Classic Contests and Fidelity scores.......

After being out for a while (5 Years away from contests) I saw the "Fidelity" section on the Classic score sheet for the first time at my first contest upon returning. I could not tell that the "Fidelity" score was any different from the points I was awarded for "Appearance". (They were the same...??)
How do most judges score this, and what criteria is used?
Curious
Thanks!
Bill

From the PAMPA Rules for Classic Stunt...

4. Fidelity points from 0 to 20 will be awarded for fidelity to the concept of the original design and confirmation to the spirit of the event. Obvious and/or gross distortions of the original design of any eligible model in order to gain an actual or perceived performance advantage over the original design will also be subject to reduction of fidelity points. Again the decision as to the level of distortion and the penalty appropriate for such will be at the discretion of the on-site official and not subject to dispute.

Hey Bill,

I, too, was first confused by these points. I lost 5 points at an ATL contest with my Chip because it didn't have wheel pants, and the original did. Good example of how they work. I'm not sure how things like modern upgrades that are legal, but visible, affect the score, like pinned hinges vs cloth, stuff like that.

Also not sure if paint scheme makes any difference. FWIW my Chip is in original colors. Honestly, I don't know how standardized the grading is for fidelity points. Don't think it really needs to be all legalized, I like to fly stunt more than scale...and would hate to get deductions since my nobler doesn't fly like George's, know what I mean?

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the post of the rules. I'm not trying to ne argumentative, but they don't really tell me the criteria for assigning points, am I making sense?

Do they assume that the judge has a wealth of knowledge on every model that is Classic legal? How do you score Gordon's VUM 18? I doubt that a judge at a local contest would have ever seen the original, so how are the deviations from "original" known? Seems like the contestant would need documentation like in scale.

I have a Spacehound built to the exact dimensions from the "era" plans. Right down to the color scheme and markings, except my AMA number is substituted for Sirotkin's Russian number. It even has MOCKBA (Moscow) on the wing. It has a ST 46 instead if the MVVS (and the engine is hidden), and I used a block canopy in place of a clear plastic one.
With this in mind, what "deductions" should be made?

Again, I am not trying "to start anything", just curious in case I am ever in the position to have to judge.

"Inquiring minds want to know!" LOL!!
Thanks,
Bill

>Hi Bob,
>
>Thanks for the post of the rules. I'm not trying to ne
>argumentative, but they don't really tell me the criteria
>for assigning points, am I making sense?
>
>Do they assume that the judge has a wealth of knowledge on
>every model that is Classic legal? How do you score
>Gordon's VUM 18? I doubt that a judge at a local contest
>would have ever seen the original, so how are the deviations
>from "original" known? Seems like the contestant would need
>documentation like in scale.
>
>I have a Spacehound built to the exact dimensions from the
>"era" plans. Right down to the color scheme and markings,
>except my AMA number is substituted for Sirotkin's Russian
>number. It even has MOCKBA (Moscow) on the wing. It has a ST
>46 instead if the MVVS (and the engine is hidden), and I
>used a block canopy in place of a clear plastic one.
>With this in mind, what "deductions" should be made?
>
>Again, I am not trying "to start anything", just curious in
>case I am ever in the position to have to judge.
>

You are correct that the criteria is not there, and that, perhaps, is a weakness in the system. It is my understanding that fidelity means being true to the outside dimensions of the design, including using open bay ribs when the origial design was so built (not sheeted foam, or some such). It does not go into internal structure which can be changed either for weight savings, simplicity, or strength.

Having the contestant bring the plans to document an "unknown" design might be a good idea, even though there is no requirement for doing so. But I remember Ted judging the Old Time event at the Nats a few years back when Matt entered, and he simply walked up before the first flight and said something like, "Don't be offended, but I ask every contestant this: Did you make any changes to the design?" Well, this one was so "true to scale" that it had fixed leadouts as shown on the plan, no adjustable tip weight (both of which, I now say, should be included and are perfectly legal), the tank was set in permanent as on the plans (a mistake) and the gear was attached as on the plans (also a mistake). But he could honestly say, "There were no changes" even though any of the above changes can be made since they are internal or structural.

Later versions had changes to the construction of the rudder and flaps in additon to the above, but outside dimensions were retained as well as all open bays, so they still qualified as such.

I would prefer to see classic revert to the 40 point system for appearence. Ten each for finish, workmanship, realism and replace originality with fidelity. That's how it was back then. I never understood why it was changed. Probably judges at early classic (then nostalgia) contests just didn't remember or never knew about the 40 point system. It would set the classic event apart from modern stunt. Maybe we should bring back the starting points and hand signal too! I suppose I should quit whining and send in a proposal to Alice.

>I would prefer to see classic revert to the 40 point system
>for appearence. Ten each for finish, workmanship, realism
>and replace originality with fidelity. That's how it was
>back then. I never understood why it was changed. Probably
>judges at early classic (then nostalgia) contests just
>didn't remember or never knew about the 40 point system. It
>would set the classic event apart from modern stunt. Maybe
>we should bring back the starting points and hand signal
>too! I suppose I should quit whining and send in a proposal
>to Alice.

Yes, John, do it. I like your idea. And, if deviations are allowed, fidelity could even go with a range of +10 (for the full 40 possible) to -10 when major "alterations" (like equal wing panels when the original had offset) are made. And, again, fidelity should go to outside dimensions, and using a built up wing construction if the original was so built (not sheet covered foam), and not whether or not the same size spars were used or the same thickness of plywood, or deductions made because carbon fiber was used for reinforcement.

Go for it. I think this proposal, written properly, would have support. It brings back the very flavor that classic is all about.

>
>Yes, John, do it. I like your idea. And, if deviations are
>allowed, fidelity could even go with a range of +10 (for the
>full 40 possible) to -10 when major "alterations" (like
>equal wing panels when the original had offset) are made.
>And, again, fidelity should go to outside dimensions, and
>using a built up wing construction if the original was so
>built (not sheet covered foam), and not whether or not the
>same size spars were used or the same thickness of plywood,
>or deductions made because carbon fiber was used for
>reinforcement.
>
>Go for it. I think this proposal, written properly, would
>have support. It brings back the very flavor that classic
>is all about.

John and Leonard,

I agree with what you both say. Also, if there are to be points for "fidelity", then I also think that some form of documentation should be required. I have never understood how a judge is supposed to determine "fidelity" of a plane that he might not have ever seen befor nor have any idea what the original really looked like.

Thanks, Keith, for stating your view on this. I had the same idea in mind when I posted this, but wasn't "sure" of the scoring system, etc..
Under the present rules, it seems to me that a "high" score would have to be given in most cases unless the contestant tells the judges about any changes made that would down grade the "fidelity". (??)
In other words, how many of our volunteer judges (who NEVER get enough credit) were around to actually see the older planes and can go on "sight" memory as to the "correctness" of the model presented?
Seems like some clarification of the rule is in order.
Either way I am building the old planes that I like to the original specs, and loving it!
And no I do not know of any "blatant" rules infractions, so I have no cross to bear.
Thanks, guys!
Bill

A question: How did (back then) and how does one (now) one judge "Realism"?

If two contestants were to show up, one with a Parrot P47, the other with a Scarinzi Trident/U-Name-It, does the guy with the P47 get more realism points? A Trident, though very cool, sure doesn't look like any real plane that I know of.

I do like this idea of substituting fidelity for originality.

Rick Campbell

>A question: How did (back then) and how does one (now) one
>judge "Realism"?
>
>If two contestants were to show up, one with a Parrot P47,
>the other with a Scarinzi Trident/U-Name-It, does the guy
>with the P47 get more realism points? A Trident, though very
>cool, sure doesn't look like any real plane that I know of.
>
>I do like this idea of substituting fidelity for
>originality.
>
>Rick Campbell

I know we can get into many arguments with this, but "back then" realism was a part of the point system and designers did, for the most part, work in that direction. My own interpretation is that it doesn't have to look like a real P-51 or Bearcat, but just that it should be made to look like it could have been a piloted airplane. Add machine guns (well, not to an Ares) rivets, fuel caps, wing walks, inspection plates, "no step" markings--just little things that add to the realism of what it could have had if it were a real airplane. A scalle-like P-51 may get more realism points than, say, a super polished Ares or Tucker Special with the above mentioned details, but the Ares or Tucker Special may get more points in finish. Workmanship--that can go either way. Fidelity, that should be a given.