos and thought of it as latest and greatest in style and performance.

Steven Yampolsky

Remember, you really only need two tools: WD-40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use the WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape.

As has been discussed here quite a lot, most fliers (not me) think that most seventies ships lacked style. The beginning of the "foam" age and cookie cutter stunters and all that.

That being said, I really wish that the classic cut off date was moved forward about 3 years. There were a lot of very nice designs in the early 70s. But it won't happen for awhile.

In the mean time, putting on a whole other class at contests is thought to be too much a burden for the contest organizers. And I agree.

BTW- the USA-1 is classic legal. The Siletto and Genisis aren't. I certainly think of the classic era as the late 60s and early 70s since I was a teenager then.

>As has been discussed here quite a lot, most fliers (not me)
>think that most seventies ships lacked style. The beginning
>of the "foam" age and cookie cutter stunters and all that.
So foam wing killed stunt, eh?

Like disco, everyone is trying to forget the 70's. Coincidentally, 70's were ALSO the years when United States domintated on the world scene.

>That being said, I really wish that the classic cut off date
>was moved forward about 3 years. There were a lot of very
>nice designs in the early 70s. But it won't happen for
>awhile.
From the last time this was discussed, there was no chance of that change taking place at all.

Steven Yampolsky

There are three factors working here.

1) After the beautifull designs of the 50's and 60's, many people think that the 7o's designs, that led to the 80's ships, are just pug-ugly despite thier design superiority.

If you don't beleive me just take a look at a Patternmaster or a genesis! Wonderful planes that looks like a stream-lined loaf of bread. If you don't think so, just compare either one to Macky's Carousel or an Argus.

2) The other factor is the horsepower race that began with the wide spread use of the ST-46, KB-45 etc. that led to larger planes. Classic encompasses designs that used mostly 35 sized engines.

3) There is a cut off date for the classic event. If you move the date forward, there will be a movment towards later, more powerfull, better flying designs. Basicly, the planes that we are flying now. (IMHO)

Most of the inovation that we have seen in the last three decades has been in hardware and construction techniques.

Prehaps one day, the Classic event will be renamed "Golden Age" since it was set up to preserve the designs of what was undoubtably the high point of participation and inovation in CL design.

The sophistication of these planes is now being realized by many flyers, who have discovered just what they are capable of, when fitted with modern power plants. I've seen several that could easily place in a PA event with a good pilot and (Bonus!) the darned things will fit in my car!

>1) After the beautifull designs of the 50's and 60's, many
>people think that the 7o's designs, that led to the 80's
>ships, are just pug-ugly despite thier design superiority.

Well, there were a bunch of lookalikes. Argus,Aries,Cobra trio is an example. Unless you put them side-by-side, I'd have trouble recognizing which is which. I wasn't here during the 60's(or even a sparkle in my mother's eyes) so I don't have those differences burned in my meory. To me, they represent one style/look. Same applies to most other designs. There is the so called Nobler look, Aries look and less popular Oriental(bubble canopy) look.

>If you don't beleive me just take a look at a Patternmaster
Nobler wasn't That much better looking either but I see you point. Patternmaster is not known for pretty lines.

>or a genesis! Wonderful planes that looks like a
>stream-lined loaf of bread. If you don't think so, just
>compare either one to Macky's Carousel or an Argus.

Now hold on! Genesis has a very distict look. It stands out of the crowd even today! When I saw it flying, I had a feeling of a fish moving effortlessly through water. Very cool!

>2) The other factor is the horsepower race that began with
>the wide spread use of the ST-46, KB-45 etc. that led to
>larger planes. Classic encompasses designs that used mostly
>35 sized engines.
I don't see how this contributes to calssic class popularity. Can you elaborate?

>3) There is a cut off date for the classic event. If you
>move the date forward, there will be a movment towards
>later, more powerfull, better flying designs. Basicly, the
>planes that we are flying now. (IMHO)

Same can be said about the current state of affairs though. How many 1953 designs do you see in competition? Except for a couple of designs(nobler for example), majority of designs I see are from the last 5 years of the classic period. No effort is being made to aleviate that problem though. Extending a date won't introduce the problem, just make it more obvious.

>Most of the inovation that we have seen in the last three
>decades has been in hardware and construction techniques.

You have a very good point here. This is probably the strongest argument for keeping classic class as is.

On the other hand, the initial purpose of the class was to resurect designs that were dying off. Back in 1988, it was only 18 years since the current cut off date. Now look at the designs that are older than 18 years today? Majoriy of Pre-1986 designs are in the semi-fogotten state. Unless something is done, they'll be lost.

I don't want to advocate moving of the cut off date here though. The point I was trying to make is that the period of stunt history when US designs domintated the world scene is being forgotten! Am I the only one thinks that this is just awful?

Steven Yampolsky

"Well, there were a bunch of lookalikes. Argus,Aries,Cobra trio is an example."

I guess you're right. Those planes do look very much alike but each one is significantly different in design detail. That's why I threw in Mackey's Carousel. His twin boom planes are about as different as you can get!

If I have been remiss. let's throw in Billy Suarez's P-38 Lightning and his beautiful F-4 Phantom. Have you checked out Sylhavy's Gypsy? Nobler styling, foam wing, ST-46.

All of these are in my plans collection. What's in yours?

Look, we've been through this discussion before! If you really want to preserve and fly those later designs, go ahead. Maybe you'll start a movement with lots of other guys flying those seventies and eighties planes. (I'd suggest that you start by building a Sweeper!) Otherwise, it looks like a dead issue to me.

I'm going start cutting a Carousel, as soon as I finish my current projects. What a sexy plane! (What a control system nightmare!)

Moving the cut-off date up to 1973 would include my Sea Fury and Snaggletooth Mustang.

LAST EDITED ON Sep-29-04 AT 06:01 PM (CDT)
 
OK! I've changed my mind!

Let's move the date to 73 but you guys will have to promise to lock it down there forever!

Now, where do we find bellbottom pants (in easy-fit sizes.) and those hippie chicks with the big hats and miniskirts? LOL!!

Al,

Exactly, the Sea Fury. It would also include some John Pointer and Bill Bradford designs and the original Stiletto and Bill Simons Scorpio and Gemini and Rogue and.... Gene Shaeffer's Stunt Machine!

Well, this is the era I learned to fly. To me, these are classic planes. Sigh...

But then, the USA-1 is pretty cool too.

LAST EDITED ON Sep-29-04 AT 08:54 PM (CDT)
 
"the original Stiletto and Bill Simons Scorpio and Gemini and Rogue and.... Gene Shaeffer's Stunt Machine!"

There we go again...

I take it all back. 1970s just fine.

What we need is a special exemption for Al!

> "the original Stiletto and Bill Simons Scorpio and Gemini
>and Rogue and.... Gene Shaeffer's Stunt Machine!"
>
>There we go again...
>
>I take it all back. 1970s just fine.
>
>What we need is a special exemption for Al!
>
>BIGS

Ron B.
F4Fguy

SO,what am I chopped liver?? My first Macchi 202 was 1968.

>> "the original Stiletto and Bill Simons Scorpio and Gemini
>>and Rogue and.... Gene Shaeffer's Stunt Machine!"
>>
>>There we go again...
>>
>>I take it all back. 1970s just fine.
>>
>>What we need is a special exemption for Al!
>>
>>BIGS
>
>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
>SO,what am I chopped liver?? My first Macchi 202 was 1968.
>
>Ron B.

And the plans are where.... ?

Pass the pate...

Well Ron

I really didn't want to say this but...

Yes Ron, you're chopped liver.

But the Macchi 202 was cool, I bet. You have a picture?

>Moving the cut-off date up to 1973 would include my Sea Fury
>and Snaggletooth Mustang.
>
>Al

Not to mention your inimicable Mustunt series...

V/r

The possibility definitely exists that a classic design, from the early '60s or late '50s can and do win Expert level compititions on the local and regional scenes.

And the USA-1, which first appeared in 1968, is capable of winning almost anywhere at any level. ESPECIALLY with the light weight powerplants we have today. Ex: Billy using it to win the '83 NATS, 11 years after that same plane won his second world's. The USA-1 should probably be banned from Classic becuase of it's potential performance, but we would have to go behind the barn to settle it if that ever happened! LOL!!

The '70s planes do appeal to many "younger" fliers, but my son (28) and several others his age around here, really like the '60s planes a lot better. We even have a pretty good 11 year old who had two Olympics. That era will remain as a popular styling age for as long as we fly CLPA. IMNSHO.

Bill <><

Bill,

The USA-1 will never be a popular Classic plane. It's a pain in the butt to build.

>Bill,
>
>The USA-1 will never be a popular Classic plane. It's a pain
>in the butt to build.

Not after 4 or 5 of them! hahahaha
Now I just need to get one for myself built!! I still want to fly it "double duty", Classic and PAMPA.

Bill <><

LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-04 AT 02:02 PM (CDT)
 
Bill,

Get on it. I'm liking mine a lot.

Doc,

Yea. I've been looking at plans for a Jerry Worth "Mirage II" Looks like a royal pain with a ton of block carving and 200 ribs. Fun stuff.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-04 AT 02:12 PM (CDT)
 
Hi Randy.
Like I told you when you started yours, my USA-1 instantly became what was probably my most favorite stunt ship to date. It took one flight for me to get hooked on it! hahaha
I will definitely get going on my replacement this winter!
Bill <><

If you think that is hard to build, try an Adimissin Swea Pea. He admits it came after the 1970 Hurricane. I am trying to get finish on my Swea Pea. Plans were first ones from Skystone and been over a year working on it. Other planes getting moved in ahead of it for different types of competition. Later, DOC

Paul Smith

The real BREAK-POINT between old and new was the Shark 45.

The Shark 45 proved that BIGGER IS BETTER and MORE POWER wins.

The 54" stunter with the Fox .35 Stunt was instantly doomed. As pretty as they are, they can't compete with ST 60's and various 40, 45, 46's etc that came to dominate the event.

Any "old time" event that goes beyond plain-besaring 35's is missing the point.

I agree, it should be mandatory to wear double-knit bell-bottoms and get your wife to dress like a hippie.

>I agree, it should be mandatory to wear double-knit
>bell-bottoms and get your wife to dress like a hippie.

Would one also be obliged to....well...get a little high?

As much as I like the Shark and other big models, I think the last few VSC's won by 35 size airplanes.
Chris...

LAST EDITED ON Oct-06-04 AT 01:07 PM (CDT)
 
Billy's '62 Ares (VSC winner 2-3 years) is a larger take off on the '59 version. I would not call it a 35 size ship. He could not find suitable power at the time to make the '62 competitive. He further enlarged the wing, slightly smaller ratio of airfoil to span, etc., and did fly the Super Ares a lot, but again he had problems finding the powerplant he liked.
Now that the power is available, the '62 Ares does pretty good!
Bill <><

Bill,
So the 62 Ares is between a 59 Ares and the Super Ares in area?
In any case it is small to me!
Chris...

Hi Chris,
You are correct,it is between the two, and it is still "small" compared to a Shark! Or today's PAMPA planes.
How did you do with the Lil' Stinker?
Be good,
Bill <><