Classic Stunt?

Is the pattern for "Classic Stunt" the same as the pattern for "Modern Stunt"?

Yes.

Question:
In the classic era, the rule book showed 40 points for apperanace. 10 for finish, 10 for workmanship, 10 for realism and 10 for originality. Why do we only have 20 today? If we had 40, it would set the Classic event apart from PAMPA modern stunt. We could substitute fidelity for originality.

>Question:
>In the classic era, the rule book showed 40 points for
>apperanace. 10 for finish, 10 for workmanship, 10 for
>realism and 10 for originality. Why do we only have 20
>today? If we had 40, it would set the Classic event apart
>from PAMPA modern stunt. We could substitute fidelity for
>originality.

John

I like your idea. My only thought would be to find a substitute for "realism". Since I am a full-scale airplane kind of guy I like the idea of a "realistic" appearing airplane, however I'm not sure how to quantify "realism".

I suppose that it would not be any more difficult to quantify "realism" than it is to quantify the others. Maybe it would work anyway.

Bill Byles

John,
The appearance points were reduced for the same reasons that people cry about them today. The problem is that the 4 catagories were then changed to "appearance". With no direction, we have the current arguements. When "Classic" was created it was just easier to use the pattern and appearance per the modern rules. This really hurts nothing.
The current pattern really needs the 4 catagories to be included in the "guidelines" as what to look for. This can be done without actually going back to 4 catagories.
Don't forget that there is a movement to try to forget "appearance" altogether. Personally I wish people would freeze the rules, except for any safety issues that might come up with.
I can also see Bill's point on realism, but this will always be up to an individual's opinion. We can all remember people saying that the "Nobler" didn't look like a real airplane... I guess those people never saw a "Caudron".

I too would like to see a return the original criteria where the airplane itself in its execution could potentially weight the score with the full value of 1 maneuver. I've heard the arguement that this is a flying event, "Precision Aerobatics" and that it should be judged on that basis. Sorry guys, it was originally conceived otherwise and I think it should stay that way.
The event was obviously conceived as one of both craftsmanship and piloting ability. That's the way I always saw it and the way I'd like it to be now. If someone isn't a good builder but is a good pilot he could still place or win on his piloting skills. In the same way a good builder that wasn't such a good pilot more or less got a handycap for his high quality model. Either way the point that seems to be missed was that the event was originally supposed to stimulate both good piloting and building skills. I'm an old goat and I think it still should, that's the event I grew up with and love.

Even if it were placed back at 40 points the super flyers still couldn't be beaten by a looker. The super builder/flyers would still dominate the event, and the builders still come away with some recognition.

The Nobler I remember, as mentioned, was said to be unrealistic. It always reminded me of a quasi-Corsair, and even if it wasn't it still looked like you could get in it and fly it. Realism is also part of the detail someone puts into his model, cockpit, control surface outlines, placards and warnings etc., all add to that if they are done well and look stupid if they're not. Realism isn't diffcult to judge. Of course I guess it should also be remembered that in the late 40's and early 50's most youngsters flying models were also interested in full sized aircraft and participated and other events like scale and carrier. I remembering imagining myself in the cockpit of my models well into my 20's. I guess allot of that fascination is gone and that's too bad. Still, if you're going to fly an event like Classic Stunt, all the original criteria should be in the event.

All IMHO

Hof, et al

(Al who?)
Classic, originally called Nostalgia, is a consequence of the early and natural popularity of OTS, as developed ny the Garden State Circle Burners by the end of the 1970's.

GSCB OTS was initially a Club event, for fun, recereating for the guys who were around "back then" but hadn't built some of the models they drooled over...

The key idea was personal enjoyment, from actually building and flying (in low-stress competition) treasured memories. The flight pattern was by the AMA 1951-1952 Competition Rulebook, which had wording that conflicted with the diagrams, and wording and diagrams that didn't define important things to know about how to fly the pattern. Remember, we were just emerging from the earlier era of "STUNT" where things were more like the oriental acrobats doing daring and amazing things for fun and fame...

Anyhoo, GSCB OTS struck a responsive chord at the dawn of the nostalgic era, and spread quickly. I don't recall whether Classic/Nostalgia had much activity before VSC #1, but if I recall it, the PAMPA SN announcements indicated that a "low-stress, fun" event like OTS, but using models designed 25 or more years before the contest year would also be flown, using the current AMA pattern for flight and safety rules. The rest is history. About the only significant changes have been to rename it Classic, and to set 1970 as cut-off year for eligible designs.

Using AMA current PA main event rules simplifies finding competent and willing judges for the Classic event -- a little, anyway. The figure scoring, and appearance judging are the same. Safety procedures, too. No surprises, No retraining. (Most use the Skill Classes idea of zip appearance points for flying an OP, right?)

Neither OTS nor Classic are official AMA events, and let's not change that. However, Classic still reflects current AMA event rules. It would change as they do.

Note: Only Dirty Dan gave the correct answer. A master of KISS, but never kissed. I don't know what any of that means.

You're right Ty, I got caught up in the moment.

Hi Randy et al, I am curious to see if Classic/ Nostalgia patterns are the same for Beginers or do they, Beginners, fly the "Beginner" pattern? Phil Spillman

LAST EDITED ON May-28-03 AT 01:39 AM (CDT)
 
Ola Pancho. I guess I'll anwer this one. There is a seperate Beginner Pattern. It goes like this: 1. Take off & level flight. (1 lap steady climb, then 2 laps level flight at 4 to 6 feet). 2. 1 wing over. 3. 3 inside loops. 4. 3 outside loops. These loops may be entered from the top, upright, or from the bottom inverted. 5. 2 inside square loops. 6. 2- horizontal 8's. 7. 2 overhead 8's. 8.landing. The tops of the loops, horizontal eights and square are at 45 degrees from the pilots point of view. The top of the circle is of course at 90 degrees.

If I recall, the only contest I have seen where skill classes were flown in classic was at Brodak's. Someone might confirm this.

But not at the Nats, FCM, or any of the local events I have attended.

Hay Phil!!

Sounds like a loaded question to me, but on the outside chance you're serious Curt Nixon has answered the question in response 11.

Are you coming to our meet this year? Haven't recieved the sanction yet but expect it soon. Hopefully we'll still have a field.