Where are the Classic I-Beam Designs?

They do not appear in any of the PAMPA plans books or lists. At first, it seemed possible that they might be International versions, but they do not appear in Dave Day's lists. Perhaps they're a whole string of unpublished Werwage designs.

The Colussus (J. Ticky) is listed on Tom Dixon's site, I've seen a plan for the Juno (Aeromodelos.net), and a single picture of Werwage with the SuperAres. For the SuperAres and the rest, how are they documented? Once the moments, planform, and control surface dimensions are known, an experienced builder can make one, but how are they validated?

The Atom (previously not published) was part of Flying Models "Classic Series" a few years ago. They still list the plan and it is very well done. The Neptune is also in this series. I have both FM issues somewhere, from the '90s.

Several of Billy's planes have been done by him and Warren Tiahart in the last 10 years. Warren has plans for the '59 Ares (the published and kitted version was from '58, airfoils changed on the '59 Walker Trophy winner), '62 Ares, Super Ares, Vulcan (both I-Beam and D tube), USA-1, and Art Pawloski's Lunar. The Juno is a FM plan from 1976.

I am finisheing a Werwage Vulcan with a '56 paint scheme right now. Will try to post pics when the painting is finished.

The Colossus and Quasar are both available, but I do not have those.
The main problem in this case is that the planes were not published when they were designed, but have later been released.
I have made it my "Holy Grail" to track down as many of the I-Beam planes as possible.

Let me know if I can help.
Bill <><

AFAIK: The 35 size Juno wasn't a Classic plane, either.

Bill <><

Tichy! Right pronunciation, wrong spelling.

BTW, Jim got 20 appearance points (from me and Uncle Jimby), and won the Concours, yesterday at the Golden State meet.

You might want to send your correction to Tom Dixon - "Ticky" was copied directly from his web site:

"COLLOSSUS - J. Ticky's I-Beamer for .45-.60. $15.00"

Since you're interested, you might as well give him a better spelling for "Colossus," too. You must know these things. I don't, and I won't make the assumption that a given name is misspelled.

Well, I can't answer for Tom D's spelling. But I do know Jim personally. Nice guy.

Well since there is so much focus on the Colossus may I add that I have in my possession the plans for the Colossus with Jim's corrections noted and also his permission to make a kit

There was a second implication in my post, though - how are these things validated in a contest? Does someone testify as a "witness" that saw the design, does a dated photo/magazine prove it, or what? Further, I read a recent thread that discussed how the Brodak version of the Smoothie has a corrected airfoil. Where is the proverbial "line" drawn?

I can tell when typing the paragraph above that it may stir up a BOM controversy, but I'm curious about the prevailing standards.

Generally, not a lot of people care one way or the other. If your contest doesn't use fidelity points, there is no penalty for any airplane you might want to fly no matter when it was published or designed. Any airplane can be flown in classic under PAMPA rules. Of course, no one does because that defeats the point of the contest.

Well, that's a problem, and in fact, to my knowledge, most contests don't use fidelity points. I know in most cases locally, its just that no one particularly cares one way or the other. In fact, I have seen a Pathfinder Profile fly in classic. But no one cared to protest one way or the other. The guy had only one airplane, and he could only be there on Saturday, so, where's the harm?

Hi Bill; One of the fun ways to participate in Classic and OTS is to research obscure designs and fly something that no one else has done. I built and flew a "Ruby" by Arthur Alfierri at my first VSC and haven't seen another one since.I hope to have another "first" at next years VSC. Most guys build from magazine plans, and taking the magazine plan or article along would be good enough documentation, if you thought there might be a question.
If you build an obscure design that wasn't published, you just need to have a photo or something from the proper time period to verify it, or the designers original plan, or something. I don't think it's all that big of a deal. I can't think of any contests that I got to that pay fidelity points anyway. If you have been around this hobby since that time, or study the old magazines and contest articles from back then, there is usually SOMEBODY that knows of a particular design. Like you said, this is all for fun anyway, so that is the name of the game.
HAVE FUN!
Dan McEntee

At my age, if it ain't fun I probably ain't interested! hahahaha

I really dig the "obscure" designs, too. Especially special versions flown in the WC or some such. Or a design that I just hadn't seen built!

Bill <><

A very good explanation, and to the point. In other words, I can pick out a design from the PAMPA books that's relatively obscure - no pictures at recent events, or in magazines, or on the web. (I liked the looks of that Ruby, too.) So, if it follows the general outlines, and I bring along the book just in case, everything will be fine.

Even so, I would think one would take a very small risk by changing the type of engine or cowl, a medium risk by changing the airfoil, and maybe a large risk if one were to change from a tail-dragger to trike or vice-versa.

Along that line, changing from an I-Beam to a D tube or vice-versa might be a small-to-medium risk? That's maybe a gross example, but some of those airfoils and wing constructions make you wonder. I also like the idea of a take-apart wing, which might violate the spirit, but could be important in transporting and preserving the model.

"Legal" is a probelamtic term, but I'm sure it means that it complies with the "prior to 1953" and "prior to 1970" intent. I've also seen some kits (not John's since I have only seen one of those and it was OK) that I thought stretched the point somewhat.

OTS is a different story. You can be DQ'ed for deviations. There are two sets of OTS rules - GSCB (Garden State Circle Burners, the originals) and PAMPA (based on GSCB but modified in some ways). The GSCB rules, used primarily in the NJ area, have a list of acceptable designs, and if it's not on the list, it's not allowd. The rule is published or kitted before 1953. PAMPA allowes published, kitted, or *designed* before 1953. I think the PAMPA rules are superior to the originals, in that they allowed an entire area of research and finding unique designs that you can spring on your buddies. But GSCB rules are clearly more definitive, and have their adherents as well (all of whom will be posting their opinions of my opinion shortly).

Attempts to reconcile the two sets of rules have been unsuccessful, but I don't see a very big problem with that. Find out which rules will be used, and operate accordingly.

PAMPA rules also note the allowable modifications. I don't recall them as it's not really an event I am interested in, but it amounts to no changes to the external profile or performance-enhancing mods except to allow adjustable trim features.

In either case, the idea that you are going to have definitive rules so that we can be sure everyone complies is, to me, a largely moot issue. The people who would intentionally deviate just to improve their scores are mostly people who aren't competitive anyway, and definitely they are missing the point of the event. That's really just their loss. If you win classic at VSC flying an Impact/40VF painted up to look like a Nobler, what exactly have you accomplished? That is, assuming you can avoid the lynch mob long enough to get your flights in. Or they don't DQ you for bad sportsmanship (which *is* allowed under the rules - AMA General).

Brett

While I have never kept track as to frequency, it is hardly unknown for our NW contests to use fidelity scoring in Classic. In fact, I think the issue only comes down to which set of score sheets get brought to the field. If both Classic and AMA sheets are there the appropriate box gets filled in for Classic. In any case, it's not a big deal.

For several contests in a row a couple years ago we had a guy flying a SIG Banshee in Classic. It's not even a close call as to eligibility, but we just smiled and looked the other way. I may even have slightly clouded the issue a bit myself. In fact, I know I did.

Most definitely not "by the book," but he got to fly, soon went on to build a "real" Classic airplane, all is well...

And both sets of rules can be found on my website

Tim

Tim

Shoot! and I've been lusting after Walt M's Stunt Rocket ever since I got the PAMPA OTS plans book!! There goes my combat blood again.