Vintage Stunt scoring - Questions

Can some one (or two) people give me an idea of how a couple of issues of vintage stunt are handled in America and the UK. Or if you are not sure, opinions on what ought to happen.

First if a model is clearly shown on the plan and perhaps a related article as not being fitted with wheels and is built that way, how is the take off and landing scored? It has to be hand launched and obviously doesn't have much of a landing roll either. Would the hand launch (and landing) be down scored because the plane didn't Rise Off the Ground?

Second if a motor has been made in essentially the same model for many years but with tiny external variations over the years (like the FOX .35) would the static score for a 1980 model be lower than the same thing supposedly made in 1960?

>Can some one (or two) people give me an idea of how a couple
>of issues of vintage stunt are handled in America and the
>UK. Or if you are not sure, opinions on what ought to
>happen.

I will tell you about the US. Can't help you with the UK version (if different)

>First if a model is clearly shown on the plan and perhaps a
>related article as not being fitted with wheels and is built
>that way, how is the take off and landing scored? It has to
>be hand launched and obviously doesn't have much of a
>landing roll either. Would the hand launch (and landing) be
>down scored because the plane didn't Rise Off the Ground?

In the US a fixed gear must be used. Many of the models had an "optional" gear, sometimes that dropped off. If it had that, then a permanent gear must be mounted in the same approximate location. In the US it is permissable to lengthen the gear as many of our engines today require larger props than was used in those days. But if you lengthen the gear, then the attitude must be maintained and the same location for the wheels. (That's why I said "approximate"). The point is, if the gear was located too far forward as was quite common in those days to prevent the plane from tipping over on grass, it is not "legal" to have the gear exit the fuselage at the proper location and then angle it back. And if you lengthened the main gear you would also need (want) to lengthen the tail wheel/skid appropriately to maintain the same attitude. You don't want it suddenly pointing nose up.

What about a plane that never had a gear and doesn't show any on the plans? You would need to add one. I am not sure how this would be handled (perhaps up to the contest director) but it would have to be "period appropriate" I would think. Most of these planes are not going to be great flyers anyway, but they do need to have a fixed gear.

>Second if a motor has been made in essentially the same
>model for many years but with tiny external variations over
>the years (like the FOX .35) would the static score for a
>1980 model be lower than the same thing supposedly made in
>1960?

In the US we do not judge on motors, so the questin is moot. Some of the other countries do judge on the motor as part of the package, so I defer to their scoring on the matter. It may be that we will need to bring that into the picture in the future, since the engine is a very large part of the total package. And when a couple of people start to show up at VSC with pipes, I think that will do it.

Thanks Leonard. Now for the Poms

Some OTS models, especially the British planes, used drop-off gear, or were hand-launched. I'm thinking of the 1948 SMALL FRY and BIG FRY designed by Ron Prentice, of Taunton, Somerset. Also, versions of the Hal DeBolt Stuntwagon were flown with drop-off gear. There should be no penalty in aunthicity putting fixed gear on these planes. Safety concerns should override matters of aunthicity. (no spell checker here, so my last spelling is in doubt).

In OTS, there are no appearance points, so Banner wheels, Veco spinners, period engines, and the like don't count except for the "wow" factor, and for good comments from the flyers.

I, for one, like to build OTS models using the components of the period. These include silk/dope finishes, cloth hinges, and especially, NO FANCY 8-COLOR PAINT JOBS.

Charley,

PAMPA addressed the no-wheels/drop-off undercart question in the first attempt to put together PAMPA OTS rules. It is as Leonard commented, given that a keen-eyed judge might remark on wheels placed unauthentically rearward, nearer CG, for better takeoffs and landings.

I've seen some of the hardware-scoring-points issues developed under SMAE (pardon the expression), and likely still alive under BMFA in Blighty. (THAT acronym always sounds - to me - like it would spell out something unfit to be spoken in mixed company.)

Embodied in the first OTS rules (Garden State Circle Burners, written by John Miske) is the USA general intent -- Less stress than current first echelon competition. For almost all of us, there are models we wished we could have built, back then... OTS includes that. Further, nearly precisely authentic, eligible models fly no better now than they did back then -- bar a half century or so of learning how to trim them better.

I hope others, in the UK particularly, reply.

LAST EDITED ON May-22-04 AT 10:49 PM (CDT)
 
My recollection is that Vintage Stunt in OZ is anything up until '60, and Classic is anything up until '65. You lot give points for having the "correct" vintage engine. We'uns do not, but there is a bonus for using a Sparker in OTS, but no appearance points or BOM. But at least you know how our OTS rules work, if it helps anything. Basically, they're altogether different events. G'day, Steve