The Rise and Fall of Scale Masters

[waconut]

Having been thoroughly chastised by my good friends and concerned scale modelers, I am re-posting my "The Rise and Fall of Scale Masters".  I hope that by doing this, the dialog on scale competition will continue and that others will come forth and participate in this discussion.
/chuck (4/23/10).
                                                                                                                                                      4/18/10
The Rise and Fall of Scale Masters

Has anyone noticed that for at least 5 years now, that attendance has diminished at regional qualifiers and the Championships have also incurred decreases in attendance?  Is it a sign of the times that the number of regional qualifiers has slowly, but surely decreased until that now, in 2010, out of 23 identified qualifiers, we have 15 scheduled, 7 canceled and 2 that are "invites"; the AMA Nats and Top Gun?  Top Gun; now that's what scale competition is all about.  Competition by invitation for the "best of the Best" model aircraft with a no nonsense approach to competition.
On the west coast, contestants at the Expert and Team level seem to always the same people with the same airplanes with the same winners, or if not competing at the expert level, are now competing in the Advanced Class – with Bashed ARFs and even sometimes with a previously competing expert Class airplane.  For instance, at the SoCal (Hemet CA) qualifier, there were 2 entries in Expert and 2 entries in Team. If one didn't know that this was the 2010 qualifier, they would have sworn it was 2009, or was it 2008?
Scale Masters has now defined the Advanced Class of competition with the intent of increasing attendance hoping that ARFs, ARCs, ARPs and other "ARx's is the way to go to improve participation numbers. (Open/Fun was kinda always there).  Well, if one looks around, one sees the same (mostly) pilots and builders, but they are now giving Advanced Class a whirl.  Why maintain an Expert level airplane for one contest a year (maybe two if it's a Class winner and one can afford to attend the Championships, possibly 2000-3000 miles away).  I compete with a ¼ scale Waco F5 Classic, and it is a chore to maintain and prepare for a Qualifier; not the flying portion, but the static. I envy (not really) those who enter molded/fiberglass models that are primarily structurally assembled; gear, radio stuff and engine installed and need only to paint touch-up for a contest. No complaints here, I have empathy for scratch and plan builders, builders who start from stick-kits and bash away to fully emulate the prototype and the occasional Almost Ready to .... (fill in the blank) airplane that really is a work of art and craftsmanship worthy of competing at the Expert Class level.  Just look to Jay Stewarts' (of OEAF fame) bash of the P6E ARF and you tell me it's an ARF".  Bob Frys' (another OEAF member) bash of a P47 is another example of what can be done to AR'x's to be competitive in any Scale Master's Class, be it Expert, Team or Advanced.
So, with Top Gun at the top of the heap for Scale aircraft competition, where does Scale Masters fit in the realm of scale model competition?  Nowhere.  This organization is mired in the past, has one of the largest competition Rule Books around, demonstrates an intense abhorrence to change, embraces a motto that even Harris Lee would disavow: "Keeping the Dream Alive:!!" to what purpose? Perpetuation I think.  Maybe it's really about keeping it the way it was in the beginning – a few scale modelers with a desire for competition in a controlled environment. And it happened back then.  Pilots and builders had at it. Competition was the game. Fun and comradeship was how it was played.  Most aircraft were heavy metal; WW2 stuff.  Contests were held. Competition rules were modified, and then, stagnation began to set in after the death of Scale Master's founder, Harris Lee.  Keeping up with the times was no longer a priority of Management and Advisors.  . Anyone make the connection to the current competition guide's slant? Anyone connect the dots to Scale Master's inaction to change? Just look at the last two years of changes to the Competition Guide: all editorial at best. The best example of it is probably the 2010 change: "Documentation location during judging clarified". This clarifies where one is to place his documentation for Static Judging.  Now who proposed this change and obtained a majority vote for its acceptance?  Please don't ask.  And, what about other submitted changes that feedback was not provided to the authors as to its disposition? Please don't ask. No responses will be forthcoming. Unless we (Scale Masters) recognize that the scale modeling competition world has changed, we will fade away, and wish Top Gun the best; which they are. Scale competition of the best.
The Scale Squadron of Southern California, the founding organization of  Scale Masters (Harris Lee and 5 other founding fathers were members) seems to see the future of scale modeling and competition is not Scale Masters by its last three years of attitudes and direction toward structured competition.  Once a very active Club, the Scale Squadron no longer supports Scale Master Qualifiers here in Southern California or Arizona.  In fact, its direction seems to be toward scale Fly-ins.  They now sponsor a scale fly-in every June and draw a fairly large contingent of pilots and modelers and obviously a large number of airplanes.  The OEAF likewise does the same; holding two Fly-in events every year. This Fly-ins draws 80 or more pilots and over 100 aircraft at each event.  And you wonder why no Qualifier was held this year in the Phoenix area.  Please don't ask.
Here on the west coast (Southern California in particular), scale Fly-ins are becoming the thing.   Numerous Dawn Patrols (WW1 only), a few Warbirds Over ... (obviously WW2 stuff), Golden Age/National Air Race aircraft (need I enumerate?), etc. are all being conducted.  And guess what.  Competition has crept into these events. Not necessarily structured competition, but Best Of ....... awards.  Best Biplane, best Warbird, Best Trainer, Best WW1 military, Peoples/Pilots Choice, etc.  A lot of awards are given. A lot of participants win awards for "Best ofs".  Static no longer rules the roost. Static being 50% of one's Overall Scale Masters Total score no longer applies as no Static judging occurs..  The playing and flying field has now been leveled.  It's now the Plane, Period identifiable (WW1, WW2, Golden Age, etc), Prototypical flights, and overall, a Pretty Damn Good Looking airplane!  One can say that to be a Fly-in winner, one need to watch his "Ps".  As the events are mostly held locally, say drawing contestants from within a 100 mile radius, schedule dialogs are being held amongst the area clubs, eliminating most date conflicts and enhancing the probability of higher attendance. 
Let's regress abit and talk about three-views; now there's a paradox if ever there was one.  Show me a documentation 3-view and I'll show you what PhotoShop can do.  One can also say that about photographs, but let's not go there.  3-views should be used for what they are: a drawing by a draftsman and his interpretation of what the particular aircraft (not necessarily your prototype) he used for his drawing looked like and not as what one's modeled aircraft outline looks like.  Not one of my five Scale Master Waco's (all were of existing aircraft) 3-views were correct. Each prototype airplane had variants and deviations from existing available drawings. One gets tired of inserting on the drawings, exceptions and differences that were incorporated in the model's construction (based on photos) but not shown on the drawings.  I now use actual photographs of the prototype airplane rather than someone's drawing of say a typical 1929 Waco CTO.  And still I sometimes forget to incorporate some detail a Static Judge is just waiting to pounce on.
To sum up this diatribe, Scale Masters had best recognize the second decade of the 21st century as it relates to scale model competition, and the aircraft that are modeled; all the way from scratch built to RTFs.  Consider, for instance, 1) combining Expert and Team into one Class and 2), revisit the BOM rule. We then would have basically, two entry classes: Expert and Advanced.  Open is just that; open for whatever purpose.   I know there are many suggestions out there amongst concerned modelers, but as no Management/Advisory movement of consequence has been observed over the past few years, the attitude of "I give up" is flourishing and as down goes interest, so goes Scale Masters ... down the tubes.  Fun-flys are now in the forefront here in Southern California/Arizona and are indicative as to what scale modelers now prefer - rather than a structured contest with the same old participants, with the same old planes and having the same old winners.
As I fly my Waco during this year and try my best to ready it for another Qualifier (I've already competed this year and placed last in Team. Or was it second?).  It's time (2 years of rejuvenating the F5 is getting beyond the pale, especially trying to get a 97 Static) to complete next years competition airplane – a Waco, what else?  Maybe I too should completely redo the Waco F5 Classic and use it as a Hanger Queen, only to be seen at Scale Master Qualifiers or at the Championships.  A model doesn't qualify, a Pilot does. Please don't ask.

[Mitchell Baker]

This will be a multi-part reply as I have time... You make several valid points....

It's been a while since anyone has posted in this Forum topic.  It seems disinterest has set in. Well, after a few months of Scale Master Qualifiers, I think it's again time time to continue discussions on the future of Scale Masters and shake up some interest.  Mike Barbee was the last to post on this subject and suggested that a permanent venue for the Championships be located in the west (Las Vegas maybe) which might bring the attendance numbers up at the Championships. That's all well and good, but unless the number of Qualifiers and participants also go up (not down, as is currently happening), there's only one place for the Scale Masters organizationto go, and thats down hill as well; - into obscurity.
What follows is my take on the current situation; you might even call it a dissertation. You make the call........../waconut
...

If someone could find a club willing to do it for 2-5 years in a row, somewhere between Ohio to Phoenix down thru Texas, then I thing you would make the argument of a central location more viable.  Do I think it would help attendance? yes....

                                                                                                                                                      4/18/10
The Rise and Fall of Scale Masters

Has anyone noticed that for at least 5 years now, that attendance has diminished at regional qualifiers and the Championships have also incurred decreases in attendance?  Is it a sign of the times that the number of regional qualifiers has slowly, but surely decreased until that now, in 2010, out of 23 identified qualifiers, we have 15 scheduled, 7 canceled and 2 that are "invites"; the AMA Nats and Top Gun?  Top Gun; now that's what scale competition is all about.  Competition by invitation for the "best of the Best" model aircraft with a no nonsense approach to competition.

Lets clarify a couple things.. only 3 have been officially canceled. Two of those were due to lack of club support for events of that size.  Three others have not been heard from yet and usually are not until something around now...  I have not heard anything from the CD's. 49ers is having field issues but will be back, same I believe with Gunsmoke.  Three new have been added this year...  one will pretty much take the place of the Buckeye qualifier.. So if I hear from the other three we will be at 21 for the year...  Top Gun is the only "invite" As far as I know, the NATS  anyone can enter....

On the west coast, contestants at the Expert and Team level seem to always the same people with the same airplanes with the same winners, or if not competing at the expert level, are now competing in the Advanced Class – with Bashed ARFs and even sometimes with a previously competing expert Class airplane.  For instance, at the SoCal (Hemet CA) qualifier, there were 2 entries in Expert and 2 entries in Team. If one didn't know that this was the 2010 qualifier, they would have sworn it was 2009, or was it 2008?
Scale Masters has now defined the Advanced Class of competition with the intent of increasing attendance hoping that ARFs, ARCs, ARPs and other "ARx's is the way to go to improve participation numbers. (Open/Fun was kinda always there).  Well, if one looks around, one sees the same (mostly) pilots and builders, but they are now giving Advanced Class a whirl.  Why maintain an Expert level airplane for one contest a year (maybe two if it's a Class winner and one can afford to attend the Championships, possibly 2000-3000 miles away).  I compete with a ¼ scale Waco F5 Classic, and it is a chore to maintain and prepare for a Qualifier; not the flying portion, but the static. I envy (not really) those who enter molded/fiberglass models that are primarily structurally assembled; gear, radio stuff and engine installed and need only to paint touch-up for a contest. No complaints here, I have empathy for scratch and plan builders, builders who start from stick-kits and bash away to fully emulate the prototype and the occasional Almost Ready to .... (fill in the blank) airplane that really is a work of art and craftsmanship worthy of competing at the Expert Class level.  Just look to Jay Stewarts' (of OEAF fame) bash of the P6E ARF and you tell me it's an ARF".  Bob Frys' (another OEAF member) bash of a P47 is another example of what can be done to AR'x's to be competitive in any Scale Master's Class, be it Expert, Team or Advanced.
So, with Top Gun at the top of the heap for Scale aircraft competition, where does Scale Masters fit in the realm of scale model competition?  Nowhere.  This organization is mired in the past, has one of the largest competition Rule Books around, demonstrates an intense abhorrence to change, embraces a motto that even Harris Lee would disavow: "Keeping the Dream Alive:!!" to what purpose? Perpetuation I think.  Maybe it's really about keeping it the way it was in the beginning – a few scale modelers with a desire for competition in a controlled environment. And it happened back then.  Pilots and builders had at it. Competition was the game. Fun and comradeship was how it was played.  Most aircraft were heavy metal; WW2 stuff.  Contests were held. Competition rules were modified, and then, stagnation began to set in after the death of Scale Master's founder, Harris Lee.  Keeping up with the times was no longer a priority of Management and Advisors.  . Anyone make the connection to the current competition guide's slant? Anyone connect the dots to Scale Master's inaction to change? Just look at the last two years of changes to the Competition Guide: all editorial at best. The best example of it is probably the 2010 change: "Documentation location during judging clarified". This clarifies where one is to place his documentation for Static Judging.  Now who proposed this change and obtained a majority vote for its acceptance?  Please don't ask.  And, what about other submitted changes that feedback was not provided to the authors as to its disposition? Please don't ask. No responses will be forthcoming. Unless we (Scale Masters) recognize that the scale modeling competition world has changed, we will fade away, and wish Top Gun the best; which they are. Scale competition of the best.

I will, it came about because of an issue that came up at the 2009 championships.. It was put in to address the issue as brought up by a competitor.  It's that simple.   And yes the process for getting back with those who propose changes is broken.  BUT I have put into place an easy way to submit a proposed change.. BUT I am also trying to prevent the "It's broken fix it"  I want specifics.. If someone has a chance.. they need to clearly explain it and give justification for it..  specifics...  And some may be giving up... but I am not.. I am trying to put processes in place or modify old ones to make them useful.

The Scale Squadron of Southern California, the founding organization of  Scale Masters (Harris Lee and 5 other founding fathers were members) seems to see the future of scale modeling and competition is not Scale Masters by its last three years of attitudes and direction toward structured competition.  Once a very active Club, the Scale Squadron no longer supports Scale Master Qualifiers here in Southern California or Arizona.  In fact, its direction seems to be toward scale Fly-ins.  They now sponsor a scale fly-in every June and draw a fairly large contingent of pilots and modelers and obviously a large number of airplanes.  The OEAF likewise does the same; holding two Fly-in events every year. This Fly-ins draws 80 or more pilots and over 100 aircraft at each event.  And you wonder why no Qualifier was held this year in the Phoenix area.  Please don't ask. 

Well from what I heard the local club was burned out on hosting it and support was down and they didn't feel they could make enough money off it...

You will ALWAYS get more pilots at a flyin than a composition..   Closest I see is Mint Julep which will normally get 80+ pilots each year.   But for the most part, a many people would rather attend 3-4 flyins a year than 1 competition, under anyone's rules.  Why? Ask.. they would rather have a relaxed fly anytime atmosphere for a weekend.... they don't see a competition as relaxing.. or flying that much.. 2-3 times for the weekend.  You can't compare attendance to flyins to attendance to competitions...  at one time you might have been able to, but from what I have seen in the last 5-10 years... they are apples and oranges.

Here on the west coast (Southern California in particular), scale Fly-ins are becoming the thing.   Numerous Dawn Patrols (WW1 only), a few Warbirds Over ... (obviously WW2 stuff), Golden Age/National Air Race aircraft (need I enumerate?), etc. are all being conducted.  And guess what.  Competition has crept into these events. Not necessarily structured competition, but Best Of ....... awards.  Best Biplane, best Warbird, Best Trainer, Best WW1 military, Peoples/Pilots Choice, etc.  A lot of awards are given. A lot of participants win awards for "Best ofs".  Static no longer rules the roost. Static being 50% of one's Overall Scale Masters Total score no longer applies as no Static judging occurs..  The playing and flying field has now been leveled.  It's now the Plane, Period identifiable (WW1, WW2, Golden Age, etc), Prototypical flights, and overall, a Pretty Damn Good Looking airplane!  One can say that to be a Fly-in winner, one need to watch his "Ps".  As the events are mostly held locally, say drawing contestants from within a 100 mile radius, schedule dialogs are being held amongst the area clubs, eliminating most date conflicts and enhancing the probability of higher attendance. 

Again Apples to Oranges... Scale fly-in for and for that matter non-scale fly-ins for as long as I have been attending have given out awards like that...   Static does not rule the roost at a fly-in... fun and non-competition does.   Vote on which one you like the best....

Let's regress abit and talk about three-views; now there's a paradox if ever there was one.  Show me a documentation 3-view and I'll show you what PhotoShop can do.  One can also say that about photographs, but let's not go there.  3-views should be used for what they are: a drawing by a draftsman and his interpretation of what the particular aircraft (not necessarily your prototype) he used for his drawing looked like and not as what one's modeled aircraft outline looks like.  Not one of my five Scale Master Waco's (all were of existing aircraft) 3-views were correct. Each prototype airplane had variants and deviations from existing available drawings. One gets tired of inserting on the drawings, exceptions and differences that were incorporated in the model's construction (based on photos) but not shown on the drawings.  I now use actual photographs of the prototype airplane rather than someone's drawing of say a typical 1929 Waco CTO.  And still I sometimes forget to incorporate some detail a Static Judge is just waiting to pounce on.
To sum up this diatribe, Scale Masters had best recognize the second decade of the 21st century as it relates to scale model competition, and the aircraft that are modeled; all the way from scratch built to RTFs.  Consider, for instance, 1) combining Expert and Team into one Class and 2), revisit the BOM rule. We then would have basically, two entry classes: Expert and Advanced.  Open is just that; open for whatever purpose.   I know there are many suggestions out there amongst concerned modelers, but as no Management/Advisory movement of consequence has been observed over the past few years, the attitude of "I give up" is flourishing and as down goes interest, so goes Scale Masters ... down the tubes.  Fun-flys are now in the forefront here in Southern California/Arizona and are indicative as to what scale modelers now prefer - rather than a structured contest with the same old participants, with the same old planes and having the same old winners.
As I fly my Waco during this year and try my best to ready it for another Qualifier (I've already competed this year and placed last in Team. Or was it second?).  It's time (2 years of rejuvenating the F5 is getting beyond the pale, especially trying to get a 97 Static) to complete next years competition airplane – a Waco, what else?  Maybe I too should completely redo the Waco F5 Classic and use it as a Hanger Queen, only to be seen at Scale Master Qualifiers or at the Championships.  A model doesn't qualify, a Pilot does. Please don't ask.
(Has anyone seen my ARC-bashed Stearman N2S-3?  It's a Fun-fly winner in the making!) 
/chuck maitre #158
...................................../c

Will edit more later...

[jlovitt]

I'm curious why this post was deleted?

Jeff

[Mel Santmyers]

I am pleased to see the re-posting of this commentary by Chuck. It shows there are concerns in several different areas.
I am also concerned. I think for most newbies the things we speak about are not very important after all look at the rule book and how thick it is.
One of the things I just mentioned to Mitch was the overall makeup of this organization. When first started it was Harris lee period that called the shots.Harris also had several people that he listened to. If something didnt work it was changed asap. Today we have this board that has to communicate and we all know what that means and if we need a change we wait and we wait. If you don't then get a little older or experienced and you will.
My suggestion is something like this.  We need ONE leader,chairman or whatever we decide to call them. Then he needs to set up district areas,such as North,South,East and West. and call these people ADVISORS. These advisors can also have as many people as they like to get info from. Based on his or her thinking and suggestions from his four advisors he calls the shots period.
Now in addition it can be set up to where where the chairman is on THREE YEAR TERMS voted on by the advisors and not the membership. AND if the advisors are not doing the job then he has the right to make a change.
Some may call this harsh however others may call it back to reality. There is only a small group that really knows who is the best for the job. Members seem to make things a popularity contest and not always in the best interest of a smaller organization.
We care thats why we post this stuff.

[Mel Santmyers]

To continue. Now that I have re-arranged the the way business is done. [By the way i know this is a difficult item to digest] Anyway
I see many hits and no comments. Oh! And think about this. Do we have a beauracy that stymies our progress?
Now to carry on in the last month and this only April. I have been to two giant flyins,first the Button Willow Jet meet in the middle of nowhere. 120 pilots and over 200 Jets next the Gilman Springs WWi event 41 pilots over 50 WW1 airplanes next I will attend the Giant Scale meet in Atwater Ca. where we will see at a minimum over 100 giant planes. Now all this in a couple months time,nearly 300 total aircraft.
Does anyone think that somehow the Scale Masters qualifier in So Calif.could attract at least some of these guys?
This type of thing is what we just shake our head at and we keep asking what are we doing wrong..
.It seems to me that our leaders need your help and comments AND need to get into todays world.
IT IS TIME TO LIVEN THINGS UP FOLKS.
More later          Mel.

[Mel Santmyers]

To regress just a bit.   Our leaders. I understand Carolyn has not been feeling good among other things. It seem things have fallen back to Mitch. Now I dont care just so long as we know who is in charge. Do we have a vice chair person?? Then Mitch in his reply to Chuck says something about the rules proposals being screwed up. Not a very good feeling for someone that has submiited some changes last November that I personally feel will bring our events back to some reality.
My comment in the previous post about the lack of Scale Masters activity in So. Calif. is something I know about. Now I hear and only hear about the rest of the country. Where the Scale Masters rules are not followed by many qualifiers and where someone has to go to some contest directors and find out who the people that qualified are instead of the contest directors calling the chairman.
Gentlemen are we this broken?
I applaud Mitch in his quest for new members and believe me I am not trying to disappoint them. They are joiining a fine organization that simply needs a tune up after 35 years.
Remember!  We post because we care. 

[Mel Santmyers]

As Mentioned by Chuck these issues we speak about are not new they have been brewing for quite a while here in Calif. This is early in the year with several qualifiers to go yet so there should be plenty to talk about in the following months. Your leaders need to know how you feel; You can help make this work. I have no idea how Mitch or others think about all this but I know Mitch is providing us all with a link to the future of the Scale Masters.
If we are wrong just say so. If we are right then say that as well.
So here are some Items to discuss not all but some.
1. The make up of the organization.
2. Jets,WW2,Civilian, WW1  A difficult issue in how to compete with one another OR separate classes.
3. Ideas on how to attract more people.
4. You may have heard me speak of a new idea for rules that I believe will bring in new flyers. Just to brief you. One item I suugest.   the elimination of the [Oh my gosh] 3 views. 
    3 views were once a good idea BUT! no more. Ask your leaders for the rest of the proposal.

Thank you for listening and remember we post beacause we care.

[Mel Santmyers]

To help me answer one of my own questions. [How to get more participants] I will try by asking you guys this and giving you all more to think about.
How many of you feel that the very name [THE SCALE MASTERS] in todays world keeps many fliers away by IMPLYING that you must be an exceptional pilot/builder etc to come play?
What if the Scale Masters name was used for the finals ONLY [remember we have gobs of paper work to be considered] and the Qualifier names be something different such as a
[Regional Scale meet in Assoc with the Scale Masters] OR you name it. Another words some name that would again imply that no one needs to be exceptional.to join in.
Whatcha think? This conversation piece among the others should help for a very exciting year.

[Mitchell Baker]

Thanks for the input Mel....

The Name...  Most of the qualifiers don't have "Scale Masters" in the name... Many are Scale Qualifier, Scale Championships for that area, Scale Classic etc.. So I really don't think that is an issue.  I really think it is that it is a "competition" period.   Many I know don't care about competing, but love to go to fly-ins. They can fly a lot more and for some, less of a chance to get their ego bruised...

More classes to separate types of aircraft into separate classes.    I believe this is just an issue of judges education and being as fair based on flying conditions and type of plane.  You can't judge a 40lb WWII fighter the same as a 20LB TigerMoth...  So the judges for each competition need to be reminded of this and the lead judge or CD has to step up and keep track of what is going on to make sure that is happening. Also there is a question of logistics and then at the championships a question of funding of trophies.  Then you can also get into the issue of Grand Champion..   

I don't agree with the removal of three views... This would be saying the most competitors are trying to cheat.  And I don't think so.  If there is a question about the authenticity of the documentation, then again it is up to the judges to address this.

Just some of my thoughts... 

See-ya
Mitch

[Mitchell Baker]

Just a foot note... participation decline is not just within USSMA.  Look at AMA membership and look at the NATS.  Didn't look up membership numbers, but here are 3 classes from the NATS since 2000:


Expert Sport       Designer         Team
2009 8                       3                    4
2008 12                      5                    5
2007 16                      4                    5
2006 14                      9                    5
2005 16                      5                    5
2004 19                      5                    3
2003 22                      6                     5
2002 21                      10                   7
2001 21                      10                   9
2000 20                      12                   13


The only event I know of on the east coast aside from TG that has consistent high numbers is Mint Julep.  70+ pilots yearly.  Last couple years 80+   But it is a well established event going on for over 30 years now AFAIK.

See-ya
Mitch

[Mel Santmyers]

Hi Mitch. You are correct and I am wrong about the name thing it appears that few use the term Scale Masters for a qualifier. Of course I agree and really never paid much attention to the names. The numbers you quote for the nats are very interesting and perhaps we are in a trend. That just brings the issue of changing the way the Scale Masters does business and attracts new fliers even more important.
With regard to 3 views. Have you heard from Rolle yet? He has a little story about 3 views.  This 3 view thing is an issue that leaves an uneven playing field for many among other things. I will try to cover all of this probably in the next post as it is terribly important to the continued success of the Masters in the future. By the way the rules package I submitted last November covered this issue on a cover sheet.
Mel.

[Mitchell Baker]

POSTING THIS FOR GARY NORTON:

RESPONSE TO CHUCK MAITRE ON THE FORUM

Chuck:  You start your comments with the question:  Has anyone noticed for at least 5 years, the attendance has diminished at Regional Qualifiers and the Championships?

The short answer is Yes.  And not only USSMA but also the NATS scale and FAI are experiencing this problem.  The board of directors of USSMA and their advisors has worked tirelessly to figure out why.  Debate has centered around fuel prices, the economy, locations to travel to, loss of field locations, host club's losing interest, dwindling builders, lack of building time or no desire to take the time (instant gratification theory) and the inroads of ARF and RTF and flying only versus building and flying, etc.  The struggle with these issues has resulted in the addition of new classes or revisions to classes in an attempt to mitigate the problems associated with diminished attendance.  This process is ongoing in our search for the answers.

You state that Top Gun is what competition is all about.  Competition by invitation only for the best of the best.  This is precisely what Scale Masters Championships and the qualifiers do and has been its goal for years.  You must earn your invitation to the USSMA champs.  You know this as well as anyone.  Keep in mind also that Top Gun is FOR PROFIT.

As for the same competitors and the same airplanes competing year after year in contrast to Top Gun where a maximum life of a contestant's aircraft is 6 years, the board has found that putting a limit on the number of years an aircraft can be used does not help raise attendance.  On the contrary, we have found that it does the opposite.  Look at the list of competitors 10 years ago and see how many of those folks are still competing today with the same or a different aircraft.

You ask where does Scale Masters fit in the realm of scale model competition?  Right where it should be:  Providing scale competition throughout the year at many different locations with a set of rules that all can follow consistently.  Top Gun has one event and it owes its success in part to its leader who has put together a winning location and paid help.  When Top Gun sends out it invitations each year, where do you think it goes to find the best competitors?  They just don't materialize from local fly-ins.

You complain that USSMA has the largest rulebook around.  Well that is true.  Top Gun currently has 24 pages; AMA has 32 while, if you eliminate the pages of greeting, USSMA staff, method for becoming a judge and form copies, has 36.  Those 36 pages describe in much more detail the implication of static judging and flight judging to include pictorial description of flight maneuvers.

Earl and Josie Aune spent a good share of their lives taking up Harris Lee's dream of the Scale Masters and created the motto:  "Keeping the Dream Alive".  To think Harris would disavow the motto is conjecture on your part and uncalled for.  Almost all the success that USSMA has had is a result of Earl and Josie's efforts in obtaining qualifiers across the US and Canada, standardizing judging, field layouts, codifying the Guide, developing Regional Managers and much more.  Keeping up with the times is indeed a priority of management and will continue to be a priority while we struggle with the continued inroads of a mindset of younger persons for instant gratification and the desire to fly rather than build.  Even the full size organizations such as AOPA and EAA struggle with trying to convince young people to get interested in aviation.

One of the goals of the Competition Guide is to keep changes to a minimum so that competitors do not constantly need to change their ways.  The current 2010 change of requiring color documentation to remain at the judging table is the result of instances at the Muncie, IN Champs and the Wenatchee, WA Champs where the color judge was having color chips taken to the model and placed on it to determine if colors were indeed the same as the documentation.  This met with complaints from contestants that both judging and documentation were to be at 15 feet except for craftsmanship.  Therefore, the rule was clarified.  As for feedback to authors of proposed changes, this has never been done that I am aware of although we are working on making this possible through electronics.  Proposed changes are sent first to a committee for review and recommendations to the board.  After this filter process, the board takes up the recommendations of the committee and debates the proposals to an eventual vote.  The logistics of providing feedback to the author of committee deliberations and board debate would slow down an already laborious process.  Note that Top Gun allows the static judge for color to examine documentation and the aircraft at zero distance.

Qualifiers are the only way to the Champs for USSMA.  It would seem the number of scale modelers who want to compete continues to decrease.  Unless you have a driving desire to be the best builder and flyer around, it seems the attitude is why bother when one can get a Chinese built model of pretty good scale quality and start flying within a few hours of assembly.  Scale fly-ins are becoming popular just because there is little or no rules for flying; just show up and have fun flying a lot.  This is what we are dealing with.  Sad but true for the dedicated scale builder and flyer.

You seem to imply that documentation is universally enhanced or altered to aid in proving static judging principles.  I like to believe that the contestant is basically honest.  To think otherwise is counter-productive and a sorry reflection on our common man.  I certainly agree that 3-views are very often incorrect and require notation of the discrepancies.  But this certainly does not mean the competitor is dishonest; only that he/she has done their homework in research of their subject.

Your suggestion to combine Expert and Team into one class does not aid in the stated goal of finding the best builder and flyer.  As you stated, a model doesn't qualify, the pilot does.  Also, your comment that many suggestions are "out there" for improvement, they are not getting to the board to my knowledge.  We would love to see any and all suggestions but what we usually see are a few rule comments and they are generally very late in the year to allow much reaction.

It would really be nice if our members would step up to the plate and take on projects for change and help with the administration of the Association.  Maybe things would be more to the liking of the majority if there were indeed a lot of unrest.  We need Regional Managers in almost every district to promote more qualifiers and help out with those that are in place.  Things always seem to fall on three or four folks for action and resolution and that truly burns them out.

It seems from your "diatribe" (your words, not mine) you would like to see USSMA evolve into a fun-fly with minimal rules regarding building and static competition and restricting the participation of "the same old participants, with the same old planes and having the same old winners."  I hope this is not so.  In closing I hope I have addressed your comments accurately and welcome your response.

For Gary Norton.
--Mitch

[Mel Santmyers]

I would like to try and explain my reasoning for a change in the way we do static judging. I probably wont have any order.  I am not a very good salesman to begin with however I feel the way we do static judging is long overdue for a change. First let me say that 3 view drawings are NOT always very good. This in itself leaves a huge gap in various airplane presentations. So in the rule book page 11 there is a sentence that essentially says you can draw your own or have one drawn for you. Then you send it to an AMA scale contest board member for approval. Are you beginning to see anything yet and what we ask this poor guy to do.. Second. We have always had a judging problem weather we like it or not. For whatever reason throughout the years we have rarely had proficent judges that are always on the same page. A post or two up you probably read about color chips 35 years down the road. On one hand we ask the builders to be accurate and to present a beautiful model then we have on the spur of the moment judges that no matter how hard they try they have seem to have trouble navigating though the paper work some of it because of poor presentation on behalf of the competitor. {Now I am not down on judges,thank god they volunteer to help us.] Now on the other hand how many of you have spent a year or more building a plane that in these days usually sees one or two meets a year? Let me ask a question. Should we as pilots/builders expect a fair analysis? Then to add more we are given a score after the first round of competition,too late to say or do anything about it. I recall one time I was given a low score because my three view showed a door and the photograph did not show that door. The book says photos take preference right? But I find out the judge fixated on that door and down graded me. Of course as mentioned I found out after the first round. I have heard numerous stories of the same type of thing. SOoooo  gentlemen here is my idea. FIRST. ELIMINATE the 3 view. {OH MY GOSH] What is he going to do next?
SECOND. Place the plane on a newly designed very inexpensive rotating table. THIRD. Using Photographs presented by the builder
[I say two in the proposal but could be four or even six] the aircraft is judged at any angle the photo shows. The judges sit at a level that allows them to see NOT ALL but enough of any model to judge it fairly.
This method will make judging easier,faster and more accurate than in the past. The builder simply makes his model as close to the photos as possible. He even matchs the color to the photos. How'd ya like that one?
I am not saying I have the total answer with this I and your leaders are open to changes if you see something missing. This new method could also be used as a tool to attract new flyers making it easier to get involved
I hope I have covered everything in this report and I am open to any questions.   Mel.
We post because we care.

[Mitchell Baker]

I would like to try and explain my reasoning for a change in the way we do static judging. I probably wont have any order.  I am not a very good salesman to begin with however I feel the way we do static judging is long overdue for a change. First let me say that 3 view drawings are NOT always very good. This in itself leaves a huge gap in various airplane presentations. So in the rule book page 11 there is a sentence that essentially says you can draw your own or have one drawn for you. Then you send it to an AMA scale contest board member for approval. Are you beginning to see anything yet and what we ask this poor guy to do..

Ok, I'm confused... what?  which guy? the builder?  the AMA?  This really is consistent with AMA rules for same issue. 

Second. We have always had a judging problem weather we like it or not. For whatever reason throughout the years we have rarely had proficent judges that are always on the same page. A post or two up you probably read about color chips 35 years down the road. On one hand we ask the builders to be accurate and to present a beautiful model then we have on the spur of the moment judges that no matter how hard they try they have seem to have trouble navigating though the paper work some of it because of poor presentation on behalf of the competitor. {Now I am not down on judges,thank god they volunteer to help us.] Now on the other hand how many of you have spent a year or more building a plane that in these days usually sees one or two meets a year? Let me ask a question. Should we as pilots/builders expect a fair analysis? Then to add more we are given a score after the first round of competition,too late to say or do anything about it. I recall one time I was given a low score because my three view showed a door and the photograph did not show that door. The book says photos take preference right? But I find out the judge fixated on that door and down graded me. Of course as mentioned I found out after the first round. I have heard numerous stories of the same type of thing. SOoooo  gentlemen here is my idea. FIRST. ELIMINATE the 3 view. {OH MY GOSH] What is he going to do next?
SECOND. Place the plane on a newly designed very inexpensive rotating table. THIRD. Using Photographs presented by the builder
[I say two in the proposal but could be four or even six] the aircraft is judged at any angle the photo shows. The judges sit at a level that allows them to see NOT ALL but enough of any model to judge it fairly.
This method will make judging easier,faster and more accurate than in the past. The builder simply makes his model as close to the photos as possible. He even matchs the color to the photos. How'd ya like that one?

First the "rotating table"  That is all well and good... and in many ways makes since just for helping the builder out maneuvering  the plane on the table and there is nothing stopping a club from doing that at a qualifier.  And could be done at the champs....  but there is still a cost justification matter involved.  A club that hosts a qualifier once a year?  Would be up to the club...

Second, your first suggestion... yea I like confusing the issues.. hahahaha...  I am having trouble seeing how this helps fairness.. to me it only gives advantage to someone who does the bear minimum.  Now how do you handle the case where there may only be one or no photographs of a subject and maybe only one artists profile?   

The point you are really making is the judges need to be better informed and reminded/refreshed on rules.  I have also seen the contestant point things out to the judges within the documentation that certain things might be in a pic but the pic was only used for one aspect of the model.   

One thing I want to make sure is always remembered in these discussions... Is making things "easier" on the contestants really what is wanted?  When you get to the champs, it is suppose to be the best of the best...  More consistent yes, fair yes easier??

Yes there are problems with judging.. but I think it is more of an educational issue than anything else. And along those lines we are in discussion right now on was to speed up the process of judge certification. Not easier to certify, but easier to get the material, speed up the process of getting tested etc... the logistical side of it.

I am not saying I have the total answer with this I and your leaders are open to changes if you see something missing. This new method could also be used as a tool to attract new flyers making it easier to get involved
I hope I have covered everything in this report and I am open to any questions.   Mel.
We post because we care.

I agree, easier to get involved.. which I think we have started that with he Open and Advanced classes.  Where open gets them introduced to judging  and having some documentation.  Not the automatic 5 points for a picture, but some documentation and helpful critique.  Advanced steps this up a lot of notches... 

We have already folded the designer class into expert.  Not sure that was the right move.  I think the designer folks should be judged separate and against peers... 

Probably more to say will think of it after more coffee...

--Mitch

[Mel Santmyers]

Hi Mitch. One of things I fully understand is that change is not an easy thing do in human nature terms. 
In this case I believe the time has come to change.                                                                                                                         Sorry I didnt understand your first question with regard to the statement on page 11 of the rule book. I will quote it here. [Your regional contest board member can approve by his signature documentation that may NOT be from a published source].
To answer your question about the cost of the rotating holder. I have built one and used it at one of our trial meets. I spent about
50 bucks total on the stand and the holder. However the stand can be any table about 30" high therby reducing the cost.
Your next question about what we do about planes where there is no color such as WW1. I stated in my proposal that a color rendition may be used. If for example only ONE photo is available for a full size aircraft just as the rule we have now I would not reccomend it. But however could be used with the same angle as the photo. Again however I can see downgrades due to the lack of opposite side views etc. Not any different than what we currently do.
For judges and contestants maybe I used the wrong word by saying "easier" to judge. I believe it to be more eqitable,less time consuming and more accurate.          Hang in there!                Mel.

[Mel Santmyers]

HI FOLKS.  I think I have covered the Static scoring issue the best I can. I hope everyone has been able to understand the changes I have submitted and the reason behind them. Please use the next 3 or 4 months of the year to discuss this item. As you have seen Chuck feels pretty much the same. Chuck is also dedicated to the future of the Scale Masters. We certainly do not always agree on things however on this subject we are thinking the same. Chuck lives about 60 miles or so from me so we dont always spend a lot of time speaking.
I cannot leave this without expressing my thought on the statement this organization uses and that is {The best of the best} This statement I feel and by the way I have asked several potential flyers about this statement, I dont think it is a good sales point.        Are we intimidating potential flyers with this statement?  Discuss this question please.
Thanks to Mitch for giving me and others the chance to try to help make this great tradition continue based on my years of experience and my love to compete.        [AND]            I cannot leave you tonite without remembering my buddy Harris saying   
WATCH THINGS FOR ME.                           Thanks     Mel.                         

[Mitchell Baker]

HI FOLKS.  I think I have covered the Static scoring issue the best I can. I hope everyone has been able to understand the changes I have submitted and the reason behind them. Please use the next 3 or 4 months of the year to discuss this item. As you have seen Chuck feels pretty much the same. Chuck is also dedicated to the future of the Scale Masters. We certainly do not always agree on things however on this subject we are thinking the same. Chuck lives about 60 miles or so from me so we dont always spend a lot of time speaking.

I cannot leave this without expressing my thought on the statement this organization uses and that is {The best of the best} This statement I feel and by the way I have asked several potential flyers about this statement, I dont think it is a good sales point.        Are we intimidating potential flyers with this statement?  Discuss this question please.

Maybe, maybe not.. if so, it is really do to a lack of understanding.. and if anyone every expresses this  to me I explain that one, within Expert and Team, that is what it is suppose to be.  The Best of the Best...  The people who are suppose to be the best builders and best pilots around.   One of the reasons I joined USSMA was because of that.  I wanted to be associated with, learn from and compete against the Best.

I do feel we can "simplify" things without "dumbing them down"

Thanks to Mitch for giving me and others the chance to try to help make this great tradition continue based on my years of experience and my love to compete.        [AND]            I cannot leave you tonite without remembering my buddy Harris saying  
WATCH THINGS FOR ME.                           Thanks     Mel.                          

Thanks Mel...

--Mitch

[Mitchell Baker]

Ok, Chuck,

I am a little confused...  (yea I know nothing new)

I am sorry, but when I read your post, I thought the same thing...  That you were trying to say many/most contestants cheat and just use photoshop to "fix" the 3-views to match what was built.

Your response by quoting the rule is what confuses me.  I look at it like this.. and maybe I'm wrong...

If I can't find a good published source of 3-view for something I want to build.  Then I can, based on pic's, other documentation draw my own, submit them to authorized person for approval.  No I have not tried the process... You say you went that route once?  Did it not work?  Was it to hard?  What was wrong with it?

It is also the prescribed way AMA rules say for static. 

Now if there was nothing in the guild to specify how to get 3-views "adjusted" then someone drawing a set of 3-views "fixed" for a subject would not be cheating... 

I do think that something needs to be presented to prove accuracy of outline...  Now should that be 3-views? Photographs? both?  Maybe either?  Neither? 

See-ya
Mitch

What follows is a singular reply to one of Gary Norton's (via Mitch Baker) many comments on my discussion items.  In particular 3-Views.

What I said:
"Show me a documentation 3-view and I'll show you what PhotoShop can do.  One can also say that about photographs, but let's not go there.  3-views should be used for what they are: a drawing by a draftsman and his interpretation of what the particular aircraft (not necessarily your prototype) he used for his drawing looked like and not as what one's modeled aircraft outline looks like.  Not one of my five Scale Master Waco's (all were of existing aircraft) 3-views were correct. Each prototype airplane had variants and deviations from existing available drawings. One gets tired of inserting on the drawings, exceptions and differences that were incorporated in the model's construction (based on photos) but not shown on the drawings. I now use actual photographs of the prototype airplane rather than someone's drawing of say a typical 1929 Waco CTO."

What you said or, your take on my comment:
"You seem to imply that documentation is universally enhanced or altered to aid in proving static judging principles.  I like to believe that the contestant is basically honest.  To think otherwise is counter-productive and a sorry reflection on our common man.  I certainly agree that 3-views are very often incorrect and require notation of the discrepancies.  But this certainly does not mean the competitor is dishonest; only that he/she has done their homework in research of their subject."

My response: you state that I am saying by my comment on 3-views that the documentation is universally enhanced, altered and that we all cheat. You haven't a clue as to what I was saying.. I suggest that you and others who feel that way about my statement read the 2010 Scale Masters Competition Guide, pages 11 and 12.  Here's an excerpt for those who don't have a copy available:

3.2 Accuracy of Outline:

*Your regional AMA Scale Contest Board member can approve, by his signature, documentation that may not be from a published source. See AMA Model Aviation Magazine for name of your CBM.

.... If any alterations have been made from published sources to reflect greater accuracy they must be approved by a Scale Board Member or other recognized authority with supporting documentation for those changes made.

So much for documentation cheating, there is a right way to do it when documentation is modified and the Competition Guide tells you how.  I've done the AMA route once; the other 3 times I used the "Post-It method" – stuck exceptions all over the 3-views.  As I said in my original diatribe (my word, not yours), my last 3-views were 4-views (3 photographs plus 1 drawing top view from a published source) of the actual aircraft.

Cheating sometimes is in the eye of the beholder, or as someone once said: There are no rules, just winners and losers.

/chuck maitre

[Mitchell Baker]

Reading back, I wanted to address something in here...  No I was not around in the beginning... I never had the pleasure of meeting Harris, I'm sure I would have really enjoyed talking with him and some of the others.

From what I understand, much of what Harris did with USSMA was out of his own pocket, or via donations from various sponsors.... You are right, it was his show... period. 

Now, USSMA evolved over the years, grew... then Harris unfortunately died.   After that, USSMA incorporated and became a not for profit organization? Is my timeline correct?

Problem is, now, not without changing or abandoning the incorporation and not for profit status, you can't go back to one person in charge.   With an corp, you have to have a BoD... you have to have by-laws, etc...  There are checks and balances in place to "try" to keep one person from fleecing everyone in the org out of hard earned money.   And with people paying due's they feel, and rightly so, they should have a say in how things are run. 

I am pleased to see the re-posting of this commentary by Chuck. It shows there are concerns in several different areas.
I am also concerned. I think for most newbies the things we speak about are not very important after all look at the rule book and how thick it is.
One of the things I just mentioned to Mitch was the overall makeup of this organization. When first started it was Harris lee period that called the shots.Harris also had several people that he listened to. If something didnt work it was changed asap. Today we have this board that has to communicate and we all know what that means and if we need a change we wait and we wait. If you don't then get a little older or experienced and you will.
My suggestion is something like this.  We need ONE leader,chairman or whatever we decide to call them. Then he needs to set up district areas,such as North,South,East and West. and call these people ADVISORS. These advisors can also have as many people as they like to get info from. Based on his or her thinking and suggestions from his four advisors he calls the shots period.
Now in addition it can be set up to where where the chairman is on THREE YEAR TERMS voted on by the advisors and not the membership. AND if the advisors are not doing the job then he has the right to make a change.
Some may call this harsh however others may call it back to reality. There is only a small group that really knows who is the best for the job. Members seem to make things a popularity contest and not always in the best interest of a smaller organization.
We care thats why we post this stuff.

Now, does USSMA need a strong leader in the NC position? yes... Do they need to do everything? No.. the mark of a great leader is to put people around them that can get the jobs done.

It was very different when Harris was doing it.  I heard he traveled around the country to different events inviting them to become qualifiers...  If we had someone who could do that now, on their own dime.. it would be great.  That is part of the reason the VP's and RM's were put into place... Have they always worked? No, I don't thing so...

Yes, the ideal situation would be a multi-millionaire retiree take over, fund everything, travel country to visit events and qualifiers... (and as soon as the lotto pic's the right numbers for my retirement plan to kick in hahahah ) I will volunteer for the job in a heart beat!!!

I personally try to hit as many qualifiers in my area I can get to.. Talk to contestants, get feed back. Along with a trade show to promote USSMA, and get feedback as well.  Then report it back to the board, propose changes based on what I see and hear...

See-ya
Mitch

[Mitchell Baker]

Well I didn't complete the thought.. I know you and yes I now you were not saying everyone was cheating... just at first glance that is what it seemed to point that direction... Perception is a funny thing... 

I am now really not sure what the problem is?

I do believe there are way to many thought in this thread...  I think we need to separate them...

I would like to see, in separate threads... 

1) Problem description
2) Reference from guide
3) proposed solution in detail.
      If it means deleting the referenced part of the guide then does not have to be lengthy, but if new or rewrite, then wording would need to be included.
4) Justification/Reason for change.

This way, each idea can be discussed without interruption from other ideas.   The "Propose Change" link on the front page could be used for this as well..

I want to publicly address concerns and I want to see if we can get more people involved in the discussion...    Separating each idea/change in it's open thread/topic will help do this I believe.

Thanks Chuck and Mel... I think something positive can come from this...

--MItch

[Mitchell Baker]

General discussion about different ideas is fine.. I am just talking about when an item is hashed down to something useful.  Then, the person who brought it up, or wishes to see the change take place needs to split the topic off for focused discussion or submit it for change.

Your reference to initiating separate threads might need a Discussion Manager to sort out the chaff and develop a Prime Item discussion list.
I'm not a volunteeer, as I have too much of a reputation of being a "pot-stirrer" and most of the time, not understood as to what I'm saying.

No, people just need to submit the proposals properly... According to how I ask.. One specific topic, and using the "Propose Guide Change" makes it easy.. from the front page.  I can't do anything about how things were done in the past.. One purpose of the forums is to help keep things organized.  I am looking for some moderators to help within the forums...

Thanks again for your input.. I greatly appreciate it...

See-ya
Mitch

[Mitchell Baker]

Yep that is what I said... 

Really that is what the "Propose Change" link does.  Creates a post which at first is only to the rules committee.. just to make sure it is not someone being a jerk and putting things up that should not be...   

I did mention the "propose change link in what you quoted...  Just options on what to do.. The "propose change" link just makes it easier.. and already formatted...

Gary is still getting use to the forums... 

See-ya
Mitch

[Michael]

Hi guys,

I'm going to figuratively stick my head in here and see what happens.  I've read all your posts, comments, and views, and Chuck and Mel have some interesting thoughts & suggestions.  I know you guys have tried out some of this stuff using the WSI meet as a vehicle to test some changes in the way models are static judged.  I read the WSI rules you developed and I've seen the scorekeeping sheet (not the program). 

Chuck or Mel, can you share with me how well it worked?  How was the "no three-views for outline" received?  I understand you used some sort of an adjusted or weighted-average for static scores to be combined with flight scores?  You've had two WSI events now, did the new or different rules help bring in some new scale modeler participants that we are looking for?  How many entries did you get at the first & second meet?

I think the WSI event is a great idea, and I hope that it is attracting some new people interested in some sort of scale competition.  I'll do another post to talk about my thoughts on Chuck's discussion on the rise & fall of the SM.

Mike

[Mel Santmyers]

Mike. As Chuck mentioned WSI used the current Scale Masters format for the most part. Stuff such as more personal attention with the pilots on how to improve this or that so that they may have an easier entrance into a formal Scale Masters event was used.
Quite frankly our weather has been an issue for two years running so the activity level has not been what was anticipated.
The suggestions made by Chuck and myself on this forum are entirely separate from the WSI.
I am pleased to see you have read all of the comments. I hope we have not confused people. We have a lot of HITS and of course
I hope everyone is in the thinking mood.                     To continue for a moment about these static ideas.
It is my belief that those people scoring high in static are simply following the rules as laid down by the various organizations. Go to the various web sites and study the scores. NOW! Should we start the battle of good three views or should we focus on the planes?
I dont know if I can explain this correctly or not but does anyone think that he that has a good three view should ulitmately end up to
have an edge or should it be the model vs the full size period? 
Questions?                                                                                                    Thanks         Mel.

[Mitchell Baker]

Actually discussions about WSI and anything related to scale competition, or learning there of is quite appropriate for this site... yes, prolly a good idea to start a new topic thread...

Chuck,  just because only 3 or 4 are currently commenting, does not mean anything should be stopped or shutdown.  It takes time... I have been working and running forums for many years...  and many "lurkers" come out of the wood work when something strikes them...    If I stopped running forums and boards just because of slow posting at times... I would not be doing this...

The conversation is good and thought provoking...

More separate topics just might help he issue of non-posters...   

Just got back from Mint Julep yesterday so still catching up on things..  Good turnout... rained out Sunday... but good time.  No sure what the final count was, but would figure 40-50 pilots. 

See-ya
Mitch