USSMA– 21st Century “Keeping the Dream Alive” Dialogs.

[waconut]

Topic: USSMA – 21st Century "Keeping the Dream Alive" Dialogs.

TO all USSMA Members,
With the coming of the 2011 Championships, October 6-9, 2011, and the election of the 2012-2014 U.S. Scale Masters Board of Director National Chair - Bernie Boland, West Coast VP - Curtis Kitteringham, East Coast VP - Mike Barbee, Director of Finance - Richard Barndt and Director of Administration - Mitchell Baker, I see a opportunity for all USSMA members to initiate dialogs with, especially their respective Regional VPs, as well as the new Chairman.  I suggest that these dialogs be positive, address concerns, question current direction and propose changes one feels that will advance USSMA's  role and goals," -  keeping the dream alive" in the 21st century as one might put it.

If one looks at the number of U.S. Scale Master Qualifiers and the associated Host clubs, as well as the current membership (297 as of 9/7/11), we have a very large contingency of scale pilots and builders who like to participate in competitions, not disregarding the comradeship one experiences at the various contests.  I see ahead of us a great opportunity to begin dialogs, maybe even conducting local/regional discussion groups and see what concerned members are talking about.  We might even visit the Competition Guide with the intent to revise, change and/or add to the rules (goodness!), at least from a discussion viewpoint and maybe even submit formal changes to the following:
Advisory Committee
Chairman Jeff Whitney newsed@usscalemasters.org
Creates and maintains communication networks of active modelers in all regions that reviews and recommends changes to the direction of the U.S. Scale Masters Association.
Committee:
The following individuals currently make up the Scale Masters Advisory Committee appointed by the Advisory Committee Chairman: Jeff Lovitt, Mel Santmyers, Bruce Bender and Nigel Tarvin.

So, may I suggest that you gather up your thoughts, think positive, start dialogs, even propose and/or voice new ideas and let's see what we can do for the future of US Scale Masters.
/chuck.

P.S.  If anyone out there would rather address this "Topic" under "The Rise and Fall of Scale Masters", so notify me and I will move this Topic over to that Topic.
/c

[Mel Santmyers]

Chuck.    I agree. Now is the time to review what we are all about and would like to be. I would hope that all the leaders of this organization join together to take us all to a new beginning. This is a huge opportunity for them. I will add something to my scribbling about the [Three View thing] in a future post.                Mel.

[waconut]

OK, Mel.............
3-views seems to be a great topic for a first discussion and hopefully will initiate other members to input their opinions, suggestions and/or other positive comments.  As for me, I will start it off by quoting my opinion of 3-views as I stated in the topic:The Rise and Fall of Scale Masters.

Let's regress abit and talk about three-views; now there's a paradox if ever there was one.  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.

The bottom line for me on 3-view drawings useage is that I find them too generic and therefore I use 3-4/view photographs of the Prototye aircraft I have modeled. This approach might (??!) be difficult for some aircraft (WWI types for example) as no 90 deg. off photos exist, and therefore, 3-views are the only avenue one has to show the outlines for their model's profiles. Or, is there another way?  Do we need 3-views?  Would a different set of criteria be more attuned to one's model's

looks

as it relates to the prototype?   Anyone??

I am not espousing or suggesting that useage of Outline Drawings be eliminated from Static judging, only that we join in with Mel and speak up (out?).
/chuck