OTS ... Firecat ?

I was actually on the scene, pre-1952. I have absolutely no memory of the Firecat existing as (whoops, left off "published design, OR") a kit before 1955 or 1956! Never heard of it by 1952, never saw any photos before then, nothing . . it was a comparative "late-comer," contemporary with the Flite Streak. No matter whose rules, December 31, 1952, is the cutoff.

Kiwi

As I understand it, the basic difference between PAMPA and GSCB rules is on eligibility of airplanes for OTS. The GSCB rules say an airplane must have been published or kitted before Dec 31, '52. There is an official list of GSCB legal airplanes. It is of course incomplete, and I understand that additions are made when warrented. I am not clear as to what is ment by published. My assumption has been that it means published plans only, but I have not been able to verify this.

PAMPA rules require that the airplane be designed before Dec.31, '52. Some sort of documentation is required, for example a statement by the designer. GSCB concern with this is that it can lead to reproductions that are not faithful to the original airplane, but rather incorporate "modern design improvements", for example, a thicker airfoil, changed moments, etc. There is validity to this concern. However, I see some GSCB advocates developing a legalistic frame of mind that I do not think is in accord with the spirit of the event.

To me, one of the great challenges of OTS is to come up with something unique, and make it work. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of pre-Dec.31, '52 airplanes, many that placed or won important contests, that were not kitted nor published. PAMPA rules allow the recovery of these historic airplanes which under GSCB rules remain forever lost. I see this virtue as far outbalancing concern about faulty reproduction.

The PAMPA rules are explicit, in contrast to the GSCB rules, as to what modifications may or may not be done to an OTS airplane. I appreciate these explicit guidelines. Basically, any airplane that is legal under GSCB rules is also legal under PAMPA rules, but the reverse may not be true.

My opinion is that the GSCB rules were entirely appropriate for the early days of the event, but the PAMPA rules are more appropriate for the event as it has developed. Unfortunately, the opposing philosophies are strongly held on both sides, and no union seems possible. This is too bad.

OTS is said to be a "fun event". I have a hard time understanding this, as all events are "fun events", so far as I am concerned. Perhaps what is ment is that OTS is, and should be, less precise and formal, more open to individual interpetation, than present day precision aerobatics. If so, I have some difficulty dealing with OTS because I am mentally constipated by my experience in flying the modern event.

Note that this is what I think, not immutable laws of the universe.

Of course you can modify an airplane as you wish for sport flying or for competition in PAMPA events other than OTS or Classic. I've never seen Classic judged for authenticity. It's been for appearance like in the modern AMA event.

One thing that bugs me a little. I started flying CL in 1953, so OTS is a historical event for me. But there are a number of interesting airplanes that fall into the Classic period but probably cannot be made competitive. One example is the Zilch X-pendable. I built one of these in the 50's and made a couple of laps with it before the humongous wing warp got it. I built another, with a straight wing, a couple of years ago. I'm still fiddling with it, but I doubt I'll ever get it flying well enough to fly in Classic.

JAK, I do not see that you are a PAMPA member; if you have joined recentely, or will join, you will have an opportunity to read the PAMPA rules in their entirety. I am sorry to dispute you, but the PAMPA rules say that the airplane must have been designed before December 31, 1952. That is the indisputiable truth of the matter. I believe you have confused the GSCB rules, which do require that the airplane be published or kitted before Dec. 31, 1952, with the PAMPA rules.

The first, and necessary, prerequisite to learning is to understand and accept that your knowledge of the subject is at best incomplete, and at worst, dead wrong.

I'm a PAMPA member Jim, I first joined back in 1989, read your current membership list again. You might try following your own advice yourself first.
Not that I see where PAMPA membership has any relevence to this whatsoever.
And my point is still just as valid as it was before. The Firecat is not OTS legal, no matter which set of rules one uses UNLESS you can produce substantive evidence that it was around prior to the cutoff date, the letter from Bob Smurthwaite would make me feel a lot better about the design if I could look at it personally. I still have some letters from him in my files somewhere. People's memories as to dates are often very unreliable, especially after several decades have elapsed. This is a VERY poor rule, for several reasons. For one thing, according to the way it's worded, unless a person has the original letter from the designer, or a xerox or other direct copy of it it still isn't legal under PAMPA rules. Far as I can tell, nobody has reproduced this letter anywhere yet. Second, how would anyone know the "designer" really wrote the letter, or even exists at all, or that the design wasn't dreamed up last week, and he just said he did it in 1951? I could scratch something up and present a letter myself saying I did it back in 1951, or have my buddy Joe Schmoe sign a letter for me saying he did it. Joe might build model sailboats or railroads for all the judges know.
I am only applying the same set of standards I use for Scale or Carrier. There, one has to provide proof to the judges that what you have built is a replica of an actual aircraft as it existed in a particular time frame, otherwise no points.
Since Bob Smurthwaite was an associate of Jim Walker for several years, and worked for his American Jr. company at one time, I find it very curious that if the design really were around before the cutoff date, why it took so long to appear as a kit. It does seem an earlier version of his (Smurthwaite's) Cobra/Sabre/Swift trio which appeared in the late '50s (with throttle control), but not that much earlier. The design was never popular in it's heyday, and faded away after a rather brief production life.
It doesn't make any difference to me if the GSCB and PAMPA rules are merged (although that might be a good idea to come up with one set standard), one still should follow the intent of the event, otherwise we can all just fly anything at all and say it's OTS.

See you!,

I spoke to him at length about OTS, several years ago at his hobby shop. He said that his intention was to introduce an event that was FUN and LOW PRESSURE, because technology would be limited. I don't think that he was thinking about carbom-fiber molded construction for, All American Seniors!

My understanding of the reason for the "as published' rule was that John forsaw the tendency, for at leaste some of us, to modify or modernize the old designs in an effort to improve the flyability. Once the rules were codified, this rengeneering became 'cheating'.

The 'as published' rule also tends to keep the event 'simple'.
"If it aint there it aint fair."

The Pampa rules differ in that they allow people to reconstruct planes using our leaste dependable asset, our memory!

All to many of these 'remembered' planes seem to have modern airfoils, long moments, big wings, etc. I'm sure you get my point!

In some ways, the split between the traditional (GSCB) rules and PAMPA"S rules looks like a bit of the old East Coast vs West Coast thing but who knows?

What some of us DO SEE, is flyers continualy coming up with what appear to be very advanced designs, that they claim are legal but that almost nobody else knows about.

In the end, we fly by the contest directors chosen rules and try to win.

I agree, and that is the only reason I fly at all. However, IF we are going to have a set of rules for the event, no matter if GSCB or PAMPA, then we need to abide by them. This has been my point all along. In the case of the Firecat, the documentation that appears to exist is a letter from Bob Smurthwaite, which at present is not in the public venue. The only models that would meet the rules as written are ones built by the gentleman that has the original letter, or folks he gave a copy of it to. It is a nebulous and poor rule at best. I understand what they were trying to achieve, and I agree with it and applaude it, but the way they worded it is a nightmare.
Until the letter is common property to anyone who wants to enter a Firecat in OTS, the design is NOT legal even under PAMPA rules, to say nothing of GSCB ones.
Even then, it is still a very badly conceived rule for reasons I stated previously.

JK

Considering that the Fireball was the first ever U/C model and sold well for many years, and Walker had items like his rubber-band folding wing catapult glider, ceiling walker, U-Reely handle, and the 1/2A Firebaby, etc., some of which sold in the tens of thousands of units (or MUCH more), well into the '60s, and the fact there were many small firms which sprang up and operated on a shoestring budget in this period, (such as Hal DeBolt's DEMECO, which started in his garage, and became very successful), I find that arguement very weak.
As an addition to this, I seem to recall an article perhaps in Air Trails many years gone, which stated Jim Walker's American Junior Mfg. Co. was one of the most successful and largest local employers in the hobby field in that era.

Here is another speculation. Jim Walker was a businessman, and as such was interested in profit. The Ringmaster demonstrated that there was a huge market for a profile, relatively simple, 35-size stunt/combat airplane. I don't recall very many profile CL kits before the Ringmaster. Maybe, with his focus on other products, Walker had not realized that the market existed. I can picture him saying to himself, "You dummy, you didn't see the wave.", and pulling the Firecat out of the closet.

Probably ought to start another thread on this. I'd put the Ringmaster right after the invention of the glow plug in importance in the history of CL. First, there have probably been more Ringmasters built and flown than any other CL design. Secondly, the plethora of profile airplanes in CL can almost all trace their genesis to the success of the Ringmaster. I don't particularly care for the airplane, but what do I know?

As Jake wrote this statement, "local" is an important word. How many hobby manufacturers would there have been in the P'land area? Not many. Hobby shops typically wouldn't employ more than a total of 4 to 6. I think the production of all those Interceptors and Ceiling Walkers would keep them hopping. The market for those was very broad, as they could be sold in all the 5 & Dimes and Mom & Pop Markets across the country. As I recall, JW was very busy flying R/C and perhaps was trying to develop a market and products for a fledgling branch of the hobby. But for whatever the reason, business have priorities and decisions have to be made for a multitude of reasons and speculation isn't proving a darned thing. I hope Scott can provide some information on AJ and perhaps settle this, but his appointment for being sliced and diced is coming up pretty quick. Steve

I'm sorry I am coming in late on this one, but I don't know anything useful about the OTS allowability of the Firecat.

As far as PAMPA and GSCB coming to agreement on rules, the short answer is that it doesn't seem likely anytime soon. John Miske has been approached several times about altering the rules or coming to some compromise over his original concept for legality. So far, he still thinks he had it right to begin with, and no changes are required. He invented the whole thing, so I'm not inclined to argue with him.

PAMPA/VSC (primarily Mike Keville), have opted to allow more inclusive posture and not spend a lot of time worrying about what's legal/not legal. It's obviously not entirely unambiguous, and allows the possibility of someone getting away with something, if they were so inclined. I haven't seen much of that, frankly, most airplane guys are pretty honest. The GSCB rules are better rules in the sense that they are definitive, but they also limit the designs to only those airplanes published and also approved as "legal" (as "published" seems to be somewhat context-dependent). This makes it essentially static, since by now most of the designs that meet the rigid criteria are on the list already, so its tough to come up with something new.

The GSCB rules are more geared toward the competition aspect of OTS, and the PAMPA/VSC rules lead to more varied designs and not so much emphasis on the competition.

The rules differences are not a big deal as far as I can tell. If you live in New Jersey, don't build a Jameson Special. Otherwise, the rest of the country uses PAMPA rules (with a few exceptions), and so build anything you think you can document, and don't worry about it too much. The chances of getting DQ'ed are NOT real high!

If you don't like the PAMPA rules, there's a process to change them, so have at it. The GSCB rules can probably be changed with some process, find out what it is and go to the meetings. PAMPA seems to have little pull, and very little standing to change the GSCB rules.

It's just toy airplanes, and OTS is not the WC.