Classic or Nostalgia

With the long thread on adding more planes to classic, or a rolling cutoff or whatever- try this on for size:

Classic- a limited selection of truly classic designs, sort of a hall of fame, voted on by the PAMPA membership maybe every two years. Maybe the top 10 or 20 "classic" designs. Include a healthy slug of appearance points(maybe 50 or 100) for making it close to the original in design, construction, and execution, including using original engines, or close replicas. So a Nobler(no question that is a classic!!) with a Fox 35, covered in silk and dope would get upwards of 80-100 appearance points depending on how it is built and finished, but a similar Nobler with an auto body finish, a ball bearing engine, 4 inch bellcrank, adjustable controls, etc. would get only 20-30. A Brodak 40 would fit somewhere in between having a plain bearing, but using Schneurle porting.

Nostalgia- any design you want that you thought you really liked "when you were young, back in the good old days", with a guideline that it should be ordinarily at least 25 years old, unless the pilot is under 30. Same thing with appearance points- a healthy 50-100 pts. for building it "as original".

Both classes could be flown together, but obviously in the spirit of rule 2.x if you fly in both events you would have to fly two different airplanes.

How about just use a rolling 35 year spread to the current Classic catagory. So this year the cut-off would be 1969. Next year 1970. Etc.
Don't fiddle with the rules.

I'm not sure you would ever get consensus on what to include under your scheme. We can't get a majority on anything in this forum!

(Including cabbage soup receipes)

Well, a once a year fun fly with a one event "fly what yuh brung" and everyone flys in Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced or Expert. Bring proof your plane is as close to the original as possible with the PAMPA classic guidelines. Make this years cut off at 31 Dec 1974. That gives everyone a five year jump forward from 31 Dec 1969.

its obvious from the other thread that 1) people really don't want to change much. 2) they'd rather argue.

I don't see much problem having a "Classic" ballot in the November issue of Stunt News. Have a list of the current Classic planes. Argue and politic all year to include your favorite and then everybody votes on the list for next year.

Nostalgia is just that. Fly what brings "a tear" to your eye and have fun. Too many people want to turn it into a serious competition. That is what Expert is for. How do you measure how much fun people are having?

>its obvious from the other thread that 1) people really
>don't want to change much. 2) they'd rather argue.

It is not that people are against change. It uust seems that every time someone proposes a change on this forum, they want to take away something from what people already enjoy. To have a "list" of "approved" planes, even a list that changes every year, means that people cannot simply choose from an era. Sometimes the most interesting thing about these contests is seeing a plane that someone built that we haven't seen for a while.

Gentlemen, I like the current cut off date. It was approved by a rules committee. Certainly new events can be proposed. Certainly new events can even be flown at the discretion of the contest director. But watch with any proposals that you make that you do not do more harm to an event than good.

How about making last year's Nats the cut off date. You can always argue to include one more design. I don't know. As I said, I kind of like it as it is. My (kit built) Gieseke Nobler doesn't qualify, but so what?

>its obvious from the other thread that 1) people really
>don't want to change much. 2) they'd rather argue.

Good ideas are always welcome -there might be argument, but that's how you figure out if it's a good idea or not.

The "problem" in stunt is that the current set of ideas has been hashed and rehashed over a period of decades. Ideas that come out of left field, that don't address the generally-acknowledged problems with the current system, get met with little interest since those who have been working the issue for years know better. The fixed vs. rolling cutoff is an example of a known problem that has at least three potential paths for resolution, and the dabate continues of which of the three to pursue. In hopes that in the debate, which of the three is best can be generally agreed - or a different idea is raised that resolves the current deadlock. We are at this point right now on several topics- BOM, for instance.

The "approved classic plane list" is an example of the other kind of idea. OTS started that way. PAMPA and GSCB rules split over it, and PAMPA rules are close to universally preferred. As far as I can tell, the idea of now going back and putting the more-or-less rejected concept of a "list" into a different event is essentially DOA. It was tried, it didn't prove to be generally desirable in OTS for perfectly obvious reasons, and I and almost everyone else knows that the same reasoning applies for classic. It's a non-starter. To then use this as "proof" that "no one wants changes" and "just wants to argue" is absurd.

More generally, "shotgunning" ideas on a variety of topics, and hoping some of them hit, is not a particularly good way to get people to listen. After the first ten or twenty, there is a strong tendency to dismiss the idea based on where it originates. In a perfect world, every idea would be based on it's own merits. But human nature doesn't work that way.

It's even more so when an individual gets pigeonholed as a provocateur - e.g. "Stunt rules are terrible and should be completely re-written;discuss" or "Statistics say the scores are so crude we ought to award duplicate trophies to anyone within 3 sigma" - you know, that sort of thing. These aren't "ideas" or "proposals" - they are Baby Ruth bars in the swimming pool.

Stunt has gone far beyond the wild innovation stage that happens early in an event. No one with any sense of responsibility is going to jump into radical overhauls to something that has been carefully evolved over the period of decades to suit general preferences without a lot of refinement, field testing, and debate - particularly for solutions to things not generally recognized as problems.

My best advice to anyone who really want to contribute to stunt - first, get involved and learn what, why, and how things got to the way they are now. Once you have a good understanding of the current situation, attack some of the minor problems with reasoned proposals that address the individual problem without violating the basic precepts that made people change it to the way it is now. Good ideas that address both the current problem and the historical problems at the same time will be greatly appreciated.

> It's even more so when an individual gets pigeonholed as
>a provocateur - e.g. "Stunt rules are terrible and should be
>completely re-written;discuss" or "Statistics say the scores
>are so crude we ought to award duplicate trophies to anyone
>within 3 sigma" - you know, that sort of thing. These aren't
>"ideas" or "proposals" - they are Baby Ruth bars in the
>swimming pool.

Having a rolling cut off date for Classic stunt is not a "Baby Ruth bar in the swimming pool". Jeez...

...and you are right Phil, very few want anything to change, at least until they stop flying competively (and some, believe it or not, after that!)

It just seems so silly...

>> It's even more so when an individual gets pigeonholed as
>>a provocateur - e.g. "Stunt rules are terrible and should be
>>completely re-written;discuss" or "Statistics say the scores
>>are so crude we ought to award duplicate trophies to anyone
>>within 3 sigma" - you know, that sort of thing. These aren't
>>"ideas" or "proposals" - they are Baby Ruth bars in the
>>swimming pool.
>
>Having a rolling cut off date for Classic stunt is not a
>"Baby Ruth bar in the swimming pool". Jeez...

Which is why I used it as an example of a current proposal that is undergoing the proper debate, instead of an example of a pointless provocation. This thread is about "fixed list of designs for classic" , DOA for obvious reasons and a good example of an idea that is going nowhere. Do try to keep up.

>.and you are right Phil, very few want anything to change,
>at least until they stop flying competively (and some,
>believe it or not, after that!)
>
>It just seems so silly...

Yes, reading comprehension skills in this country have really gone down hill.

>Which is why I used it as an example of a current proposal
>that is undergoing the proper debate, instead of an example
>of a pointless provocation. This thread is about "fixed list
>of designs for classic" , DOA for obvious reasons and a good
>example of an idea that is going nowhere. Do try to keep
>up.

> Yes, reading comprehension skills in this country have
>really gone down hill.

You must make a lot of friends with that constant condescension.

Simply not necessary.

>
>>Which is why I used it as an example of a current proposal
>>that is undergoing the proper debate, instead of an example
>>of a pointless provocation. This thread is about "fixed list
>>of designs for classic" , DOA for obvious reasons and a good
>>example of an idea that is going nowhere. Do try to keep
>>up.
>
>> Yes, reading comprehension skills in this country have
>>really gone down hill.
>
>You must make a lot of friends with that constant
>condescension.
>
>Simply not necessary.

Then READ AND UNDERSTAND posts before you make a wiseguy response. Much better to post sensible and responsive replies based on the content, than to post something that doesn't even make sense, and then getting your nose out of joint and having to defend it later when someone calls you on it. But of course it's up to you.

> My best advice to anyone who really want to contribute to
>stunt - first, get involved and learn what, why, and how
>things got to the way they are now. Once you have a good
>understanding of the current situation, attack some of the
>minor problems with reasoned proposals that address the
>individual problem without violating the basic precepts that
>made people change it to the way it is now. Good ideas that
>address both the current problem and the historical problems
>at the same time will be greatly appreciated.

or...

> My best advice to anyone who really want to contribute to
>stunt -

1) Help other people either start flying or get better.
2) Try to be a positive coach as well as a flyer.
3) Develop helpful new ways to fly stunt or build.
4) Share your ideas.
5) Be open minded.
6) Practice.
7) Have fun.

Brett, I really have followed the PA rules since the mid '60's, since I've flown the event that long. The stunt rules were basically fixed in time in 1952 with the introduction of the Aldrich pattern. That fixed stunt into the figure skating mode of operation. As far as I can determine the change was spear-headed by 5-6 main competitors. Since then all the rules changes have been minor tweaking by a small group of top competitors in order to redefine esoteric points in the rules to their satisfaction. At least that is what the public debate showed.
>>its obvious from the other thread that 1) people really
>>don't want to change much. 2) they'd rather argue.
>
> Good ideas are always welcome -there might be argument,
>but that's how you figure out if it's a good idea or not.

Arguments are not good ways to figure out if an idea is good or not.
I was attempting to introduce some thought about what "Classic" stunt is as opposed to "Old Time" and "Nostalgia". Old Time Stunt is a good example. John Miske and the Circle Burners did an excellent job defining it as basically "all the old planes before the event morphed into Precision Aerobatics in 1952". All the current arguing about exactly how to define which planes are allowed, what modifications are allowed, won't redefine the event. Nobody is going to try and fly a Genesis in it.

"Classic" is a good example of an event that could go several ways. One way is with some kind of arbitrary cutoff date, whether it is fixe or rolling. That really doesn't define an event the way Old Time does because there really wasn't any big change after 1952. Plenty of folks have shown that many, many stunt designs from the Nobler on can still be very competitve in the current PA event, so why bother with "classic". Just build and fly the plane you want right now. Another way, per my suggestion, is to have people regularly vote on what the "classic" planes are and fly them in an event that encourages people to build and fly them in a "classic" manner. That seems to fit more with what folks are thinking in terms of classic- since 1952, which designs really made an impression and stand out in terms of what people flew and are flying. Maybe call it "Hall of Fame" instead of Classic.

> The "approved classic plane list".....didn't prove to be generally desirable in OTS for perfectly obvious reasons...."
The only "obvious" reason is that the GSCB rules left out a ton of designs from the era. Magazines and kits came nowhere near to covering the range of early designs. So where is some discussion of a better way to go about defining "classic"? If the general consensus is a date, I would pick October 4, 1973. I finished my Fierce Arrow 400 that day, and the FA is a truly classic desingn.

> It's even more so when an individual gets pigeonholed as
>a provocateur -

I guess some folks do like to pigeon hole others opinions and ideas. I don't. Attacking the person instead of discussing the idea is a politician's way of debating. It doesn't advance the discussion.

>I guess some folks do like to pigeon hole others opinions
>and ideas. I don't. Attacking the person instead of
>discussing the idea is a politician's way of debating. It
>doesn't advance the discussion.

Man, you said a mouthful there brother.

This is the oldest trick in the book. Too bad it works so well...

It does amaze me how few people see it when it happens.

BTW I think you have done a wonderful job distinguishing between the origins of Old Time and Classic stunt. Classic will never be Old Time no matter how badly some people would like to make the comparisons. Old Time has its own pattern and its own set of rules it is a completely unique event.

THE ONLY THING that distinguishes Classic from PAMPA stunt IS the cutoff date, and admittedly this date is very arbitrary. The Classic cutoff date literally means nothing in terms of the "event". Why a fixed date was chosen over a rolling date was most likely due to campaigning by a few very vocal people (IMHO) and has been endorsed ever since (what this "magic" date means in the grand scheme of things I am still not sure).

I just don't see that any discussion of the Classic cutoff as being as serious as say, a discussion of the BOM rule or 5' bottoms.

I see no reason why the date could not move in the future and have little, if any, NEGATIVE effect on the EVENT AS IT TODAY!!!! The only change to the rules would be the DATE (which is arbitrary anyway), that's all. I certainly feel the new airplane designs would make the event even better and entertaining (for me at least).

>I don't see much problem having a "Classic" ballot in the
>November issue of Stunt News. Have a list of the current
>Classic planes. Argue and politic all year to include your
>favorite and then everybody votes on the list for next year.

I don't either. As far as I can tell, the only debate about the cut off date for Classic was either at a single Nats pilots meeting or on this forum. I think that Stunt News should be used for issues such as this. I certainly don't know why anyone would oppose open debate over a basically "non-essential" issue such as the Classic cut off.

The whole thing is stupid, frankly...

I am shutting up now.

I think it most worthwhile for everyone to read--and read again, if necessary--Brett's #5 posting. It applies to a great many comments made on this forum, at the flying field, at contests, any place where modelers gather.

Things are the way they are in CL Stunt only after many years of refinement and evolution. One must first get up to speed with not only the current environment, but also the history of the event before digging in and overhauling what is not well and clearly understood in the first place.

I don't wish to pick on a long-time friend, but as an example, over the past few months I have read input from Ferocious that would cause me to grin and mutter, "Yeah, that's what I used to think back when I first started flying Stunt." As in, back when I didn't know any better, although Phil is a smart boy and maybe he really does know more than I knew then.

To bring up a forbidden topic--used only as an example, not to set anybody off for the next 9 weeks--I used to be fairly ambivalent, maybe cavalier is a better word, about the B.O.M. rule. Always followed it, to the letter, as building is a big part of my enjoyment of the hobby. Yes, even when I was flying a lot of Combat. And RC.

However, as I take gleeful delight in pointing out to people, I am an open-minded guy, which is why I am a "small-l" Libertarian, and thus it was that over time I managed to grasp how that one rule has served to mold and guide a widely diverse group of people into the unique event in which we participate.

(I wish to note this is being written by a guy who never, **ever** uses the word "unique" incorrectly.)

There are other examples besides B.O.M., and Classic, and OTS, and you-name-it, which is why Brett's posting is so timeless and appropriate.

My man, good job!

>its obvious from the other thread that 1) people really don't want to change much. 2) they'd
>rather argue.

Phil-

I enjoy your posts and they often give pause for thought, but you're WAY off base here. I DON'T like to argue - which is why I didn't reply. I'm sick of writing the same thing in response to the same or like arguments from people who don't bother to answer mine. In order to fly what you'd like in a contest, you don't have to hijack a successful, meaningful event that was well conceived and serves a useful purpose for many. All you have to do is create a separate event to your liking and see whether it catches on. It is not a sign of argumentativenes or stubbornness when one is happy with an event and rejects repeatedly the same REPEATED demands that it be changed to suit someone else's preferences. I am tired of the whole redundant argument. In particular, I am tired of implied name calling and accusations that again have been posted by otherwise civil respondents here. NO, I'D RATHER NOT ARGUE ABOUT THIS. Why do the same silly accusations keep cropping up?

Geez, you guys are nuts. And I thought I was getting old.

I reviewed the whole other thread. Here are the ideas:
Tom Dixon suggested a "new" event so he could fly some '70s models and maybe sell a few kits(heaven forbid)
the discussion amounted to:
I'd like to build a Genesis or an XXXXX
Maybe we could combine it and fly it with Classic like Hunt suggested
It's already been thought of
I don't like the current fixed cutoff date in Classic
Nobody uses the GSCB rules except them, and the people who do use 'em
Why not try it in a contest and see who shows up
Why didn't you show up at our xxx contest. We could have used another entry.

and one substantive suggestion from Peabody, a GSCB member no less, to use PAMPA OTS eligibility and GSCB scoring with a non-flap bonus.

And you think my simple suggestion to use a different method of defining "Classic" is off the wall? Yoiks!!!

And the bottom line of all this is two things:
People go to contests to fly. 2 flights is not enough so they fly additional events.
It is a lot of fun to build and fly different planes but the current PA format is too limiting and too deadly serious to allow that, so they fly additional events.

That might suggest some useful lines of discussion.

>Geez, you guys are nuts. And I thought I was getting old.

Phil-

I'll have to admit to being in less than good humor when I wrote my response, but if you'll re-read it you will see that I quoted the object of my response. Also looking directly above, here, you will see the inspiration for this post. They are similar. My original response was directed more at your (and others') implied characterizations of those who like "Classic" as it is than at your proposal. I can't say that I'm overwhelmingly pleased with the above one either, although I'm not going to claim any more sanity than other model plane nuts here. It might have been kinder though to have entertained that opinion privately.

FWIW, I am on record in this forum as approving of Bob Hunt's compromise, at least as a new class introduction.

It is not fair to characterize a group as opposing change, just because they oppose change in a particular case. It would also be inaccurate to characterize this group as argumentative, when almost none of them has even bothered to repeat their previous cogent arguments that were ignored the last time. I still feel that this seems to be happening in response to a "problem" that does not really exist anyway.

Now I don't know whether that's as clear as I'd like it to be, but that is what my post addressed.

SO, IMHHHHO, it would be desirable to omit the less than complimentary characterizations.

SK

Edit:

>And you think my simple suggestion to use a different method of defining "Classic" is off
>the wall? Yoiks!!!

'just remembered this part of your post. A re-read of my original post should make it obvious that this sentiment was in no way expressed. Characterizations were the topic.

OK, same ol' same ol'. No offense, but this keeps coming back like jock itch! LOL!!

Classic, Nostalgia, or what ever you want to call it, is defined now. Dec. 31, 1969.

Phil (IIRC) stated that many have proven that the planes from the '70s (as well as the '60s) can be more than competitive in PAMPA classes.

I do not personally see the hang up over this event. Fly in it if you like the event, don't fly if you don't like the event. Put a rules change proposal before the PAMPA board and see if it passes or not, if you don't like how things are now. Marjority rules.

If you want a Stiletto, Genesis, Stunt Machine, Avanti, Juno, etc., build it and fly it in PAMPA. Unless you're one of maybe a dozen or so US pilots, it probably won't make a lot of difference in how you score. (believe this or not, but I am positive that the actual event would prove me correct)

I will build what I want to build regardless of the rule's cut off date. If it's "Classic" legal, I will fly it in Classic. If not, I will fly it in PAMPA.

I wasn't flying in 1951, but I like the BArnstormer, AA SR., and more.
Just because I wasn't flying then doesn't change that they are OTS. Same with Classic. It is a period of time and style that was basically unique to stunt. Dec. 31, 1969 is as good a "date" as any.

I, too, tire of hearing the innuendos, mud slinging, and all, that these discussions often degenerate to. If anyone has a problem with my opinions, just come on by the house anytime. Got a good size area in the side yard! I don't need a computer for talking junk, nothing gained by that. Too many hide behind the cyber wall. No one in particular, just a general observation. I respect the members of this forum, but the "world" is full of crazies.

Bill <><

Well said Bill. I too fly OT and Classic. I also fly my Classic plane in PAMPA. I firmly believe that you cannot change the classic ERA. It will also remain the golden era of CL aerobatics. Allowing more modern designs to fly in it would be a gross error . In my opinion. In ten or so years you would be having piped designs in "Classic" I don't think so!!!

> Well said Bill. I too fly OT and Classic. I also fly my
>Classic plane in PAMPA. I firmly believe that you cannot
>change the classic ERA. It will also remain the golden era
>of CL aerobatics. Allowing more modern designs to fly in
>it would be a gross error . In my opinion. In ten or so
>years you would be having piped designs in "Classic" I
>don't think so!!!
>
> Bigiron

To a certain extent is agree with the idea that there is a true "classic" era to stunt. My view may be slightly different from yours of course, but I do believe that there are indeed "classics". Although, my "classics" will never be from the 1960's.

The only thing that really kind of sucks for me is that my designs will never be classics. I really envy the guys like Werwage, Hunt, Dee Rice, etc. who can fly there OWN designs in classic.

I also think that at the highest levels of the competition the designs will start to get stale. People will start gravitating to the designs that are the most modern or that allow more modern engine setups. I think you would have been hard pressed to find a Colossus at a local meet in the 1960's, or even a Tucker Special. Actually, allowing the cut off to move forward would prompt more changes in finding more and more competive setups. I do not think pipes on Classic planes is an issue, even the cutoff were to move forward one year at a time starting today. It would be about 15 or so years before the POSSIBILLTY of a piped plane would exist.

As far as the 1970's being riddled with the "foamy of the month" as some have said, I do not think the 1960's were any different frankly. There were a lot of "Nobler's of the month".

..and I do not say these things to be ARGUING the point with you or anyone else. Instead, I am trying to educate everyone on my perspective, which is frankly, unlikely to change with time. It is simply a matter of my perspective in relation to the perspective of an older generation.

I also do not think that everything should be a matter of "majority rules", as Bill says. Some things should be about "doing the right thing". Just because there is a about a 5 to 1 ratio of "50, 60 and 70 somethings" to "20,30, and 40 somethings" participants doesn't mean that one generation should be allowed to define the "classic era" infinitum for everyone else just becasue there are more of their group.

Especially since Classic is simply PAMPA stunt with old designs, and that is about all.

...and the last thing we need is another set of trophies or another event to find the time and judges for. The current event is fine, it should just adapt, even if that means giving in to the "minority".

Personally I think that this has gone way to far!

LETS HAVE SOME FUN AND FLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!