Classic ages

Is this a viable class? What should it be called?

See Ya

I am in favor of a new event since Classic hard liners can not be swayed to include the rolling cut off. Problem is getting all current popular events in over one weekend plus a new one. I would hate to leave out a popular event for a new one but then again Old Time participation has been down a bit locally the last few years. Hope Toms event pulls some weight. I know my club might be interested in a Nostalgia class.

John Sunderland

See Ya

Rich, how about a Classic+70's contest on Saturday for the next Palisades Park contest!? I already have something in mind for the contest.

And there you have the name for such a combined contest. CLASSIC PlUS.

A comp for only the later 70's designs could be called Nostalgia, or Golden Age.

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

I have no problem with adding contest classifications (profile, Bi-plane, canard, nostalgia, last ten years, whatever) and I am sure there are people who will show up for most classifications with a plane and enter. However, as noted, there is the problem of having few entries and running each as a separate entry. On the other hand, when you combine these, what about the person who wants to enter both Classic AND Nostalgia? Sure, his Classic era plane will qualify for Nostalgia, but how can he fly both events when you combine them? Now we have to bring a different plane for each event (well, you do for profile and bi-plane, too). But, if they are flown together, does this mean that he flies twice (or four times) with two different planes in the same evente because he is wanting to compete in each class? Or, if he brings the same plane, can he fly it four times (two for each class) in the same event.

"Are you ready judges? This flight is now for Nostalgia. Please mark it as such on your score sheets."

Perhaps you see the problem.

I can see where you're coming from, but fail to see the possible problem in the same way.

The simplest solution, where the two events are combined, would be to limit entry into one and only one of the categories. Such a choice wouldn't even be necessary if only 70's designs were allowed to fly in that class. It seems fair, as 70's designs are not allowed in Classic.

In the case of the latter, one could compete in both, should they want to, but would have to fly two different qualifying planes, and enjoy a hectic schedule I would suppose.

Additional events can be a problem logistically, but all events do not have to be offered at every contest do they?

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

Good idea Curt/Bob....I had forgotten that had been posed as a possible solution!

Some folks feel we entered a period where virtually all the competitive stunt ships looked the same - like they were made with a cookie cutter.. I don't know enough about it to comment.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"A friend might well be reckoned the masterpiece of nature." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

While there were some foam wing, punch 'em out, same-same designs, there were also some very cool planes.

I would really like to see many of those airplanes fly - I quit flying C/L in '73 and didn't fly much at all between '69 and '73. So I consider meself as having missed this era. How about just calling it "Post 1970 Classic???? The real qauestion here is how far forward to the present do we let it continue? 20 years before the present? So in 2004 that would make the cutoff 1984. Or 25 Years, 1979!

Jim Pollock , Len, looks like we need a smiley face that looks bewildered!

>
>What should it be called?

Neo-Classic

Cy

Still with the local scene, my second comment is that here in the NW we have a full plate with OTS and Classic on Saturday, four classes of PA on Sunday. With P-40 sticking its nose under the tent. And then there is Firecat Stunt. 1/2A Stunt. 1/2A Profile Stunt. Diesel Stunt. Bi-Slob Stunt. ARF-only Stunt. ARF-only Profile Stunt. ARF-only P-40. ARF-only Classic. Puke On Your Shoes Stunt. Okay, I am kidding about the last one. But all the others I have heard discussed.

So when it comes to adding new events, my response always is, "Great. Let's do it. Which existing event do we drop?" That leads to great consternation on the part of the proposer.

But it simply **must** be the approach we take. We're doing well with the three mentioned events. I don't mind coming up with a better overall package, but something has to give; and as none of the events is failing to meet our expectations, it is a very tough choice to make. So we don't, even if, much to my dismay, P-40 has established a presence in the last year or two.

They are? Examples, please.

>FIX
>IT! It's us who pay the entry fees so... if you want to
>stretch the category change its parameters! Who's game is it
>any way? So much dancing around the probblem and no guts to
>deal with the situation! Amazing! Same with OTS!

Uh, what the heck are you talking about? We have a process for both PAMPA and AMA rule changes that people have availed themselves of, or not. I might add that this process does not consist of decrees from on high from non-participants.

And what exactly is the issue with OTS? There are GSCB rules and slightly different PAMPA rules, but everybody seems to enjoy the event, and I see no problem at all with them coexisting.

I don't see much suffering in either OTS or Classic. They are well-defined, healthy events that serve the purpose of preserving the most innovative and colorful PA periods - the times when the widest variety of ships coexisted and completed a major evolutionary step.

If someone wants a new event, start one. No one needs to usurp some other event, which is what will inevitably happen when planes designed for larger engines get mixed in. If the rolling-cut-off-date folks are correct that all those Classic participants are suffering for a change, then of course the classic period planes will disappear and thus your happy-'70's planes will take over anyway. If it is true that only some old folks want to fly classic, then our passing will kill the classic planes too. I don't think that will be the case, but it would allow what that group wants without axing a great event. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM to be addressed in this way. You want it (the event)? Make it.

Bob Hunt's idea was a good compromise. The Classic period as presently defined, was covered well several months ago in SSW. Last arguments I heard against what several of us wrote went something like, "You shouldn't care if we bring in newer, bigger designs, because it's not the contest but the fun that counts. BUT we won't build a Stiletto, or whatever, unless we have a contest to fly." Go figure.

I dearly love the classic planes and want to fly them and see them flown. However, since I have only built one plane from those periods and haven't yet raised my flying standards high enough to want to compete, my arguments will probably be completely ignored again, and past this little missive, I have no desire to engage further. You guys fight it out - AGAIN. I just don't see creating a problem where there is none.

IMNRHO

SK

I suggest you go back and review the numerous threads on this topic from the past. This is hardly a new idea, in fact it goes back to the original definition of "Classic". The basic arguments in the past are identical to those here.

<< type "classic rolling cutoff" into the search field, select "and" instead of "or", and you'll get all definitive threads on the topic>>

Hunt, who was the primary advocate of a new event vice a return to the rolling cutoff, came up with the definitive name at the (I think) the 96 Nats - Super 70's. John Sunderland and I were in favor of rolling cutoff, as I recall.

It killed 15 minutes at the pilots meeting, at least. I don't have any strong feelings either way, but I still think putting in the rolling cutoff is better, and I still don't think the "Gemini" clone-of-the-month was as widespread as Bob claims (many counter-examples in the previous threads) or a good argument. I'd build a Sea Fury, probably, and I really don't think that's a "clone" of much of anything.

There's a way to proceed for those who really care one way or the other, just have to take advantage of it.

If that was the OTS issue to which you referred above, then there's an easy solution - get some people of a common mind and hold a contest under PAMPA instead of GSCB rules. It's really up to the people who do the work, of course. If it's your contest, you can do whatever you want.

There have been attempts to come to compromise between GSCB (primarily the inventor of the event John Miske) and PAMPA rules, but so far the gap in thinking is just too large to manage it. I don't think this is a disaster, since as far as I know there's only a conflict in a very small region around NJ. Everybody else uses PAMPA rules, as far as I know, and it's really not an issue.

Now that you are a director, you can take another shot at it. But I really don't see the common ground on which to compromise, and for sure we shouldn't do anything that makes currently flown OTS designs illegal by adding restrictions. That was the hold-up before.

Annual Tulsa Gluedobbers contest uses GSCB rules.

To each his own, I suppose.
Brett

There Yankees too, just like the 'Jersyan's

I really think that the rolling cut-off for Classic might be addressed again.....While Tom Dixon may be a little blunt in his proposals, he has a lot of good ideas.

See Ya

This one was so good that someone thought of it 15 or 20 years ago, since it was in the original rules! But I note that it hasn't actually been proposed through the channels that could implement it. Say, there's an idea that Tom managed to miss!

Hey Pancho,

We could have used your participation in OTS in Columbus last fall. Only three entries and all were El Diablos. You could have brought yours and kept Clyde, Jim and Wes company.

By the way, Good luck with your new position and I will be glad to send you a ton of pictures I took and or received from past District III events, mostly Brodaks. John had his own and wanted none of mine.

John S.

Regarding the OTS cut-off date... If the "Black Tiger" were OTS legal, would anyone fly it in OTS? Doubtful. Next to nobody flys any other flapped oldies against our PAMPA penalties! And yes, Phase two (OTS Flapped)lives in the N.E.! Did Miske know what he was doing? Everyone thought he did, but they had to make it better. Can anyone possibly explain to me why we should allow a wire Landing gear on an "All American"? Or an alumininum gear on a "Barnstormer"?

Fly watcha' got, and have fun!

p.s. This is Tom's contest that we are talking about and if wanted to have an event where we all crash our old planes into trash cans, and he could get people to sign up for it more power to him.