Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 11 of 11 known posts recovered
Mike Lauerman
OTS would be an entirely other issue. Under GSCB rules the answer could be no. Under PAMPA rules, the answer would be maybe, if you can document the enlargement.
The reason to build isn't really tied to these issues though. You are building it because somthing about it inspires you, and that's good. I'd say build it, fly it, and don't worry about whether it fits the rules.
You could also use the basic outlines and create a new plane to use in PAMPA class competition. That would be super. Whatever you do, build and enjoy.
I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?
John Miller
Scale-ups (or downs) aren't generally allowed. It's an interesting idea that has been tossed around (FF Old-Time allows this under some conditions), but so far no one has really gone for it.
Brett
I've located an exotic stunt design in a circa early-'50's Model Aeronautic Yearbook by Frank Ziac. Guarenteed with out question to garner everyone's attention at VSC.
But all there is is a three view with enough primary dimensions and notes to direct design and construction of an airframe. Not a word in the text, although that is not unusual, Ziac included lots of 3-views that he did not discuss in the text.
Is that sufficient proof of existance in early 1950 to qualify?
Or do I gotta prove one got built and was flown?
Or, given the spirit of VSC, if I show up with one, will it be welcomed as an example of what was being discussed at the time?
Cy
PAMPA OTS rules apply at VSC. The PAMPA OTS model requirements are:
"The model must have been designed, published or kitted prior to December 31, 1952. Eligible published designs must have been published with a cover date prior to Dec 31, 1952."
The rule says it must have been designed prior to the cut off date. The rule does not require that it had to have been built prior to that date. So, if the plans/drawings appear in a publication prior to that date, it would be PAMPA OTS legal.
The 51-52 Zaic Yearbook had a 1952 copyright with a forward by Frank Zaic dated March 1952. If your design came from that yearbook, it would be legal for PAMPA OTS. I would be interested if you have a Zaic Yearbook prior to his 51-52 edition that has any control line models shown. Or is the design from a later yearbook that referenced in the notes on the plans that it was designed prior to the cut off date?
If you are looking one of the CL designs in these Yearbooks that does not show a landing gear, the PAMPA rules allow for this, but a landing gear must be added and must be "consistent with the prevailing takeoff/landinggear used on similarly configured model designs of the era...." The rule further explain the LG requirements for such designs.
Keith
The design is in the 1953 yearbook, actually. Most of the book is, of course, free flight. (If you love something, set it free...) Many of the designs in there are stated in the text as having been build and/or competed in 1952, as the '53 yearbook is a complilation of the prior year's activities.
As for this specific design, there are no date notes on the three view and the © is 1953 on the book, so I guess it's not OTS legal.
Not that it matters much. The design is certainly classic legal which means I could bring it to VSC if I got it built and show it off. It's not at all like I'm going to threaten anyone trying to take home a trophy in any category.
I guess the question is: Are a set of three view drawings and a few notes enough documentation to make it a design? The notes say to use an 'All American' style wing. Wing planform has a bit of taper in the threeview and the All American kit I have is constant chord, so I'm guessing the designer wants builders to incorporate similar airfoil and structural process to the planform and layout shown.
Yes, it has wheels.
Cy
Dont worry about the mule going blind 'til you get the cart loaded!
Larry,
The PAMPA OTS rules were changed for situations like this. The sentence in the OTS rules that applies here is:
"The model must hsve been designed, published or kitted prior to December 31 1952."
This sentence was added to allow those airplanes that were published after December 1952, but actually were designed prior to that date. Until PAMPA changed that rule, there were a number of airplanes that clearly were from the "old time era", but could not qualify for the OTS event. But these "old time era" designs would not be competitive in the classic event with the result that a lot of interesting airplanes would not ever be built. The changed PAMPA rule allows these airplanes, and the event is better for it.
The 1953 Zaic Yearbook was copyrighted in 1953. The Foreword in that Yearbook was dated May, 1953. I think that any OTS CD would rule that any control line design that came from that Yearbook would be PAMPA OTS legal in that it would be impossible for this model to have been entirely designed, built and flown as this one evidently was, and the drawing prepared for the Yearbook after December, 1952.
The drawing of that model in the Yearbook would be sufficient "proof of eligibility" for OTS. The rule states:
"Proof of eligibility lies with the contestant. Challenged contestants may show dated published plans, magazine construction articles, dated photographs and/or letters of confirmation of the date of the design." Your copyrighted Yearbook with the dated Forword should be sufficient proof that this model was designed prior to December 1952.
You might want to check with the Cholla Choppers in Tucson just to make sure that they will not find something that would prevent this from being flown in the OTS event at VSC.
The drawings show more than enough construction detail. Make sure you incorporate the taper that is shown. The drawing shows the airfoil well enough that I think you should be able to closely represent it. It appears that the airfoil thickness percentage decreases toward the tip, so this should also be duplicated to the accuracy that you can measure on the front view of these drawings. And also, incorporate the dihedral that is shown, not just because the plans show it but this airplane will really need dihedral to get the leadouts near the vertical CG.
Great find! Go for it!!
Keith
Thanks, Keith.
I've even got an engine for it.
Obviously you have figured out which design I'm talking about.
I appreciate your not saying any more. I wanted to keep the concept under wraps.
One of the great delights of VSC is the unusual designs that show up unnannounced.
The "Flying Star" of last year was a good example.
Will let the forum know more when the time comes.
Just enough time left to build one.
Cy.
In PAMPA OTS, there is a list of "Allowable Modifications" that can be made to an OTS design. That list does not include scaling up or down any of the basic dimensions of the original design. The rules further state that "No modifications, other than those listed above, shal be permitted. Any modifications (other than those listed in section 3.1)... shall be grounds for disqualification; ... This includes, but is not limited to: ... size, ..."
The PAMPA rules for Classic Stunt do not specifically mention scaling up or down from the original design. The rules do specify the following:
"1. The purpose of the event is to encourage the construction and flying of control line stunt models designed, published or kitted prior to the year 1970. ..."
"2. It is expected that contestants will comply with the spirit of the event and enter only qualifying models which as closely as possible accurately reflect the aerodynamic layout and apparance of the original. ... it is suggested that contestants provide reasonable proof that the model presented was actually flown during the period of eligibility...and that the model accurately represents the model as flown during that period."
I would guess that the intent here is subject to interpretation, but I would think any scaling up or down of an original design is not in compliance "with the spirit of the event". If I were a CD or Event Director and such a model was presented, I believe I would rule that it was not in keeping with the spirit of the event. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and I believe such a model crosses that line and should not be classic eligible.
Keith