Old Time Stunt Eligibilty Questions....

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 28 of 28 known posts recovered

Currell · May 02, 2006 10:17 AM

#0 source

LAST EDITED ON May-02-06 AT 10:18 AM (CST)

Anyone: (verifying info found on a list on the net)

1. Is it true that the standard Veco kit Smoothie is not eligible?

2. Sterling Yak is eligible?

3. AJ Walker Fireball is eligible in kit form?

4. Only MAN magazine plan or original GMA plan Nobler is eligible (not TF kit)?

Thanks. Currell

Jim Thomerson · May 02, 2006 10:49 AM

#1 source

LAST EDITED ON May-02-06 AT 10:50 AM (CST)

The Sterling Yak 9 came out in 1952 and is OTS legal (as is the Mustang.) It is a lot better airplane than you would think and flies fine without working flaps.

Not sure on your other questions, so won't comment.

What list?

shholt · May 02, 2006 12:20 PM

#2 source

Currell,

I have heard nothing about the original Veco Smoothie not being OTS eligible. I know there is some controversy about the Brodak kit.

The Stirling Yak is certainly elegible - with or without movable flaps.

The Top Flite Nobler kit is not OTS. The "green box" kit is from 1957.

Steve

Brett Buck · May 02, 2006 12:39 PM

#3 source

>I have heard nothing about the original Veco Smoothie not
>being OTS eligible. I know there is some controversy about
>the Brodak kit.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with the Brodak kit version, at least at any OTS contest under PAMPA rules. Bob Palmer himself said it was legal, contrary arguments really can't stand up against that.

GSCB, I have no idea, follow their rules if you enter their contest.

Brett

ty marcucci · May 02, 2006 12:40 PM

#4 source

As to the AJ Fireball, it will not stunt, so save yourself the aggravation other than having one. As to the Brodak Nobler it is a copy of the first Nobler done by GMA hisself for John. The MAN version came out in the May and June 1952 issues of MAN is is OTS eligible. I have one and it is different from the original and the Top Flite kit, whicih is not OTS eligible, but is classic legal. The first models put out by Sterling were for the most part scale planes and all are OTS eligible, mostly the SE5A. I'm not sure the others will do stunts LOL, especially the Nieuport 28. LOL The Sterling Yak, Mustang are OTS legal and are seen at many meets.

gcb · May 03, 2006 07:49 AM

#11 source

...As to the Brodak Nobler it is a copy of the first Nobler done by GMA hisself for John. The MAN version came out in the May and June 1952 issues of MAN is is OTS eligible. I have one and it is different from the original and the Top Flite kit, which is not OTS eligible, but is classic legal...

In Bob Hunt's video about GMA, George mentioned that he drew plans for John with parts from the original crashed Nobler. He mentioned that he was surprised how thin the wing was, compared to how he remembered it.

On the same video, GMA mentioned that he drew the MAN plans from memory. So the question for the day is, does anyone know for sure if GMA ever built the MAN version? I know many, many others did...but did George?

George

ty marcucci · May 02, 2006 12:44 PM

#5 source

To answer the first part. I'm not sure when the Veco Smoothie came out, but I think it did come out before the Thunderbird with the upright engine. It, the Smoothie, was of course published in 1952 in AT, along with two other of his designs, one each in FM and MAN. Mars and Venus.

Brett Buck · May 02, 2006 01:04 PM

#6 source

>4. Only MAN magazine plan or original GMA plan Nobler is
>eligible (not TF kit)?

The Green Box kit is definitely NOT OTS legal. The Brodak "original Nobler" or the MAN plans are OK.

BTW, if anyone hasn't read "Stunting Can Be Smooth" (the Nobler article in MAN) you really should, even if you don't want to build the airplane.

Brett

ty marcucci · May 02, 2006 01:06 PM

#7 source

Well, quick and dirty search I find the first add for the Veco Smoothie in a Jan 1953 Air Trails. So, allowing for design, building, testing, 90 day plus lead time for a magazine, then it is OTS legal. Even in this day of instant communications with computers, it still takes 30 to 90 days lead time for an article with plans, etc, to get into a magazine. Then the Jan issue of AT came out in Dec. So, I think that puts an end to that question.

Lou_Crane · May 02, 2006 03:32 PM

#8 source

Agree, Ty,

...unless someone gets silly about the original GSCB Rules. It was then, and is now, that magazines date their editions for the month *after* the edition reaches the news-stands (yes, model airplane magazines were once sold on news-stands...).

So, going by that, the January 53 AT was on the stands in December 1952.

QED.

\BEST\LOU

ty marcucci · May 02, 2006 05:53 PM

#9 source

Also the Smoothie was published in 1952 in Air Trails and is supoosed to be the same as the one they kitted. Flying Models is still sold on the newstands. Cheaper to subscribe.

I have noticed in many of the older magazines and some still do it, that an article and plans used to come out in the same issue as the kit being introduced. Did that sentence make sense??

Currell · May 02, 2006 11:15 PM

#10 source

Thanks to all who have responded. The reason I asked is that I have all of the planes mentioned. Haven't had any time to practice so far. Given that, I do think I would feel more comfortable flying a smaller plane, such as the eligible Flying Clown. I have almost finished restoring a bones swap meet one. Will start out with the much despised Fox 15 Steel Fin, but I have at least a couple that run well.

I really had trouble with the Overhead 8s last year, mainly with body positioning. Should I rotate 90 degrees to the left once the model is overhead? It seems easier to do the 8, seeing it as vertical, than sitting on its side.

Currell

Lou_Crane · May 03, 2006 04:32 PM

#12 source

>I really had trouble with the Overhead 8s last year, mainly
>with body positioning. Should I rotate 90 degrees to the
>left once the model is overhead? It seems easier to do the
>8, seeing it as vertical, than sitting on its side.
>
>Currell

That almost deserves an entire new thread! You may get many personal approach suggestions on this.

Mine? I 'plant' facing the judges, since the figure is entered from a partial wingover started from upwind. So long as I can bend far enough back to feel confident the intersection IS directly overhead, I can use the left-to-right view to try for good intersections and equal sized loops. I see no problem looking at an eight on its side - after all, we do round and square horizontal loops, don't we?

By 'planting' I mean getting enough ahead of the model that I can place my feet so I am directly facing the upwind point/judges before the model gets there. The feet don't move during the figure, barring a disastrous glitch or wind problem, so that's a reference for exiting on the same track the figure was entered. Once through the intersection, I turn without making control inputs and follow the model down to make the recovery. (And, sometimes, this even works well.)

BTW, a light Flying Clown and baffle Fox 15 is not a bad combo. Use plenty of RPM - whatever prop and nitro it takes - and keep the lines about 52.5' - not longer unless it feels like you need longer lines.

Also, for better maneuverability, consider moving the CG back, closer to the rib high point. So many people automatically balance Clowns for Clown Racing - WA-AY forward.

\BEST\LOU

De Hill · May 03, 2006 04:57 PM

#13 source

Lou, which pattern are you talking about? The OTS pattern, or the Pampa pattern?

De Hill

Lou_Crane · May 04, 2006 12:06 PM

#14 source

Right, De!

I enter the OTS Overheads coming into the wind, so the intersections run downwind - that 'plants' with my -back- to the judges...

Good point!

\BEST\LOU

jrhoades · May 05, 2006 06:35 PM

#15 source

Ty,

I just read the OTS Rules in my 2006 PAMPA Reference Manual p41. Paragraph 3.0 Model Requirements states. "The model must have beeen designed, published or kitted prior to Dec. 31,1952. Eligible published designs must have been published with a COVER DATE prior to Dec. 31, 1952."

This is contradictory because a model would have had to be designed prior to the cut off date to meet a publishing cover date a couple months into 1953. However the fact that the rule is specific on the COVER DATE being prior to Dec. 31,1952 I think I would have to interperate that as meaning any plan published with a 1953 cover date ineligible even if it was obviously designed in 1952.

Jim Rhoades

Randy Smith · May 05, 2006 06:40 PM

#16 source

>Ty,
>
>I just read the OTS Rules in my 2006 PAMPA Reference Manual
>p41. Paragraph 3.0 Model Requirements states. "The model
>must have beeen designed, published or kitted prior to Dec.
>31,1952. Eligible published designs must have been
>published with a COVER DATE prior to Dec. 31, 1952."
>
>This is contradictory because a model would have had to be
>designed prior to the cut off date to meet a publishing
>cover date a couple months into 1953. However the fact that
>the rule is specific on the COVER DATE being prior to Dec.
>31,1952 I think I would have to interperate that as meaning
>any plan published with a 1953 cover date ineligible even if
>it was obviously designed in 1952.
>
>Jim Rhoades

Hi Jim

Not really , If it was truely designed in 1952 it can have a published date of 1966 or any other and still be legal for PAMPA OTS

Regards
Randy

Cowboystunt1 · May 05, 2006 06:45 PM

#17 source

So, you're saying unpublished designs that qualify could have been designed in Dec, 1952, but published designs would probably have had to be designed in Oct, 1952 or earlier. Doesn't sound entirely equitable does it. I'm not sure, however, that there are any designs that fall into this category. Know of any?

Randy C

ferocious · May 05, 2006 07:49 PM

#18 source

From what I've heard, the Thirteen was designed early, around 1948 maybe, but not published until the mid fifties, well past the 1952 cutoff. I imagine most places would let you fly it. It's obviously an Old Time design, smallish, Fox 35, no flaps.

Phil C

Jim Thomerson · May 05, 2006 08:31 PM

#19 source

What do published mean? Take the Zilch X for example; There is a photo of one in the October 1950 Model Airplane News. So was the airplane published in 1950, or does published refer to the construction article in the Feb. 1953 MAN?

I think the Cover Date thing is to say that if you have no more evidence than speculation about lead times etc. it is not legal. I agree that this is not competely rational, but we must have some standards (at least the ones I want to uphold. ) On the other hand, if you have evidence, beyond specualtion, that the airplane existed at least in design form, before the end of '52, then the date of publication is immaterial.

barenekd · May 07, 2006 01:22 PM

#20 source

The whole question comes down to differences in GSCB rules and PAMPA rules. The Veco Smoothie kit, AJ Fireball, and Sterling YAK-9 are listed as legal by GCSB. The TF Nobler is not. I have the GSCB list. It specifically states that the design must have been available in kit or plans form prior to December 31, 1952. In the real world, that probably would have included the February 1953 issues of the magazines, but those don't show up on their lists. It does not argue that the planes may have existed before then, only that plans or kits were available.
PAMPA has a much more liberal interpretation of the rules. PAMPA allows those that proof can be shown of their existance before 1953.
Bare

Barry Baxter
http://www.controllineplans.com

jrhoades · May 07, 2006 10:28 PM

#21 source

Randy C and Randy S & others,

I was trying to point out that there is an inconsistency in how that rules is worded. By the way, as I stated this was quoted directly from the OTS Rules in the latest PAMPA Reference Manual. The rule really needs to be rewritten to clear up the contradiction.

Jim Rhoades

ama21835 · May 11, 2006 08:31 PM

Viking, Humungus, and Jamison#22 source

I flew OTS quite a bit up until about 1992. When I returned last year, the most popular models included the Viking, Humungus, and Jamison, none of which I ever saw before.

What was the origin of these three, and where were they hiding?
I'm surprized how "new" models continue to appear, despite the relative small number of modeling publications.
------------------
footnote:

I'm browsing a December 1951 Model Airplane News. It includses a Peter Chinn review of the Cox Sportsman .15. Who'd have guessed it's so old?

dhutch · May 11, 2006 08:52 PM

RE: Viking, Humungus, and Jamison#23 source

I can personally vouch for the Jamison as I saw Bud Jamison fly the model at the All Western Open in July of 1948. It was powered by a spark ignition Orwick 64. I can also tell you how the Viking came to be as well, this also dating back to July 4th, 1948. Being old has it's value sometimes!

Don

Uncle Mikey · May 11, 2006 10:50 PM

RE: Viking, Humungus, and Jamison#24 source

The F-B Viking kit was widely advertised in model mags of the early '50s (along with their Vampire and Sharpy). The Humungous, a 1949 Ted Snow design, has been documented many times -- including a mid-'90s Stunt News feature I wrote that includes a rough sketch of the planform. Don already covered the Jamison. He wuz there!!!

Mike Keville

gcb · May 12, 2006 07:13 AM

RE: Viking, Humungus, and Jamison#25 source

...I'm browsing a December 1951 Model Airplane News. It
includses a Peter Chinn review of the Cox Sportsman .15. Who'd have guessed it's so old?

It isn't. You might want to see if the wrong cover is on that mag. The Sportsman and the Olympic came out in 1958, I believe. Never had a Sportsman but I had the Olympic.

George

ama21835 · May 12, 2006 01:55 PM

RE: Viking, Humungus, and Jamison#26 source

>It isn't. You might want to see if the wrong cover is on
>that mag. The Sportsman and the Olympic came out in 1958, I
>believe. Never had a Sportsman but I had the Olympic.
>
>George

I stand corrected, that was a loose page from Septm 1960 slipped into the issue. I also had an Olympic by never a Sportsman. I wish I had treated it better. So it goes, the TeeDee X-ed 'em both out before long.

Jim Thomerson · May 12, 2006 06:37 PM

RE: Viking, Humungus, and Jamison#27 source

To answer a question asked above. George Aldrich and I were both students at the University of Texas in 1955. I was introduced to George by Charles "Sonny" Mullin, also a student. I spent a good bit of time the summer of 1955 hanging out at George's apartment. During that time he built a Nobler from scratch using a copy of the MAN plans. It took him a week. He worked on the airplane probablaly 14 - 16 hours a day. It was covered in yellow Jap tissue and mostly painted metallic purple, with some of the yellow left for trim. The letters and numbers were hand painted, which George said judges liked to see. He flew it perhaps a 8 or 10 times, including, as best I can recall, a complete pattern (I was not real familiar with the pattern, but I distinctly remember vertical and overhead 8's) wind flying with a dead engine. He sold the airplane to a rich kid we knew, who promptly demolished it.

The other CL airplane I saw him build was a Foxy with the same airfoil as the present day Flitestreak. It was powered with a McCoy SuperStunt 35 (36?) and turned very tight. George also built several free flights that summer and got me started flying free flight.