Super Seventies Class

A few of us have been talking about trying this out in the near future. Pretty sure Bob Hunt was the first to bring this up and I think it is a really good idea. It would run just like Classic only with different start and finish dates. Eligible models would be any plane after December 31 1969 and before January 1 1980. All the rest of the Classis rules would apply just a different time period. The one additional caveat would be that no Classic or Old Time models would be allowed. Sounds good to me. RJ

Why not classic planes?

>Why not classic planes?

If "classic" planes are allowed, then you might as well have just moved the eligible dates for Classic to include '70's models. Most seem to be against this. I think it's better that it stay a '70's only event, kind of like the "profile" event.

>>Why not classic planes?
>
>If "classic" planes are allowed, then you might as
>well have just moved the eligible dates for Classic to include
>'70's models. Most seem to be against this. I think it's
>better that it stay a '70's only event, kind of like the
>"profile" event.
>
I've felt for some time that moving the cut off date for classic to include the 70's designs would be a good move. Would include designs from many of the same designers using the same types of power plants. Our local contest in St. Louis doesn't have the 70's class because of time and judge constraints.

James

Have Bob Emmett give you a talk on the benefits of event proliferation.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

He did. I listened. We agree to disagree on certain points.

No Classic or Old Time models allowed. They already have their own seperate events and do not need another venue. There will be no exceptions.

Running the event is a no-brainer. Brodak does it very nicely, works out well. Keep the cards and letters coming...RJ

The Tulsa club isn't big enough at least doesn't seem to be enough daylight hours in a two day stunt contest to be able to add another event. Even with 3 circles it's a push to get everything finished before dusk. Last year we simply extended the Classic cut off to 79, Classic '79...

This allowed Super 70's airplanes without the need to add another event. Interestingly not a single 70's airplane was entered. It was the first year, might be different this September but we'll have to wait to find out.

>Have Bob Emmett give you a talk on the benefits of event
>proliferation.
>
>Howard Rush
>Bellevue, WA

There are also the non-benefits--the caviats. I don't know the answer to this, but most people are not building airplanes of this era because there are no events in which to fly them. They build a plane for the events that exit. We have mention of the contest here that simply extended classic to include 70's planes and no 70's planes were entered. Simple, nobody had any. Will they build for one event only? Probably not. What if there are a lot of these events? Well, maybe people will build for them, but then skip the old classic because it is not eligible and they now do not have a plane for that event. Will people build a plane to enter in each of the Old time, and Classic and a 70's event and also the PAMPA class events, too? And will they have time to trim them all and become proficient enough to fly each plane with its own characteristics well enough to make it worthwhile (in their mind)? And, as has been pointed out, will the local contests have space enough and time enough and judges enough to host each of the various contests?

My take on all this is event proliferation leads to event demise. Instead of bringing in a whole bunch of new flyers (which won't happen) you get people who start to pick and choose and eventually some of these events die out for lack of participation. Matt builds one plane every two years (about). He could build one every year, but he spends his summer months flying and he does other things, too.

Personally I feel that for most people and most areas it will hurt more than it will help. Maybe the larger contests can draw enough people for each event, but very few (if any) will fly in all of them. The end result is fewer people for each event, but no additional fliers or entries than if you had simply stuck with what we have now.

(Now profile might draw a different crowd and I didn't mention that, but that is a different story.)

Just to jump in at the end...

I believe part of the discussion we had at Tucson last month considered requiring entry into EITHER Classic or "Super-70" - NOT both - for a very good reason: They can fly on the same circle, in the same "round," with their scores posted to the event they entered.

That reduces the organizer burden considerably, which also makes it much bettere for the entrants.

The idea of requiring "Super-70" models to be ONLY from within that era was well-stated, by Clint, was it? Having "Super-70" open to Classic models would effectively kill Classic, except for a few stubborn, and older, goats.

Many of the "Super-70" eligible designs were by guys still flying with us; why should they fly someone else's design, if one of their own is eligible? There's a dash of panache about flying your own, eligible, design...

Though I would welcome this class, and probably participate, My first preference would be to go back to the rolling cutoff in Classic as it was first flown.

Those who believe that this would necessarily cause the demise of the older classic designs in competition, may find, in light of what's actually happening in classic, that even the OT designs can be competitive. Many of the designs flown in classic, with our better power, and understanding of trim, are competitive with most of tadays designs on any given day.

Part of the fun of VSC, and other classic contests, is flying the designs of our youth. I understand that there are thosee who will strive to win, and there's nothing wrong with that, but, the larger majority of us fly for other reasons at this type of contest.

Let's go back to the rolling cutoff in classic. If you really want to seperte the eras a bit, do like we do with the Sheeks award, and offer an award for the highest placing design by decades.

Nope, separate class and separate contest. Our forefathers evolved designs over time. Thus, the competitions should run with equipment from the same period. An NVSC in the fall for super seventy would be cool, N=nearly.

Just my thoughts and I'd build one for an event like that fo' sure.

B

>Nope, separate class and separate contest. Our forefathers
>evolved designs over time. Thus, the competitions should run
>with equipment from the same period.

Oh, so no Aero-Tigers, just ST46s?

Brett

yup in a perfekt world that would be cool.

B

>Though I would welcome this class, and probably participate,
>My first preference would be to go back to the rolling cutoff
>in Classic as it was first flown.

This is the opening sentence in my first post, where I mentioned my prefering the rolling cut off.

Please don't read into my desire to have that cut off as my trying to dictate or complain about the Classic Stunt rules. I appreciate the hard work and dedication over many years, by those dedicated few, who made this event work.

Again, I think an S-70's event is a good thing. I think that it's time to recognise and compete with these designs. I've spent time on the phone, in the past, with Bob Hunt, and others talking over ideas for such an event. I think that running the S-70's event at the same time as the Classic, with the scoring seperated at the tabulation table, is a workable way to do it.

I also feel that there could be a problem with "event proliferation", and that the later designs won't cause the eclipsing of the earlier designs.

That's just my opinion, and does not mean I'm agianst the idea, or complaining about the way Classic is, or has been run.

"My take on all this is event proliferation leads to event demise."

That's my take, too. Look at racing and speed.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

Hmmmmmm,


How do you spell Stiletto again?

Jim Pollock

How would a rolling cutoff date sound for classic, instead of Super Seventies be better? You still get all the designs from the 70s, eventually the 80s and eventually today's designs.

Seperate contests = too many events and a possible drop in interest.

We have run and will run a Nostalgia-79/Super Seventies class at Brodak. They fly on the same circle at the class they are flying in and then the scores are separated out after the flights are complete. The pilots declare their Nostalgia-79/Super Seventies model prior to the contest beginning. This happens in all the classes flown on that day.

(quote)"How would a rolling cutoff date sound for classic, instead of Super Seventies be better? You still get all the designs from the 70s, eventually the 80s and eventually today's designs."

Matt

...and that is exactly the problem with a rolling cutoff date. I like the seventies planes as well as the next guy, but I just don't think they belong with the 50's/60's models. Most certainly, '80's models don't belong! If a Super 70's event were held locally, I'd jump at the chance to build a plane specifically for it.

I think the biggest problem to this topic is how in the world will you get all the planes to the flying field. Generally when I go to a contest, I have the family with me, preventing taking more than one plane. I like the Super Seventies event, but if I were to fly in it I would be building a plane that would be flown in Pampa and 70's and from what I can see there are plenty such designs in the 70's that are very much capable of performing such a duty.

Nostalgia worked well at Brodak. IMHO. Allowed us lesser lights to fly Twisters.

Keith,

This may be part of the reason for the idea of - at first, at least - combining the flight block (round?) of Classic with the Super-70's entry. ...With the restriction that one entrant can fly one OR the other, but not both... Separate the results at the scoreboard.

It is never dead-certain easy for contest organizers to find judges and scoresheet runners, etc., for the already established events. Blocking another two flight sequence, separately, will probably (no, guaranteed!) raise problems of judges or assistants who work "out of their flying event" wanting to fly Classic or S-70, or another event. That can make them unavailable, where needed and when needed.

Combining the two events in a single flight order and sequence of rounds allows contest organizers, entrants and officials to assess support for the new idea, without complicating things too much. IF support for S-70 shows strongly, then it can be (somehow) scheduled separately, as it will deserve. (The more events proliferate, the less likely it will be possible to offer them all satisfactorily...)

As far as the rolling cut-off for Classic... If you can stand a little historical reminder: The 1960's were the era of Viet Nam, and of slot cars. NOT so much the era of CL Stunt. Even net AMA total membership dropped lower than AMA's current estimate of members active in CL, in ANY CL event... With a nod to those who consider PAMPA now to be hidebound, an "old boys' club reluctant to accept new ideas", while I don't agree, I think we all should acknowledge that the foundation of PAMPA at the 1973 Nats was important.

Whatever revival of interest and participation in CL starts there. Yes, MACA (Combat SIG) was also a large part of it...

BUT - the dark years, before the MACA and PAMPA "stimulus package," led to a lot of technical and technological advances. Trouble was, few to none cared, except for the few innovators. We had transformed to sheeted foam wing, OS 35S-powered stunters by 1970, but so few that it didn't matter. (Apologies to the founders of that era - still among us - like Bob Hunt, Champione, many others.) These guys carried the tattered banner of CLPA forward.

Eventually, there came the "ST46 foamie" era. Models from that era are so visibly different from the "usual" pre-1970 stunters, that a whole new expectation from fliers and judges swept our world.

And, even within the 1970's, the ST 60 models began to appear. The magnificence of such huge models, managing the pattern, was an entirely new image, even compared to the ST46 and OS 35-S models...

I guess what I am suggesting is that there are, indeed, different "paradigms" (look it up if you have to) that can be identified with certain decades, or even specific years. These are "quantum leaps" of a sort. That which went before is utterly out of it.

Which is why I'm uncomfortable with the comments that extending Classic to encompass S-70 will not destroy Classic (which I see as a preservation of our "wilderness years.") These unofficial events may be intended to be fun, but many of us don't consider it much fun unless we stand a good chance of finishing high in the event standings.

For now, anyway, I favor combining the organizer burden as follows:

Run Classic and S-70 in the same round. Allow contestants to choose to fly one or other, but not both. Separate the events, for placing, at the scoreboard.

I'll be glad to hear positive, constructive comments on my ramble. Good ideas are important to me. I may (actually will) CD the first Cholla Choppers contest likely to try the S-70 idea. We welcome the experiences gained by those back East, at least for consideration. However, we may have resources too limited to follow those guidelines exactly.

We will do our best, and ensure the word gets out in ample time for 1) all to know what we intend, and (more important) 2) What changes we adopt to make things a positive experience for entrants, helpers, participants, and all people who want nothing more than the opportunity to gather, and pit ourselves mano-a-mano with dear buddies to see who feels best on that day.

>(snip)
>For now, anyway, I favor combining the organizer burden as
>follows:
>
>Run Classic and S-70 in the same round. Allow contestants to
>choose to fly one or other, but not both. Separate the events,
>for placing, at the scoreboard.
>
>I'll be glad to hear positive, constructive comments on my
>ramble. Good ideas are important to me. (snip)

The good, the bad, and the ugly have already pretty much been discussed. I would like to add one more here, however.

Too many events, difficulty of building/bringing multiple airplanes (and then flying them as well) have all been discussed, as has proliferation of events leading to demise of all. Your suggestion attempts to circumvent some of this, but I would add just one more caveat:

In theory, combining the two events in the flight order and you fly one or the other may sound like a solution, but it hasn't solved the one of proliferation leading to demise. What if (hypothetically) you would have had 6 people entering classic. You have a contest--not large by any means, but a contest. Now three of these enter the 70's contest and you have three entrants in each. Everybody gets a trophy! Wonderful! Or you would have had 8 in Classic and it is now 4 and 4 or 5 and 3. So you do this a year or two and then decide there isn't enough interest and drop....both! (There aren't that many interested in classic any more, so it seems).

Spread it too thin and there is not enough for everybody...and eventually not enough for anybody. There are contests that fly Beginner and Intermediate by age groups--fly them together, but give them a trophy by how they finished in their age group. I don't understand it. The whole concept was to get away from age groups and fly according to skill level. If a 70 year old and a 7 year old both enter Intermediate because they both are just starting out or this is as far as their skills have taken them, then just compete by your skill level. Age is no factor. We water it down to the point that we are able to give everybody trophies just for showing up. Oh, sure, the hot shot skill level pilot wins, but somebody can come in second behind him scoring three hundred points less.

Leonard,

Thanks! Good thoughts.

The reason we (Cholla Choppers) are discussing the Super-70's idea is that we are not the only ones. And we are not deaf.

Part of the (possibly) regional frictions we've seen has always seemed to be the reluctance of "one Coast" to see developments on the "other Coast" as worthwhile - and I don't just mean anything recent, it goes back to the 50's at least. And involves Lakes vs Gulf, etc.

In Tucson, we generally have a quite decent turnout in ADV and EXP, in OTS and Classic, for our Fall meet. That makes it a pretty reasonable opportunity to 'test' a few of our own club members, among others, with a Classic/S-70 combined event, for two scoreboard sheets. (With one time-block picture, one set of judges.) Whitely, Wolgast, Trostle and possibly Capitanelli had S-70 eligible designs AND for at least three of these guys, Classic eligibles. Which event will they try, hmmm? How many others wished they'd built a Genesis, a Stiletto, a Gieseke Nobler or Stunt Machine then, and felt a bit put out that they miss the Classic cutoff. (Good examples - most originally OS 35-S designs predating - or in two examples ALSO including - the later ST46 / OS40/45FSR era.)

Agreed, we'd lose them as entrants in "the other" event, but if they do choose S-70, they strengthen the pressure to consider separating S-70. ...Allowing them to try both events next time...

As Jo Ann K mentioned, much later in this thread, if a new thing isn't tried, its potential may never get an honest hearing. A popular event demands being available. If S-70 becomes popular, the added burden on contest organizers must be met, somehow. Several areas are talking S-70 big. If it turns out to be only talk, let's make sure that's all it is. If otherwise, let's grow with it.

As Jo Ann said, we'll never know unless we try, and negative comment could have prevented things like VSC from ever being part of today.

Personally, even with the extra day/extra circle advantages, I feel it would be premature to force an only partially proven S-70 event into the next VSC. Developments over this year's flying season might influence my opinion. It will depend on things we haven't yet seen. VSC is more about the "spirit" of the eras defined for OTS and Classic than just about anything else. That's partly the reason I, at least, concur with excluding "prior era" designs in an S-70 event.

>(quote)"How would a rolling cutoff date sound for
>classic, instead of Super Seventies be better? You still get
>all the designs from the 70s, eventually the 80s and
>eventually today's designs."
>
>Matt
>
>...and that is exactly the problem with a rolling cutoff date.
>I like the seventies planes as well as the next guy, but I
>just don't think they belong with the 50's/60's models. Most
>certainly, '80's models don't belong! If a Super 70's event
>were held locally, I'd jump at the chance to build a plane
>specifically for it.
>
>

HI Clint,

That's exactly why the event should have retained the name "Nostalgia" and the rolling cut off date left in place. The original concept -- at least in my estimation when I helped write the rules -- was that eventually the airplanes of everybody's youth would become eligible and everyone could look forward to reliving their early stunt days. How many of our sub 50 year old fliers will be interested in flying an event that they have no personal nostalgia for? Sounds like a sure fire recipe for a dead end to me.

Ted

p.s. Nobody loved the Ares more than yours truly but, frankly, now that they've bred like bunny rabbits for 20 years I'm now sick to death of them.

>>
>
>HI Clint,
>
>That's exactly why the event should have retained the name
>"Nostalgia" and the rolling cut off date left in
>place. The original concept -- at least in my estimation when
>I helped write the rules -- was that eventually the airplanes
>of every body's youth would become eligible and everyone could
>look forward to reliving their early stunt days. How many of
>our sub 50 year old fliers will be interested in flying an
>event that they have no personal nostalgia for? Sounds like a
>sure fire recipe for a dead end to me.
>
>Ted
>
>p.s. Nobody loved the Ares more than yours truly but,
>frankly, now that they've bred like bunny rabbits for 20 years
>I'm now sick to death of them.


Hmmm...... can't really argue with that line of thinking. I'd be all for adding a few years to the current Classic class, say up to '73 or so. But if we had kept the original rolling cutoff, we'd be into the Eighties by now and that would have killed off the earlier planes. Or maybe not, it's hard to say. Either way, 80's planes just don't seem very "classic" to me.
What if we added 1 year of models for every 3 actual years that go by? Or something like that.
The reason I love Classic stunt is a little different than some of you guys. I don't have the fond memories of stunt flying in the 50's or 60's, 'cause I wasn't there. I like it because it's the era I missed out on. All those beautiful stunters are "new" to me. Classic stunters are the models I DON'T remember.

When I first got interested in PAMPA I read an article in Model Builder Magizine... by John Thompson. He mentioned if we were to ever saturate Stunt like Racing ..we will regret it.I have to think he had foresight . This was 1990. I was against Classic Expert & Classic Sportsman,Classic is great but why 2 classes of Classic? Profile .40 & any other Profile events. I don't believe Super '70s is a good idea .It does sound inviting though. How about getting rid of Profile events & then talk about Super '70s?

I agree with Clint 90% as I wasn't around in the 50's or 60's either (I didn't fly into the world until '71) but looking at the old photos from that era (like in SN), some of those designs were really beautiful especially the "I-Beamers". The Ares (sorry Ted I couldn't resist) is a sexy plane and I'd like to maybe build one one day and perhaps get back into flying "Classic" but that's just a random thought. I have too many exciting projects on the horizon to 'travel back in time'. Leave the 1969 cut-off date as is. While in concept the Super 70's idea seems good,it is as most personalities have said "... will lead to the demise..." In this day and age, we don't need anything else that will possibly kill the event(s). The 'Classic' event is part of our heritage whether or not we like it. Besides an 'Imitation' or a 'Stiletto' doesn't look quite right sitting next to an 'Ares' or a 'Nobler' in the pits either...

> (snip)
>HI Clint,
>
>That's exactly why the event should have retained the name
>"Nostalgia" and the rolling cut off date left in
>place. The original concept -- at least in my estimation when
>I helped write the rules -- was that eventually the airplanes
>of everybody's youth would become eligible and everyone could
>look forward to reliving their early stunt days. How many of
>our sub 50 year old fliers will be interested in flying an
>event that they have no personal nostalgia for? Sounds like a
>sure fire recipe for a dead end to me.
>
>Ted
>(snip)

Hey, Ted, ever been to a classic car auction where they are auctioning off a car from the early 1900s or even the 1920s? Prices go crazy. And it isn't just because there are so few of them left. It is because there are so many more people who want them.

Right after world war II there were tons of (megatons really) fighter planes that were new or near new and could have been bought for near nothing. But nobody wanted them. I remember in the 60s when I started flying real planes I could have still gotten, at that time, a very decent P51 mustang for $7000, and an AT6 for $3500. Hey, I bought a Tri Pacer for the same price. What is the Mustang worth today? (A couple of million?) A lot of the people who are buying these aren't flying the planes of their youth. They missed that opportunity and are buying them to experience the thrill today. I think Old time and Classic fit in the same box. It isn't just we who were there who are building and flying them now to re live our youth. Younger people are building and flying them to experience what they missed. It doesn't have to die out just because we can't fly our own design. It is kind of fun to fly something that was designed or built before we were born (well, you and me excluded from that statement).

>
>> (snip)
>>HI Clint,
>>
>>That's exactly why the event should have retained the
>name
>>"Nostalgia" and the rolling cut off date left
>in
>>place. The original concept -- at least in my estimation
>when
>>I helped write the rules -- was that eventually the
>airplanes
>>of everybody's youth would become eligible and everyone
>could
>>look forward to reliving their early stunt days. How many
>of
>>our sub 50 year old fliers will be interested in flying
>an
>>event that they have no personal nostalgia for? Sounds
>like a
>>sure fire recipe for a dead end to me.
>>
>>Ted
>>(snip)
>
>Hey, Ted, ever been to a classic car auction where they are
>auctioning off a car from the early 1900s or even the 1920s?
>Prices go crazy. And it isn't just because there are so few
>of them left. It is because there are so many more people who
>want them.
>
>Right after world war II there were tons of (megatons really)
>fighter planes that were new or near new and could have been
>bought for near nothing. But nobody wanted them. I remember
>in the 60s when I started flying real planes I could have
>still gotten, at that time, a very decent P51 mustang for
>$7000, and an AT6 for $3500. Hey, I bought a Tri Pacer for
>the same price. What is the Mustang worth today? (A couple
>of million?) A lot of the people who are buying these aren't
>flying the planes of their youth. They missed that
>opportunity and are buying them to experience the thrill
>today. I think Old time and Classic fit in the same box. It
>isn't just we who were there who are building and flying them
>now to re live our youth. Younger people are building and
>flying them to experience what they missed. It doesn't have
>to die out just because we can't fly our own design. It is
>kind of fun to fly something that was designed or built before
>we were born (well, you and me excluded from that statement).
>

>Len,

Good point on building something designed before we were born, I'm trying to finish up a Formula S (2nd place at 68 Nats, I was born in August 68). Looked at the origional on the wall at Shaffers Hobby Shop in St. Louis for years.

James

One of the reasons to have the Classic event in the first place is to see, fly, and buld planes of another era. Planes that otherwise would have largely dissapeard. If we were to allow 70's planes into Classic, the people having fun would still have fun and build the planes they are interested in.

However, the reasons the classic planes dissappeared in the first place is technical innovation. If you were to add the 70's planes to Classic, they would dominate, and eventually the 60's planes would dissapear again.

I have no particular feelings one way or the other. But you have to ask yourself what kind of event do you want? One that preserves the 60's planes, or one where, as the current open class demonstrates, newer innovation will eventually show up and old tech disappears.

>One of the reasons to have the Classic event in the first
>place is to see, fly, and buld planes of another era. Planes
>that otherwise would have largely dissapeard. If we were to
>allow 70's planes into Classic, the people having fun would
>still have fun and build the planes they are interested in.
>
>However, the reasons the classic planes dissappeared in the
>first place is technical innovation. If you were to add the
>70's planes to Classic, they would dominate, and eventually
>the 60's planes would dissapear again.
>
>I have no particular feelings one way or the other. But you
>have to ask yourself what kind of event do you want? One that
>preserves the 60's planes, or one where, as the current open
>class demonstrates, newer innovation will eventually show up
>and old tech disappears.

I don't particulalry agree with the premise that the 60's designs would again dissapear, but, As I said before, I would support S 70's contests.

Now, I do think the idea of declaring aqnd flying both Classic and S-70 at the same time has merit, and would make it possible to get S-70 started up.

If this is to be done, it will likely take a year or two of notice before we begin to see decent participation.

And deep within my heart, I'd prefer to see a rolling cut off, but I know that that's not likely to happen.

>One of the reasons to have the Classic event in the first
>place is to see, fly, and buld planes of another era. Planes
>that otherwise would have largely dissapeard. If we were to
>allow 70's planes into Classic, the people having fun would
>still have fun and build the planes they are interested in.
>
>However, the reasons the classic planes dissappeared in the
>first place is technical innovation. If you were to add the
>70's planes to Classic, they would dominate, and eventually
>the 60's planes would dissapear again.

That's what everybody said when Classic moved the dates, and also that Classic was going to end up a Nobler "one-design" contest. Doesn't seem that way to me, and I even hear tell of people flying OTS-legal models (like Ringmasters) in classic with decent results. You would be flying Chipmunks, of course...

And in any case, the *airplanes* aren't much better, so restricting them hardly changes anything. The *engines* make the old classic planes fly so much better that it's a completely different event from what it was, and nobody is talking about restricting *that*.

In fact, if you really want to replicate the "Good Old Days" and have a realistic recreation of the 65 NATs, let people build whatever they want, but make them use Foxes and Veco 45s, and wood props! I can almost guarantee that after about two years, the airplanes would be "original" but look and fly pretty much like they did at the time.

Brett

Bill Zimmer and I would often joke about allowing only one engine at the Nats, and that would be the Fox 35. We wouldn't care what you built as long as the engine was the Fox 35.

Hi Guys,

I have been sitting reading everything that everyone has to say about this Super 70's Event. Here is my take on the whole thing and those who want to have this event then please take note.

22 years ago when VSC was just a twinkle, many many people said this. "What, have a contest with only two events and no classes? Boy that is a silly idea. Who would want to go to something like that"
Then came the decision to move the contest to Tuscon Arizona and we heard " Move a contest to where??? Who is going to drive all that way for just two events? The contest will surely die"

Well you all know what came of that. VSC is still going strong and growing leaps and bounds. It was one mans idea but many made it happen. So if some one out there wants to organize a Super 70's contest or an event at another contest, then just do it. Don't let other's opinions talk you out of it. They will either come and participate or they won't and if they don't it is their loss. Have your event or contest and enjopy it. Who is to say that will work or not.

If you are thinking about having it as another event at VSC why not try this idea. It is my understanding that now that VSC is using 3 circles the normal events go much quicker and the days are much shorter now. So why not just tack on your Super 70's event a couple of ,after the other flying is over. Have fun and see where it goes. But who ever is going to run it and who's ever idea it is, then do it your way and don't let anyone talk you out of it. If Mike Keville and I had listened to every one else 22 years ago, there would be no VSC today.
JoAnn Keville

>...if someone out there wants to organize a Super 70's contest or an event at another contest, then just do it...
>JoAnn Keville
============================================================

That post is among the more rational ones ever seen on this forum.

Having said that, please consider the probable result of a rolling cutoff date in the Classic event:

If, as has been suggested, such date is fixed at 25 years, we would currently be seeing eligible designs from as recently as Nineteen EIGHTY-FOUR! And while that may seem "nostalgic" to some, it's hardly in keeping with the spirit and intent of the event, or---more to the point---the VSC.

Mike Keville
Tucson, AZ
AMA 14220

>One of the reasons to have the Classic event in the first
>place is to see, fly, and buld planes of another era. Planes
>that otherwise would have largely dissapeard. If we were to
>allow 70's planes into Classic, the people having fun would
>still have fun and build the planes they are interested in.
>
>However, the reasons the classic planes dissappeared in the
>first place is technical innovation. If you were to add the
>70's planes to Classic, they would dominate, and eventually
>the 60's planes would dissapear again.
>
>I have no particular feelings one way or the other. But you
>have to ask yourself what kind of event do you want? One that
>preserves the 60's planes, or one where, as the current open
>class demonstrates, newer innovation will eventually show up
>and old tech disappears.


People are still building Ares' and Cobra's and other designs from the 50s. They are still competitive. Look at Bill Werwage at VSC. He's built his Vulcan, a 1955 design I believe and he's won there multiple times with that design. he also won with his 59 Ares a time or 2. And he has won many times with his 62 Ares.

I like the idea of a Super Seventies event, I strongly dislike the idea of a rolling cutoff date for Classic. Many see the sixties and the seventies as 2 different eras. I tend to see it that way as well. Sure, there are the hold overs that are of the sixties flavor, but both design styling and engines transitioned in the late sixties to the early seventies makeing them different sort of as an evolutionary step. If the cutoff date for SAM had been rolling we would now be flying autosurfaced pylon high performence glow powered models as "Old Timers". Instead, it was recognized that there were era breaks, albeit not precisely defined, in performance, so, we have Nostalgia the take up the space from the SAM cutoff to a new cutoff roughly at the beginning of the use of auto-rudders as standard fair. The date breaks seem to me to represent periods when the was a turnover in performance that made one group unique from the other. With a rolling cutoff date, we would now be flying the designs that were cutting edge when the first VSC was held, seems to me it defeats the whole idea and just becomes a way to repeat the original progression rather then enjoy the designs of an era.


Randy Ryan <><
AMA 8500
SAM 36
BO all my own M's

well I might as well put my two cents in here.
I was born before the classic cuttoff date (1960) and actually flew controlline before it as well but i definitelly didn't fly stunt back then and couldn't tell you the difference between a green or blue box nobler with out the box being involved.(not sure i could now actually)
However i do like building and flying classic models for the same reason i like building and driving old hotrods and muscle cars,
there just cooler than most of the modern stuff.Dont get me wrong if you park a brand new GT 40 in my driveway i'll test it out for you, but if you park and old 60's one next to it, well the new one might as well not have tires on it because i wont really care about it until the old one is completelly worn out.
I would probably build a 70's model if the event were offered, but honestly i dont know of any that would come to mind as interesting right at the moment.
Sooo. here is a couple of ideas for future events(dont take them too seriously).
1. fly any design you wish as long at it was designed before you graduated(or would have graduated if you dropped out) from high school or college but we might have to have proof of an actual degree in the case of college to be sure that no one is cheating,and call the event "nostalgia" which would be in the eye of the beholder.
or
2. how about allowing the seventies models in classic with a point penalty?
since i have no idea how much better a stilleto is than a USA 1 i will have to defer to others on the amount of penalty. we might even have to publish a list of 70's designs and place point deductions based on the individual design's pedegree.
or
3. we could just start "old stunt". where you can fly what ever you want as long as both you and the model are of a really old design.
proof would be required of course.
oh, I mean proof of the model's vintage, we can tell how old the modelers are.

Dave jr.

I also like keeping the late '52 and the late '69 date cut off for the OTS and Classic models.

I am still a bit confused as to why there is so much arguing going on about this subject. It can be solved so easily.

It is my understanding that several years ago the event was called Nostalgia and it had a 25 year rolling cut off date. People didn't like that because eventually it allow the more modern (or at least more modern for that time period) into the event and everyone was afraid they would loose the really old flavor of the planes. Now people seemed to have changed their opinions on some things and want to now change it all back to what it used to be so the 70's planes would be allowed in classic competition, but many others don't like that idea. How am I doing so far???

Well like I sort of mentioned ealier in another post. Why does one have to die so the other can survive. Why not just make them two seperate events. Just keep classic the way it is. Don't change a thing. Now you can re-introduce the Nostalgia event starting with 1970 and have your rolling cut off date.That will allow the 70's planes to compete but not against the old 50's type plains. They should not be compared nor should they compete against one another


Now when a group has a contest it should be left up to them on how they want to run it. They can either run them as two different events or they can have them run at the same time on the same circle since they fly the same pattern. But make sure the score sheets are marked for one event or the other and have a seperate scoreboard for each event. But there really is no need to have to argue about how the contest or the events are run. If you don't like the way a certain contest is run then just don't go. But don't try to dictate how they do it. Do any of you realize how many people tried to tell me how to run the VSC. And if any of you did you all know what kind of response you got back. AT one time, in fact about the very first year I was told by one person that I didn't know what I was doing and that if I tried to have another VSC that no one would show up unless I changed the way it was run. Well I ran it for about 15 years and never changed a thing and they all came. If they had stopped coming then maybe I would have changed some things.

So as I stated before, Have your contest with the events you want and how you want it . Just be sure every one knows what you are doing and how you are going to do it and leave it at that. Why do so many have to try and put other down because maybe they want to do something a little different or run things a little bit different. If you want to participate then do so happily, if you don't then just don't and leave it alone.

am sorry if anyone is offended or thinks I am being rude, but I really see no sense to all this bickering about it. There really is no right or wrong way to run an event or a contest as long as all the safety rules are followed. I really do not mean to be rude or offensive. But some people just need to get over it. No one is right and no one is wrong. It is just different people want things done their way. Well just like I used to tell people at VSC when they cricized things. If you don't like the way it is being done then you get out there and do it. Otherwise leave it alone and let it go. If you don't like the way a certain contest is run or a certain event then you have a contest and run it and the event the way you want to. I see no need for all these hard feelings between friends. It just isn't worth it. And that is all I am going to say about that.
JoAnn Keville

JoAnn. You hit the nail on the head. Sometimes when things are so simply. People just have to make them so complex....

Jo Ann,

I'll add thanks for the clarity and positive view you bring in!

AND mention that "discussions" like these sometimes bring in a touch of off-the-field competitiveness... But, then, you know that better than most of us from your years as VSC-Boss... Thanks for those, too!

Since I was the one who made the proposal to make the final cut-off date for Classic at December 31, 1969, I'm obviously for keeping things the way they are now.

I wrote a long piece about this in my new Stunt News Classic Stunt column. One line that I wrote I think says it all: "One era should never eclipse another." Let's not try to fix something that isn't broken!

Bob Hunt

Regarding the sub-topic of a rolling cutoff date (in Classic), there is a post on Stunt Hangar which states, among other things, that "the vast majority want a rolling cutoff".

While I might question that, perhaps someone among that "vast majority" should contact PAMPA Rules Chairman Alice Cotton-Royer for a Rule Change Proposal form.

Such a pro-active move would certainly beat spending hours at the keyboard hammering the subject to death.

Mike Keville
Tucson, AZ
AMA 14220

>Regarding the sub-topic of a rolling cutoff date (in
>Classic), there is a post on Stunt Hangar which states, among
>other things, that "the vast majority want a rolling
>cutoff".
>
>While I might question that (snip)

Me, too. And that is the problem with the internet or any non-scientific poll. How does whoever is speaking know that the majority want it that way. It doesn't appear to be so to me.

I have heard this in churches over the years. "We all want (this)" is what is said, and what is meant is ("I want this and nobody has told me any different")

I wish people wouldn't make broad statements without fact. We hear this over and over again about killing the BOM. And when the scientific polls are taken, the overwhelming majority want it to remain as it is.

The statement above was probably made by the same person who thinks "The plane is not important, only the skill of the pilot", or conversely, "If I was able to buy a plane like his, I could fly just as well."

Wrong on both accounts.

The statement above was probably made by the same person who thinks "The plane is not important, only the skill of the pilot", or conversely, "If I was able to buy a plane like his, I could fly just as well."

Wrong on both accounts.

Leonard Neumann
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA


Sorry Leonard you are wrong on both counts ,
and this is the post I made from the other site


Mike
I think that may lie in where your idea what the spirit of the event is.
The event was about history, and keeping the old Classic airplanes flying, and keeping people building them.
From the way I see this ,a rolling cutoff is exactly in the spirit and intent of the event.
A 1970- airplane deserves to be kept in a historical context of having people build and fly them as much as any 1969 plane does.
Just because someone was born later or got into stunt later ,doesn't mean they should be excluded.
And I think it is silly that some people think this is ALL about competition, It was never all about that, this is about keeping the old planes alive by encouraging people to build and fly them.
I also think it is silly that some people are allowed to fly their 25 yr old designs ,and did fly them when , they were only 25 years old. Now people with 38 year old designs are not allowed to fly their old ships .
If it has to be CDs could give away a first place trophy for the highest placing 50s ship. the high place 60s ship, and the high place 70s ship.
People are going to keep this event alive and build all of the old Classic ships, and being inclusive of deserving 1970s planes will only help the event get larger, not kill it off
I have been asking 100s of people about this for several years now, I have been in a unique situation to talk to as many as 25 to 35 flyers a day, every day. The vast majority would like a rolling cutoff

Regards

Randy

(snip)
>I also think it is silly that some people are allowed to fly
>their 25 yr old designs ,and did fly them when , they were
>only 25 years old. Now people with 38 year old designs are
>not allowed to fly their old ships .
>If it has to be CDs could give away a first place trophy for
>the highest placing 50s ship. the high place 60s ship, and
>the high place 70s ship.
>People are going to keep this event alive and build all of the
>old Classic ships, and being inclusive of deserving 1970s
>planes will only help the event get larger, not kill it off
>I have been asking 100s of people about this for several years
>now, I have been in a unique situation to talk to as many as
>25 to 35 flyers a day, every day. The vast majority would
>like a rolling cutoff
>
>Regards
>
>Randy

Randy, are you sure that this is what they would like, or are they merely agreeing with you? Quite often someone makes a statement and we say, "uhhuh" or some such and the person thinks we are agreeing with him. There is also point and counter point. You present your arguments and people feel they are sound and rational (and maybe they are). But then someone presents the counter arguments and people again feel they are sound and rational. That's why in court we let both the prosecution and defense present their arguments. That's why we put both sides on a ballot and let people choose.


The idea of keeping alive the flame of the older designs has merit. And, yes, there are those who come to VSC with some obscure design that they know won't be competitive at all. Let's face it, the majority of those attending VSC know they are not going to be competing for the top prizes regardless of what they fly. For them it may be just the fun. But it is a contest. And there are some who take this very seriously and come to compete in the hopes of winning (or coming close at least). And that means that the old designs that you want to keep alive will no longer be flying in their hands when something better now becomes legal.

Again I mention the dilution of the event. Are we there to preserve the designs from the 50's and 60's that formed our event, or are we there to preserve all of the designs of the 20th century? The later you roll the cut off date the less relevant any era becomes. Are you looking for the day when the pipe ships and electrics compete with the Noblers with their Fox 35's? I don't think there will be too much preserving of the old designs what that day happens, except for the guy who simply comes "for the fun of it". And if that is true, why doesn't someone bring these to the Nats? There are a bunch of people who come knowing they don't have a chance to place in the top ten anyway. But they do come to compete and do their best. And that's why we don't see the older designs and why, I fear, with a rolling cut off date they will disappear at VSC as well.

>(snip)
>>I also think it is silly that some people are allowed to
>fly
>>their 25 yr old designs ,and did fly them when , they
>were
>>only 25 years old. Now people with 38 year old designs
>are
>>not allowed to fly their old ships .
>>If it has to be CDs could give away a first place trophy
>for
>>the highest placing 50s ship. the high place 60s ship,
>and
>>the high place 70s ship.
>>People are going to keep this event alive and build all of
>the
>>old Classic ships, and being inclusive of deserving 1970s
>>planes will only help the event get larger, not kill it
>off
>>I have been asking 100s of people about this for several
>years
>>now, I have been in a unique situation to talk to as many
>as
>>25 to 35 flyers a day, every day. The vast majority
>would
>>like a rolling cutoff
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Randy
>
>Randy, are you sure that this is what they would like, or are
>they merely agreeing with you? Quite often someone makes a
>statement and we say, "uhhuh" or some such and the
>person thinks we are agreeing with him. There is also point
>and counter point. You present your arguments and people feel
>they are sound and rational (and maybe they are). But then
>someone presents the counter arguments and people again feel
>they are sound and rational. That's why in court we let both
>the prosecution and defense present their arguments. That's
>why we put both sides on a ballot and let people choose.
>
>
>The idea of keeping alive the flame of the older designs has
>merit. And, yes, there are those who come to VSC with some
>obscure design that they know won't be competitive at all.
>Let's face it, the majority of those attending VSC know they
>are not going to be competing for the top prizes regardless of
>what they fly. For them it may be just the fun. But it is a
>contest. And there are some who take this very seriously and
>come to compete in the hopes of winning (or coming close at
>least). And that means that the old designs that you want to
>keep alive will no longer be flying in their hands when
>something better now becomes legal.
>
>Again I mention the dilution of the event. Are we there to
>preserve the designs from the 50's and 60's that formed our
>event, or are we there to preserve all of the designs of the
>20th century? The later you roll the cut off date the less
>relevant any era becomes. Are you looking for the day when
>the pipe ships and electrics compete with the Noblers with
>their Fox 35's? I don't think there will be too much
>preserving of the old designs what that day happens, except
>for the guy who simply comes "for the fun of it".
>And if that is true, why doesn't someone bring these to the
>Nats? There are a bunch of people who come knowing they don't
>have a chance to place in the top ten anyway. But they do
>come to compete and do their best. And that's why we don't
>see the older designs and why, I fear, with a rolling cut off
>date they will disappear at VSC as well.


Yes Leonard I am sure of what my conversations are and were,and what I reported.
What I am not sure of is why I get first insults, and then complete made-up senarios of my conversations insinuating that I did not understand the persons I was talking with.
What I stated was mine and many other peoples opinion. It was not an attack on yours or anyone eles's opinion.
You think that putting back a rolling cutoff may kill off the older planes. Many other people do not think that way. We all have opinions on this, and should be able to express them in a forum with out the insinuations and insults.
I happen to think, that for example going to a 35 year old rolling cutoff that would enable 1974 planes to compete would be a good thing and help the event, others do not. I am not attacking or insulting them or their opinion. That is why we have votes on these type of things to start with.
There are contest flying now with planes up to 1979 that are working great. I can see no gloom and doom with my statement.

Randy

>Regarding the sub-topic of a rolling cutoff date (in
>Classic), there is a post on Stunt Hangar which states, among
>other things, that "the vast majority want a rolling
>cutoff".
>
>While I might question that, perhaps someone among that
>"vast majority" should contact PAMPA Rules Chairman
>Alice Cotton-Royer for a Rule Change Proposal form.
>
>Such a pro-active move would certainly beat spending hours at
>the keyboard hammering the subject to death.
>
>Mike Keville
>Tucson, AZ
>AMA 14220


I was the one that made that comment and post on Stunt Hangar, and since it is a partial I will put Mike's quote of me, back in context

The quote is:

"I have been asking 100s of people about this for several years now, I have been in a unique situation to talk to as many as 25 to 35 flyers a day, every day. The vast majority would like a rolling cutoff"

And since Mike thinks I am not being truthful, I have asked at least 200 stunt flyers about this over the past 2 years, and yes the majority answer by about 80 to 20 is they would like to see the rolling cutoff for Classic.

As I stated on Stunt Hangar I cannot see anything wrong with letting the PAMPA membership decide how the we judge what a Classic airplane is, and what is legal to fly.

Regards
Randy Smith

>I am still a bit confused as to why there is so much arguing
>going on about this subject. It can be solved so easily.
>

>JoAnn Keville

If we could decree that every contest day would be blessed with 6 mph winds blowing away from the sun, there would still be arguments for and against it.

Maybe it's the way we work out our general frustrations with the world in general.

>If we could decree that every contest day would be blessed
>with 6 mph winds blowing away from the sun, there would still
>be arguments for and against it. :6
====================================================

GOOD one, Alan! You're probably right.

Mike Keville
Tucson, AZ
AMA 14220

Jo Ann, thanks for you comments. Also has anyone ever thanked you for all the work you did the years you ran VSC. I have stated on the other forum(Stunt Hangar) leave Classic and Old Time alone. Right now I have one plane design that I did build and flew three classes of stunt with. I agree that if a S-70 event is started use only those designs for the 70's.

Anyway I guess you trained the Cholla Choppers well as VSC is still going strong. The biggest improvement was moving it up a day so everything was done in time for the Banquet.

This year did have some spectators show up on Classic days wondering where all the planes were. Informed them that they need to get out early to see them before the winds came up. This year ws the best one yet in my opinion.

By the way thanks to you, Uncle Mikey and the Cholla Choppers for all you have done. Now who is the new club that is helping also?

Having fun, DOC Holliday

Randy said:
The date breaks seem to
>me to represent periods when the was a turnover in performance
>that made one group unique from the other. With a rolling
>cutoff date, we would now be flying the designs that were
>cutting edge when the first VSC was held, seems to me it
>defeats the whole idea and just becomes a way to repeat the
>original progression rather then enjoy the designs of an era.
>

I usderstand why many feel that way. I don't see it the same way. I see the changes in the 70's as more a change in powerplants. The power started to get more reliable, and powerful.

So what do a lot of people do with their Classic planes? They put modern powerplants in them. I don't think that at 70's plane and a 60"s plane are going to be "much" different in performance, if powered with the same motor.

Myself, I prefer to fly Classic with all Classic equipment, motors, props, wheels, etc. OK, I use modern paint, but all the old paint is gone, or I would use that as well. If everybody used the equipment from the period, then the 70's planes might fair better.

The other concern many people here seem to have is that the 70's plane are going to do all the winning. Winning...Is that what you are after by flying Classic? I fly Classic just to fly the older planes in their original configurations. Yes, I won VSC once with a Fox 35 powered Cobra, but it was not what I did it for. Yes, I enjoyed beating Billy with his fancy powered plane with a Fox 35, but it is not why I do it. I enjoy the planes!

If this has to be all about winning Classic, count me out!

If this has to be all about winning Classic, count me out!

Exactly!!! I would never in a million years expect to win Classic at VSC! I do however find it a way to introduce designs that I have been involved with in the past that have never seen the light of day at VSC. If I ever go, I plan to take two classics, my 1969 designed Akromaster and Hans Pearson's 1954 designed Pegasus. The Pegasus was the winningest design in WAM from 1955 to 1966. Bob Raffel the co-designer placed in every event he entered and won most of the time. I think that sharing these old designs with everyone else is E X A C T L Y what VSC is about!!!!!!!


Jim Pollock

>I usderstand why many feel that way. I don't see it the same
>way. I see the changes in the 70's as more a change in
>powerplants. The power started to get more reliable, and
>powerful.
>
>So what do a lot of people do with their Classic planes? They
>put modern powerplants in them.

Bingo, right on point. The difference between what people flew in 84 (current year of a 25-year rolling cutoff) and 1953 is A LOT less of a difference than between 1984 and 1989 - because the engines/propulsion took a massive, game-changing, step.

The "purist" argument, i.e. use only airplanes from the era to replicate 1969 as closely as possible, is pretty well skewered when you can use any engine you want. If you want it to be a "purist" event then restrict the engines, not the airplanes! There wasn't a big change in the engine performance over the current classic dates - an ST46 is just a big Fox 35, and Bob Geiseke was competitive with a Fox in to the 80's. So things didn't change much until about 1988 or so.

I personally don't care enough one way or the other to make a big deal about it, but I would vote for the rolling cutoff. Partly because I haven't heard anything aside from the "purist" argument (which doesn't seem to hold water the way we are doing it now) and the fact that adding an event seems to push us over the line on proliferation to the point you will have to compromise somewhere else.

And in any case, fliers from my era and later didn't fly airplanes much before 1969, and it's almost as remote and nostalgia-free as OTS is. I don't see why it's so darned important to have a separate event to fly an Ares, and not have one for a Stiletto, Genesis, or a Sea Fury. With a rolling cutoff, and no engine restrictions, people are going to build whatever suits them anyway, and the engines will level out the performance differences in any case.

And in any case, from a rules standpoint, if the majority wants a rolling cutoff, a new event, or a no change, I will certainly vote accordingly. People can change the event how they want, just have to take action.

Brett

Cool, Bob.
I'm not going to read all of this stuff, no need.
When I show up with my Derringer or Super Chipmunk, I'll just be having fun.
Cool,
Chris...

It seems to me that another endless debate about personal opinions can never be settled. These endless computer brawls are very damaging to recruitment efforts. We should run separate subclasses, either pre and post 1970, or by decade, and then simply count the entries. Those counts should determine the rules structure. Entry counts are simple, objective, and accurately measure building and flying participation. Isn't that what we all came for? Tom H.

>It seems to me that another endless debate about personal
>opinions can never be settled. These endless computer brawls
>are very damaging to recruitment efforts. We should run
>separate subclasses, either pre and post 1970, or by decade,
>and then simply count the entries. Those counts should
>determine the rules structure. Entry counts are simple,
>objective, and accurately measure building and flying
>participation. Isn't that what we all came for? Tom H.


Tom

This is the big problem, it should never be a computer brawl in the first place, it should merely be a rational online discussion of the facts and merits without insults and insinuations. I thought that is the purpose of the forum.

Randy

It is sad.. Think some simply don't have a valid argument or facts to backup their opinion and resort to flaming the other side or unfounded facts they heard from someone that heard it from someplace. Then even a level headed guy will sometimes jump on a silly comment because it's so far out someone that really knows the facts has to correct it, then the battle's on..

""""The later you roll the cut off date the less relevant any era becomes."""
"" And that's why we don't see the older designs and why, I fear, with a rolling cut off date they will disappear at VSC as well.""

Leonard Neumann """""


Hi Leonard

That is some peoples opinion, I don't have that fear, or opinion that the latest airplane will obsolete the previous ones.
A good example of this is Billy Werwage.Billy is as competitive as it gets, he came to VSC with a very old Vulcan design because that is what he wanted to build, and obviously fly, as he could have just as easy came with a USA-1 or a Super Ares.
Then you have the likes of Ted Fancher who shows up with a Ruffy, clearly there are better flying Classic ships. I could go on and on with examples but I hope you see my point.
People have many many reasons for building specific planes of this era, adding a few more won't kill off the earlier ones. And It I could make a very good arguement that a certain 1969 plane is still better than any of the 1974 planes


Randy

Drat, when I saw the title I thought you were talking about the age of the flyer!

don Burke
Menifee, CA
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming, WOO HOO, What a Ride!

>Drat, when I saw the title I thought you were talking about
>the age of the flyer!
>
>don Burke
>Menifee, CA
>Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention
>of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body,
>but rather to skid in sideways - body thoroughly used up,
>totally worn out and screaming, WOO HOO, What a Ride!

Come to think of it, right after this year's Nats I will be able to qualify. Maybe we could set up a contest for guys 70 years of age and older, and then they have to fly a plane that is as old as they are (in design). Might take a couple of years to get competitive (we might be flying free flights at first), but we would have a rolling cut off date for the newbies in the class.

Here at the Huntersville NC contests we are in our second year of allowing models up to Dec 79 to enter classic. There has been a few models from the 70's but they have shown no advantage over other models. We ran the events together and now we have combined then into one.It is still one of the better flyers that wins. I think a ARF Nobler has won the last two times.I and Pat Robinson pushed it forward here at Huntersville and everyone though I would rush out and build a Juno as I had several over the years and had great results with them.I am still flying my 1957 design. We have had to buy a few extra trophies but there has been no extra work and the same number of people show up at each contest. I think people like to see new designs show up and watch them fly.As Paul said the motor is the real difference not the plane. Gene Martine had a ARF Stiletto at the last contest but a poor motor run did him in.
Ed