The Rise and Fall of Scale Masters

[Gary Norton]

All,

Having read all the posts so far it is a little difficult to follow the specific subjects.  Not sure where we are on the "Rise and Fall" but I do hear what is being said about 3-views and other judging matters.  So, I will try to comment on those.

First of all, I have an extremely busy life and have been heavily involved in the Rosewood Champs coming up.  I routinely spend a great deal of time with the bugeting and forecasting of each year's champs and do not have a lot of time to devote to the forum.

Now, three-views.  I agree with everything that has been said so far except for the suggestion to eliminate 3-views.  It is well known by most builders that a 3-view is not always an accurate depiction of a subject aircraft.  I am personally a devoted fan of Super Cubs.  I am currently building a 1/4 scale version from Piper factory drawings.  I have 1,084 separate drawing of the Super Cub and I could build a full scale if I had the money and time.  So far I have spent some six years on and off in the process of constructing the model.  It is mostly framed up and getting close to covering and detailing (probably take another six year).  The drawings for all the components of the aircraft have been reduced to 1/4 scale and faithfully followed in the construction.  The factory drawings came with a 3-view.  It is reasonaly accurate but it is obvious that the drawing was meant as a general view and not for use in accuracy of building.  I think this is the objective of most 3-views, i.e., a general reference.  If and when I present the model for judging, I will point out to the outline judge the known discrepancies by reference to photos or other sources.  It would be nice if I could show the judges the particular drawings but we all know this would be overwhelming to all.
I am a qualified static judge.  My goal is to take the contestant's documentation and compare that to the model and determine discrepancies or deviatios in downgrading.  The contestant's goal is to make his model the exact representation of the documentation.  If we both do our job, he will get a perfect score.  Sounds simple, and it is.  As judge's, we have a limited amount of time to judge a subject model.  The use of a 3-view is the quickest, easiest and most consistent document to use for comparison.  I have had contestant's present photos for use as 3-views and find that it is more time consuming to get an accurate view with a photo due to lens distortions, angle of view, shadows and other effects of photography.  Of course there is always the poor WWI guys who seldom ever have a photo for reference.
I guess my point is that a 3-view is the easiest and most consistent way to compare outline for the various models that are presented at an event and provides the basis for finding the "best of the best".  As Mitch has stated, the key is education of both the judges and the contestants.
Another issue and prbably the most compained about is color.  I have always been a fan of finding out what type and color of paint the subject aircraft was painted, going to the paint manufacturer or a published source for the paint chip(s) and going to your local paint shop to have the same color mixed for the model.  The rub is usually the color chip(s) in the documentation.  Rarely do I ever see a color chip that is identifiable to the paint manufacturer.  Normally, they are just a slip of paper with colored paint from somewhere.  The other problem is the newness of the paint on the sublect aircraft and the modeler's ability to weather the paint on the model accrodingly.  I very seldom see a model that has been weathered to match the subject.  The models generally are in factory new condition.
These are just some observations and maybe food for more thought and discussion.
By the way, I like the idea of electing the president by the board rather than the membership.  I wil look into the Oregon charitable organizations laws to see what we can do.
PS:  Mitch, can you do something about the box we reply in.  If you have more to say that the box will hold it jumps all over the place and makes it tough to work.

[Paul Fleming]

This has been a most interesting forum. I'm brand new to the USSMA, I'm starting to wonder if it's going to be fun.

Paul

[marauderbomber]

Hi Paul,

Kenny Kear here. I would like to give you my outlook on the word "Fun". Fun is how "YOU" want it to be.

I have sat in the chairs (all 3) that static the models. I have sat in the chairs on the flight line judging the flights for many years. I have also been on the control side of the "little black box" having FUN.

This was FUN and enriching. I was exposed to a lot of information that I thought I knew but didn't (learning curve). It is a lot of work but a "TON of FUN".

I also get the most FUN out of going to the meets and rubbing elbows with the pilots/contestants and marveling over their museum quality masterpieces and all of their neat little tricks on how they brought their models to life. It's totally amazing.

Let's not forget about some of the best FUN of all...The experience of being there and the BBQ cook out and hanger talk at the end of the day. To me that puts the icing on the cake.

Again, Fun is how "YOU" want it or make it.

Now...Let's get to building and have some FUN...I can smell the fresh Nitrate dope ready for the biplane.

Did I say I like biplanes... "Yep"...I do.


Kenny

[Lawrence Harville]

You want to know about the Rise and fall of Scale Masters
Check out the Post entitled

Has anyone received anything from the ScaleMasters about the Championships??


Forget about rule changes

fix the Championships

Lawrence

[Gary Norton]

Yes, the spectator turn out was very good.  The host club is to be congratulated on their fine efforts to bring in the public.  And Whoop-de-doo, we spent a lot of time talking to parents and young kids at the traditional line up on the runway during the noon break about building and flying scale aircraft.  Dick Hansen, our newest inductee to the AMA Hall of Fame, gave away his DVD's to kids and their parents in an effort to inspire involvement in our sport.  Hopefully, maybe just one of those kids will get the spark and build a scale aircraft for competition.  Why there were only 36 contestants is a mystery at this point but Mitch Baker is going to do a survey of the qualified pilots to find out why they did not attend.  At the Board of Directors meeting there was a lot of action on how to inspire more membership and attendance at qualifiers.  Stay tuned on those issues.  The minutes will be posted soon.  One of our biggest promoters is Roly Wolsford in Canada, who continues to create more qualifiers in the Northwest and inspire scale buildiers than anyone I know of.  So, come on members, get off your soap box and go out and find a kid to mentor to build and fly scale aircraft.  You will find the future is incredible.  Make the effort; it won't hurt a bit.
Gary

[Mitchell Baker]

Ok, lets just cool down a bit...

Yes, Chuck, you think SM is going down the tubes ...  Yes you have some good ideas to help... But you also missed a HUGE point... the ONLY way to get new people into the sport is to show it off.  I just wish we had the time at the champs to get some kids up on buddy boxes during the noon time show.  The day that we as modelers ignore the spectators will be the death of the sport.  Remember, we are out of the days where one person financed the Championships... the only way for it to survive, with or without your changes, is to have income... how do you do that?  Sponsors?  How do you get sponsors? spectators...  how to do you get spectators?  Give them something.. like the ability to talk to pilots...  see the planes up close... AMA was there giving out gliders to the kids...  Need more of that at ALL events.. fly-in's and competition...

I do want to find a compromise to the flyby Chuck.. and did a lot of talking about it.. did some timing at the current champs with different planes...  Seems for the lone jet there, a 5 sec flyby would be 800+ feet....  which is a bit much.. Want to find a compromise...

See-ya
Mitch

[Mitchell Baker]

Yep,  that is why I am trying to come up with a compromise...  or maybe a combo of both left up to the CD... not sure what will work for all...  --Mitch

[Michael]

Chuck, you have every reason to be incensed with me over that post.  It was inappropriate, ill-conceived, and incredibly boorish of me to say it, which is why I deleted the entire post first thing this morning. I offer my sincerest apology to you in this public forum and assure you that it will not happen again.

While there is absolutely no excuse for that comment, it originated from my personal frustration with the declining participation in our program and my own inability to devise an approriate solution to attempt to turn it around.  Once again, Chuck, I apologize.

Mike Peck

[La7 flier]

well, this topic appears to have not gone away. I opined on this some months back suggesting the SM find a location (near Las Vegas) and host the competition there. It was correctly pointed out that a host club would have to be willing to pick up the workload for this to work. That the SM is slowly sliding into irrelevance appears to be a given (though some may vehemently disagree). I wonder if the SM will slowly "devolve" into being a friendly "challenge" amongst some friends at a scale fly in. That would have it come full circle......possible. I would think the SM Advisory council would be willing to consider some steps to try and make the SM more attractive to participants.

Tiano has managed to find "the sweet spot" with Top Gun. TG manages to draw the best scalebuilders/fliers from around the world. Maybe a logical place to start might be seeing what TG does differently from SM. Is it simpler rules? SM can fix that. How about better judges? Certainly this can be addressed. A single spot each year rather than a rotating venue? Well, this has been debated before, as well. I would think that a survey sent to the primary scale forums on the web would offer some valuable feedback and not cost an arm and a leg to conduct.

Of course, SM can always simply deny that a problem exists. If this is the case, I guess time will tell....

[Mitchell Baker]

I don't think TG is any comparison to SM.  TG is an invitational only event...  it is designed to first make money.  It is run by one person, not an organization, not a board...    SM is a not for profit organization chartered to enhance the education of scale modeling.  It is run by a board.  Some say, "well things were different when Harris ran things" well they were.  He ran things, he funded what he wanted to fund.  It is a much different animal now.  I do believe the base principles and ideals are still there, but execution are different.   

We are working several ideas to help draw more people to come to qualifiers and have more "reward"... 

See-ya
Mitch

[La7 flier]

see my last comment above...

[Mitchell Baker]

Sorry, what did I miss?  Still jet lagged from trip to Phoenix for the 1/8th Air Force Fly-in...  had major delays getting home... 

[La7 flier]

Sorry, I should have clarified. Despite the differences you pointed out, TG still is a successful scale competition and could possibly serve as a teaching "template". Given the broad challeges with attracting participation in scale modeling in general, I wouldn't dismiss TG quite so quickly, despite the obvious differences. Hope this helps

[Mitchell Baker]

Ok, I understand, no it can't be dismissed... but unless SM is taken over by one person with lots of money to spend, paid;voting membership eliminated it could never be run like TG.  TG is one person who has final word on what does or does not happen.. period.  If you don't like it... there is no vote.. you either live with it or you don't go...   that is the major point I have when comparing the two.   

Everyone who participates in the running of TG is paid... and it is only once a year.  Often the clubs who host the champs, are also club who host qualifiers. 

I would like to have a 5 yr plan in place for host clubs.  Maybe have a list of 5-6 clubs around the country where we go...  Unless we see a big influx of funding... there is no way SM Champs could not function out of a single site every year.   The one advantage moving around does has over TG is the change of more people being able to participate overall.  Esp the working folks.  If I was ever good enough to be invited to TG I would not be able to go year after year unless I eliminated several other events I participate in. Just would not have the vacation time or funds.  With SM moving around, there is more of a chance it will be closer to folks every other year for the most part.   

I don't have the answers... I think the discussion is good.. I don't think the topic is correct.. don't think there is a fall, maybe a little stumble...  and with applying the ideas from several members out there I think it can come back. 

See-ya
Mitch

[La7 flier]

Well I completely agree with you that a deep pocketed sponsor would go a long way toward solving the problem. Assuming that doesn't come about, a good plan B should be developed. I have always thought the idea of moving the SM around was good for the reasons you cited. Unfortunately, certain venues are attracting 25 to 35 total participants...seems kind of low to me. I would think a "healthy" SM  could routinely see 50 plus each year and maybe should be a goal or objective for SM. Finding the "sweet" geographic spots which attract the highest participants and cover the US might be a good first step. You mentioned 6-7 sites which should be spread around the US to maximize participation. Your idea for a committment from clubs is good but I think each club would want a significant "cut" of the proceeds. Sounds good. I support SM and am looking to getting back to the competitive level after a "family-raising" hiatus. I will say that I haven't paid dues in a few years and have not been consistent. One of the problems I see is having been out of competition for a fews years, it's tough to pay dues for something I don't get a tangible return for. At least with the AMA, I do get secondary liability insurance.

[Gary Norton]

I will try to summarize the points we seem to be following.  Correct me if I am wrong.  To contrast Top Gun With Scale Masters the points seem to be 1) simpler rules; 2) better judges; and 3) permanent location.  Other points:  1) SM should have a goal of 50+ contestants; 2) find "sweet geographic spot" that would attract the most contestants; 3) host club would want signigicant cut of proceeds; and 4) no tangible return for dues paid.

To address each point:  First I am not convinced that TG rules are simpler than SM.  You have to submit to static judging and fly the set routines for flight judging in both cases.  SM Guide is larger due to more explanation, forms and covers other topics (judging, administration, etc.).  TG limits the life of a competivie aircraft while SM does not.  Second is TG has better judges.  Well maybe.  One thing TG does have is basically the same judges every year and I understand they are compensated.  This is something SM does not have the resources for compensation to any degree and the fact that the venue is moved each year, it is not feasable to have the same judges.  SM does actively try to enslist new judges and provides training for them.  Third is the permanent location which I think has been thoroghly discussed.  SM goal for 50+ contestants has always been there.  In 2001 SM had met that goal until 9/11 came along just prior to the contest and grounded a large group of contestants; 2002, 2003 & 2004 met the goal; 2005 had 40; 2006 met the goal; 2007 had 45; 2008 had 48; 2009 met the goal and 2010 had 36.  SM is going to conduct a survey of qualified pilots for 2010 in an attempt to find out why they did not attend the 2010 Champs.  The geographic sweet spot, in my opinion, was the Gardner, Kansas champs.  The problem seems to be that once a club has run a Champs, they are exhausted and are not interested in a repeat any time soon.  Dayton, Ohio and Phoenix, AZ are the only areas that have had two champs that I know of.  Currently, SM provides the host club with 50% of the net financial results (which could be a loss!).  SM has continued to explore ways to make the dues paid a better investment.  AMA is way ahead of the game but is basically your insurance company.  But even AMA is losing members in droves.  Who needs insurance to fly an electric foamy in your back yard???  All the points are well taken and SM leaders are actively working on finding solutions to these and other problems, but, it is tough with an all volunteer workforce.

[Mitchell Baker]

Thanks Gary... good points...

I want to expand on one point...  "Bang for the Buck" in something for the dues.  Last year I started a program contacting several vendors willing to give SM members.  Besides the fact that each member has the possibility to submit some part of the dues as a tax write off, all new members do get a newly designed hat.. a nice name tag and each year a new membership pin and decal.  No it's not earth shattering but it is something.  I continue to work on new vendors to give discounts to SM members.  Currently there are about 12 vendors who give anything from 15% off to free shipping.... 

It's one of those catch 22 situations... The only way to get sponsors and vendor discounts is for SM to have good membership numbers AND the members to use the vendors...   

I would like SM to have the funding available to compensate judges and go one step further... have 1/2 the judges team be provided by SM and 1/2 from the local club. 

As Gary stated, I am going to try to get some feed back from those who were qualified this year and didn't attend... When I have something I will report it to the members

Also, I do believe this forum can be a return for your dues....    The forums have a potential to be a great asset to the members and scale modelers in general as a place for great information.  Some of the best builders and fliers in the world compete withing SM and could provide a great deal of knowledge to the community.

See-ya
Mitch

[Mike Barbee]

Hi everyone, Mike Barbee here,
I have been a part of many SM Champs in just about all positions, the biggest problem I see is the all volunteer problem. Some contests pay the judges and in some respects I think that is good. One reason you get them to return every year. At this years Champs the club had a lot of volunteers and helpers that did a great job in all aspects. I am also a member of the EAA and the largest gathering of airplane enthusiasts Oshkosh is run by all volunteers. Maybe we should accept anyone who wants to help at the Champs from where ever they come. I don't think we solicit our members to come out and help obviously we would like them to fly but maybe some would like to put their toe in the water by volunteering and not necessarily flying. I am an active part of this orginization and always open to sugestions and solutions.
Mike B.