Three view stuff and more.

[Mel Santmyers]

A bit more info on the Judging stand.     It is easy to store. Very compact.
I forgot to mention the hula hoop. It can easily be affixed to the table with Velcro,double sided tape etc.
As I mentioned before the cost of this unit is very minimal. Maybe 40 bucks or so.
Sorry to intervene here I should have mentioned all this before.                                              Mel..   

[Mel Santmyers]

One last thing. Seems like ive said that before. HOWEVER!
I can see the judges stand being either remotely or push button controlled by the judges.
A simple lengthining of the pipe with a gear or belt on one end and a 12 volt motor may do the trick.
Thank you guys,think about all this and more.                                                                                             Mel.

[jeaton01]

I'm John Eaton, and I have been judging for Scale Masters at Woodland Davis for a long time, mostly flight but occasionally static except color as I'm one of the 2%.  I also do plans as Golden Era Model Service.  I sympathize with Waco Nut, but really, why did you fall in love with Wacos and still expect not to confuse judges!  I think I know one guy in Alaska that can keep some of the Waco model designations straight but within model types there are so many variations.  Yet on the other hand, what red blooded modeler is not passing familiar with Wacos in general?  Yes, I know, the judge must rely on the documentation.  But it just isn't that easy.  We tend to see what we expect to see based on what we are used to seeing.

As to three views, my thoughts are that it is nearly impossible to find good ones of most airplanes.  I always include 3-views in my plans for that reason and don't know quite why others don't, especially now that it is so easy using CAD programs.  But, most plans that people expect to make a fair return on are not done for competition, it's just too small of a slice of the market.  And that is doubly true for kits or ARFS.

Unless I can find factory blueprints of the structure I rely on photos to draw the plans.  It is difficult to do this unless the airplane still exists as finding a selection of photos adequate to the task, i.e. from orthographic orientations, with long enough focal length to prevent distortion, while still not losing focus, well, I've never done that.  On the other hand, the Vickers Jockey that Jim MacDonald built and I did the production plans for does well in competition as there is just enough documentation to do the model yet it is so unknown that the judges simply have to rely on the 3 views, they have never heard of the thing and have no preconceptions.

It does sound simpler just to use photos but in my experience few people can relate a photo to a three dimensional object well enough to do outline judging.  Finding adequate photos, or even getting photos done that are really suitable, is beyond reach of most modelers.  Photos are great for details or portions of the airplane but I think for outline you need a good three view to tie the photos together.  And, if the photo differs in some area, it should take precedence in that area.  That's what I think makes my life easier as the judge.  Having the three view and the photos together gives a person the ability to do a little mental back and forth to come to a fair and accurate decision.

Certifying drawings is a very large can of worms.  Unless the person doing the certification has done as much work as the draftsman I don't see how an informed decision can be arrived at.  That said, you do have to fall back on the best you can do, and having an accepted body to do it is needed, a group that does the certification and I don't see how that amount of work could be done unless FAI, AMA, Top Gun, and any others all join to make such an effort.  Too much work is involved just in maintaining the accumulated information.

[waconut]

John,

Life gets simpler every day, especially for us "Ol' Far.."   Anyway, the following are comments on your comments.

1.   you:  "Why did you fall in love with Waco's and still expect not to confuse judges!"
me:  I never expect nor plan to confuse judges.  I was not aware that Wacos confuse judges.  My point was that available 3-views for Wacos do not truly represent the particular prototype aircraft that I model, so if at all possible, I use photographs instead.

2.   you:  "in my experience few people can relate a photo to a three dimensional object well enough to do outline judging."
me:  But they can relate a 2 dimensional 3-view drawing to a three dimensional object but not a 2-dimentional photo?  Okie Dokie.

3.   you:  "Finding adequate photos, or even getting photos done that are really suitable, is beyond reach of most modelers.'
me: Probably true.  I guess this is the reason good/bad/indifferent 3-views are used.  But, here's an excerpt
           from the 2012 USSMA Competition Guide:    " If no three-or-more view drawing exists, photos of the actual aircraft
              modeled may be used that are sufficient to show the outlines of the aircraft in side, front, and plan (top) view details. For
             optimum score, drawing/s and or photographs used for 3-views need to be taken from 90-degree angles to the side, front and
             top view to show true outline."

4.   you:  "As to three views, my thoughts are that it is nearly impossible to find good ones of most airplanes."
me:  Agree.

5.    you:  "I think for outline you need a good three view to tie the photos together."
me:  If one has good 3-views, why would one want to also provide "Outline Photos"?  Contradiction will occur.  As photos take precedence over 3-views, I don't see the need for duplicity of documentation for Outline judging.

6.   you:  "If the photo differs in some area, it should take precedence in that area."
me:  See Item 6 above.

I always start a new airplane project by first identifying the prototype airplane I plan to build, and then gather the necessary documentation, and if I get a fit, I proceeded with the model's construction.  If documentation is inadequate, I then find a different prototype to model, and when it all comes together, away I go....!
Another reason for using adequate photos for Outline judging, is that they usually also provide more than adequate Color Scheme and Markings data..  This, in conjunction wih Color proof, makes for a nice, concise documentation package for one's model.
/chuck

[jeaton01]

Chuck, if the person has photos adequate for all 3 views then the drawn 3 view may not be needed.  In my experience the photos are not adequate in most cases so the 3 view helps the judge in that case (or makes his job possible).

Your method of choosing a subject is a good one, I think.  Often people fall in love with the airplane and then try to compete with it with the baggage of poor documentation or difficult flying qualities in for competition. 

[waconut]

John, thanks for the response.
The photos that I use for Outline have been 90 deg. dead on front, back, side(s) and rear. For the top view (which is hard to do/find photos of), I have used a published drawing which best fits that view of my prototype.  I have yet to get any negative feedback from an Outline judge for doing this.
My current project (Waco 10 - 1/5 scale) was consructed using a detailed published 4 - view 'drawing' which was used to modify my full size plans. I have not yet decided whether to use 3-view photos or use the 4-view detailed drawings.
/chuck

[jeaton01]

I might make a suggestion about sourcing 3 views.  Probably the most consistent source is drawings from plastic model kits.  I have around 2,700 of them and can scan them for anyone who needs them.  Suppose it would be nice for the recipient to pay postage if a hard copy is needed.  Many of the better model kit makers do very good research for their kits, far better than any full scale manufacturer since they have to do the same thing we do, reverse engineer the original.   If all requested examples were also included in a database held by USSMA that would go a long way toward a solution.  It would also be more value received for being a member.  There is a variation in quality and some rare birds are not well represented (however, some Wacos could be provided, there's a guy in Alaska who loves 'em and designs vacform kits) but it would be a start, especially for military types.

At least the contestant would know what 3 view to build to and availability would be better. 

As to accuracy and fidelity to the original, as you know you have to build to your documentation.  Making the documentation easier to come by can only be a good thing for getting people involved.
John

[waconut]

John,
Your suggestion about sourcing 3 views from plastic model kits is an outstanding proposal.  I assume that the 2700 or so number is of the drawings and not the actual plastic kits. I know that plastic models are acceptable for Outline judging although I have not seen this done. Since the model is a valid "documentation" source, I would assume that the associated drawings would also be valid.  Do you have a catalogue of your drawings? If so, how would you make the catelogue available to anyone interested? I hope not free.  Sounds to me you ought to go the entrepreneur route and develop a small business.... Anyway, your time, costs, etc. should be compensated for and not be non-gratis.  I have a few old kits myself and will look at them shortly.  Also, I think that a One Eight AF friend may have a bunch also.   May I suggest that you forward your suggestion of a USSMA data base to the Western VP (westcoastvp@usscalemasters.org) and see what happens.
As for Waco documentation, I have a large library of documenation that more that satisfys my Waco Nuttiness.  And as I finalize my Waco 10 for this years competition, it will be my last.  It's time to sit back and smell the flowers.  Well, maybe bashing an ARF might be out there on the horizon (sic).
/chuck

[jeaton01]

It's that many kits, I'm afraid.  There are a few more instruction sheets than that.  However, also a small percentage are cars or trucks but not too many.  It would be nice to have some compensation but every time I make a hobby in to a job it takes some of the fun out.  It would work better for me to do it on a case by case basis with this website a place for people to make requests.  I will forward the comment to the person you suggested.

[Mel Santmyers]

Hello John. Are you the one I know??  X So. Calif guy. If so its been a few years.  Back to the subject.
1. And who says plastic models are correct. Who drew them? I could do it,You could do it.
2. Agreed. Your statement that its nearly IMPOSIBLE to find good three views.
3. Your statement. You relly on PHOTOS to draw your plans.
4. Certification of drawings is a case of worms. [your statement]
5. Your statement. Few can relate a photo to a 3 dimensional object. My question how does that relate to a three view and a 3 dimensional object.  Please explain.   Comment. Do you recall the 360 degree turntable I mention ?
6. Google the Vickers Jockey John. Is this computer great or what.
7. Judging.    Thank you John for helping out.  However. We have a rule book and that is what the model flyers use. The full scale rules may differ But!  We use our rules and should be judged accordingly until they are changed.
8. Thanks again for posting John. I would hope more get involved.                              Regards     Mel.

[jeaton01]

Hi, Mel:

No, I'm not the SoCal guy, I've always lived in Woodland, near Sacramento. 

I do think that in general the 3 views in plastic model kits are more correct as a general rule than the average, but I would certainly agree that they will not be perfect.  They benefit from plastic modelers being more numerous and possibly even more critical than R/C scale builders, if that is possible.  For competition the task has to be to build to your documentation, does it not?  In the end being accurate historically will not result in a high static score if you cannot support your model with documentation. 

For us to have confidence in three views they would best be vetted by some uniform process, but there has to be a starting point, doesn't there?  It is a lot of work to draw accurate three views, it is easier now than it was before CAD programs but it is still a demanding process.   I would hate to see people turn away from Scale Masters participation because they can't find documentation and that was the reason I mentioned the plastic kit source.  Would I build a model myself from that source only?  Nope, but I've seen a lot of very nice models that are in some way not perfect do very well in static, and deservedly because they are major efforts on the part of their builders and the best that was there at that time and they conformed to the documentation the builder brought along.  If getting a certification process for three views is difficult, that is balanced by the benefits that could result, I think.  There seems to be the perception that people can easily alter three views (or photos) to match their model and though I suspect that that is not a major factor in who wins, certification of drawings eliminates that possibility, does it not?  At least it allows us to determine if changes were made.

I think the combination of photos and drawings is the best course, I know in judging it is easier for me.  My comment about relating 3 views to 3 dimensional objects relates to two factors at least.  One is the ability to judge perspective, relative angles, and shapes; we are not all equal in that respect.  The other is that a 3 view alone can only convey a limited amount of information about an object.  Full information requires sectional views as well.   Photos in most cases flesh out the information that the 3 view does not show.  On the other hand, photos that are taken with a long enough focal length to reduce parallax to an acceptable level that still have adequate resolution, and from the perfect angle are far more rare in my experience than a good 3 view.  Believe me, I have tried to get those shots and there is always something in the way.

I do indeed rely on photos to draw my plans, and everything else I can get my hands on.  The best result is factory blueprints, but even those have to be checked for distortion from reproduction, and to make sure the drawing is actually representative of what came down the assembly line.  One case I find humorous is the lightning bolt on the J-3 Cub.  At some time in production it changed, and from a statement by an old Piper employee the reason for that became clear.  Somebody dropped and broke the template, and after repair it was slightly different, and so was the lightning bolt stripe after that.  In other cases the drawings were modified and the newer drawing was not preserved (or you can't find it) or the changes were reflected in production tooling and it was unnecessary to update the drawings.  A million ways to go wrong, and it is impossible to finish the job if you do not accept some level of uncertainty.

I have googled the Jockey, and more is available now than when Jim did the original design.  But still not much.  At least it was all silver!   

I do rely on the rulebook for judging and do my best to make comments to reflect my reasons for scoring.  It's no fun at all if the judges and the rules are not consistent.

Thanks for commenting.  I hope more people get involved too.

John

[rcphotog]

Mel,
I love your idea of a "Lazy-Susan" - turntable used for static judging. I thought of that also after I competed in the '07 Hemet qualifier. I would just add one thing. I would recommend using some kind of solid-colored backdrop to aid the static judges in "seeing" the model better without backround distractions. This would help to see the outline more clearly as well.

Regarding a database for 3-view drawings: YES, a great idea ! A lot of work no doubt, but a great way to help everyone to get on the same page. Also, if such a database was created, it then could be accessed by the judges at time of judging.
As the next model is placed in the judges area, a judge can simply print out a fresh copy of the 3-view of that plane and not rely on the ones supplied by the builder. I think this would eliminate the possibility of cheating. ( you're all thinking it, that it might be happening )

Regarding plastic model kit drawings: I have always thought that Airfix was one of the best, most accurate producers of plastic kits and as such, a good idea to use one for proof of outline in my opinnion. A judge would then be comparing a 3-dimentional object to a 3-dimentional object. You would not have to worry about distortions from a photo taken with a wide angle lens.

Ken Young.

[Mel Santmyers]

Thanks Ken. 
Your comments are welcomed. I hope the powers that be accept the "LAZY SUSAN' idea as well. I am not sure of the back drop idea
However it could be tried. I do remember where we had the "LAZY SUSAN' under a tent like structure that was like a light green see thrrough I believe and it actually changed the planes color somewhat. Of course that could have happened with the normal tables we use as well
THREE VIEWS. WOW!! The first thing in my mind is WHO would create this? The data base is probably a better idea than the participants having them "AND FOR OTHERS READING THIS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ALTERING THEM" BUT! Simply because of the huge differences in the detail and quality of them. Could the judges be trained to use them as a tool?.  I do not know and that is why I reccomend that they are NOT used in the judging process.
I am sure the officers of the Scale Masters would love to hear what people think.                             Mel.  .

[rcphotog]

Quite frankly, I'd like to do away with 3-view drawings altogether.
I never understood the idea of comparing a 2-dementional line-drawing ( with no perspective ) to a 3-dementional object.

I'd like to propose a radical change in thinking.......Don't think of "outline".....think of "shape" instead.
When I verify the "shape" of.....say, the rudder and fin area....I always use a photo of the full-size plane. Simply pose the model to match the angle shown in the picture. Yes, it would be best if the photo shows the side profile of the area in question. This is why it's best to photograph ( at a 90 degree angle to ) the side of a fuse at about every five feet and using at least a 100mm lens ( 35mm equivalent ) to "compress the image" to eliminate as much lens distortion as possible.
About 25 years ago while working line service for Clay Lacy, I conducted a perspective "study" of one of his Learjet 24s. Using a tripod, I used a 20mm lens standing directly in front of the nose and framed the shot so the wing tips were just inside the edges of the picture area.
Then I stood back a few feet and used a 24mm lens framing the shot the same way.

Then using a 28mm , 35mm , 50mm , 100mm , 150mm , 200mm , 250mm , 300mm , 400mm , 500mm and finaly a 1000mm lens. At the end, I was standing about 350 feet away from the Learjet still directly in front of the nose. You would not believe how tall that vertical stab looked in the picture at 1000mm away.

My point is...line drawings show no perspective and the judges are looking at a 3-dementional object only 15 feet away. The amount of perspective on a .40 size compared to a 40% model will be quite different. Photos should always be used to verify the Shape of sections of the model. 3-views can be used to verify the relative position of pannel lines , fuel caps , hatches , lift-holes , blow-in doors, etc if no plan-form view is available in the photo pack.
Ken Young
ps; what's the outline of a bowling ball ?

[Mel Santmyers]

Ken. You are saying exactly  what I have been saying for the most part. Things like the elimination of three views as we now use them., Posing the model to match the angle of the picture etc.  I do not pretend to understand all the lense issues. From my stand point I simply want a photograph to be compared to the model  Keeping it simple but as accurate as we can. We must remember the judges we have. They try to be fair and we make it difficult for them. If I could think or someone could think of some magical way to
incorporate the three views in a fair manner I would like to be among the first to know.
Your comments are very interesting and I wish more people would chime in here so that we,that is all of us that are really interested can put the Scale Masters on a course of real growth.                                           Mel.

[Mel Santmyers]

I keep trying to stay away however I just saw that a fellow named Ali a winner in team scale at TOP GUN wrote the following under RC JETS post # 140         Qoute.
[LOADS OF PEOPLE FORGET HOW MAKING A TOP NOTCH DOCUMENTATION CAN MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE]   
I just have to ask.  Is this what you guys want?   Win perhaps because of a drawing? Not just any drawing but one you can draw yourself or have one dwawn for you.
Yes it is legal per the book as I have mentioned before OR! OR!  Change to what I suggest in my two prevous posts. Or change to something..
Please tell your representatives NOW! If you agree or disagree they need to know.
Now I must go and complete a brain scan to see if I am normal or not.                             Mel.

[Lawrence Harville]

I build using 3-4 views and include photos of any details I wish to show to the judges
the suggestion of using photos instead would have a limiting effect on the selection of aircraft==not all aircraft have been photographed sufficient to be used for 3-4 view documentation

Not a fan of the rotating static table - just the logistics of the storage, using it  as for adding an electric motor  -give me a break

funniest suggestion is do away with 3 views and have the judges just pull the 3view  from a data base and print a copy for them to use

Some of this stuff is so complicated--makes me wonder if any of you have ever run a qualifer or even a local contest

I have
and simple is much better,
If we make it so difficult to compile an outline packet--we will just limit the crop of pilots even further

The judges do the best they can under trying circumstances-it should not be expected that the JUDGE has unparelled info on every plane that has been invented
I ask my judges to judge from the documentation they are given and not to impose what they think they know but to use the documentation
3 views or photos both in combination or alone can be used to come to a fair score
It is hard enough to get quality judges without subjecting them to added burdens-
it is the contestants responsibility to prove outline

I am for NOT changing anything in relation to static judging

[bwboland]

Hello Lawrence,

Change always happens. Someting as needed sometimes just for change. I feel as you do about the static process we have today mostly. Mel has a few good points also for the records.

In the ideal world you would have a huge data base to chose from for every plane as a judge. Pictures would be the added detail. I know logistically this will never happen.

We have a bunch of real smart guys here and I am sure if we all look at the logistics impacting a small contest in Idaho we can see the challenges on all opinions.

2013 has some fun changes in the works and we all need to voice our thoughts and remember to vote as these changes come out.

Cheers,

Bernie Boland
USSMA Chairman

[Tim Lovet]

On the plastic model thoughts.....I have used the Hasegawa and Trumpet kits for color schemes.  They mostly come with four views for color and markings.  I have notices some deviations, make that a lot, from the three views I was using as a reference.  I think the rules say something about a "published" reference.  Correct me if I am wrong, but one of the plastic model kit 3 or 4 views would be a published reference.

Also, I have a plastic model kit of one of my planes that had the artist rendition on the boxtop that I used for markings.  Inside the box was a 4 view of the "same" color scheme.  Guess what?  The two items were different from each other!  This particular model had invasion stripes.  On the box top art the stripes on the wing started at the aileron gap.  On the 4 view the stripe actually overlaid the aileron by about 6 scale inches.  A choice has to be made as to which marking reference to use.  That is all part of it. 

I don't see there is a large problem with the system as it is written, for the most part.  The original idea Harris Lee had in mind was that a modeler could choose any plane he wanted to fly, document it, compete with it and be able to do well.  I do feel we have gone astray from that with some believing you "have" to have more than a side view for markings.  Ernie Harwood was a great builder.  He had trouble finding documentation for some of his obscure WWI planes and was penalized for the lack of "good photographs".  And from that, I was told that "he should have picked a different subject".  That doesn't sound anything like what Harris Lee had in mind !?

We have to keep it simple, mainly for our judges sake.  At the Qualifier level it MUST be simple.  Since it has to be simple at the Qualifier level, it should follow to be simple at the Championship level, too!

I have been interrupted about five times while writing this post.  So, please excuse me if it is a bit disjointed.

[Mel Santmyers]

Hi troops. Just to see if im back    Mel.

[Mel Santmyers]

 Pardon me but my horse and buggy is double parked..  OK!  To  answer Lawrence please go back through my two posts on three views and see the sketch of the judging device. Remember inexpensive VERY small easily stored and the electric motor thing was something for the future if we get there. The data base thing was a thought from Ken to generate some thinking among interesed people.I dont get what is so complicated judging a photo against a model at every angle.as you mention. seems to me it is easier. I agree simple is much better as you also say. Just as as I have said many times.
As an AMA contest board member I would think you would be far more interested in helping rather than using the choice of words you used in your post.
As a Texas CD for your qualifier I guess you feel 9 people in the whole state of Texas was sufficient.
Strikes me as something is wrong with that picture.
I would invite you and anyone else to read my two posts again  Over 2000 [thats thousands] hits combined.
Us old timers need to work together to help the Scale Masters live on before we lose it.                                     Mel.

[Lawrence Harville]

I am not about to get into an argument with someone with the stature of Mel Santmyers (truly one of the people we all look up to)
BUT
I was just expressing my opinion on 3 views and the trurn table
I continue to worry about the low turnout in ALL our scale contest
I can remember just a few years ago the Texas qualifier would have over 25 competitors
now we strugle to have 15 and they almost all have grey hair

A lot of modelers today when faced with added requirements will simply continue to go to warbird fly-in and other venues
and we will be looking at contest and the scale masters with an ever dwinling number of entrys

My opinions come from 20+ years of being a CD for contest and 30+ years of being a competitor
adding something else, I dont think will improve our planes or attendance at future contest

I can remember when EVERYONE that attended the SM Championships would receive a plaque or paper award (that we could frame) just for showing up at the Championships--I have several of those I proudly on my shop wall.  I can only speak for myself but each one of those paper printouts cost me around $1000.00 just for transportation, meals, vacation time and expenses.  Last few I attended- zippo-it is like I never attended-It cost almost nothing to print out--everyone that attends the Texas Qualifer gets a certificate of attendance-those young guys are especially proud of it-makes them another reason to come back next year

A few years ago I mentioned the paper certificate to one of the SM board members-he said if you want an award win 1,2,3  Realisiticly I figured I would never win the SM but I came for the friendship and fun-- I guess he would be very happy if only three people showed up-at least they would all have an award--
just an opinion--you wanted to express us an opinion-- I have--you dont have to agree with it

[Mitchell Baker]

I am not about to get into an argument with someone with the stature of Mel Santmyers (truly one of the people we all look up to)

Agreed!!!

BUT
I was just expressing my opinion on 3 views and the trurn table
I continue to worry about the low turnout in ALL our scale contest
I can remember just a few years ago the Texas qualifier would have over 25 competitors
now we strugle to have 15 and they almost all have grey hair

Seems to be a problem everywhere.  I truly believe, as had been mentioned before, it really does not matter what we do with the rules for the most part, unless we.. the current community start mentoring the new, and educating the current scale flyers who don't compete.. nothing will get better.

A lot of modelers today when faced with added requirements will simply continue to go to warbird fly-in and other venues
and we will be looking at contest and the scale masters with an ever dwinling number of entrys

My opinions come from 20+ years of being a CD for contest and 30+ years of being a competitor
adding something else, I dont think will improve our planes or attendance at future contest

Again, I say, the closer we can match the rules and classes of AMA, not Top Gun, the better chance we have of new competitors joining our ranks.

I can remember when EVERYONE that attended the SM Championships would receive a plaque or paper award (that we could frame) just for showing up at the Championships--I have several of those I proudly on my shop wall.  I can only speak for myself but each one of those paper printouts cost me around $1000.00 just for transportation, meals, vacation time and expenses.  Last few I attended- zippo-it is like I never attended-It cost almost nothing to print out--everyone that attends the Texas Qualifer gets a certificate of attendance-those young guys are especially proud of it-makes them another reason to come back next year

That is coming back.  Last couple years we had small trophies for all the pilots.  This year, just paper certificate I am finishing up printing and mailing out in appreciation to the pilots.  I want to come up with new ideas, well not totally new, but new for USSMA. Like metal plaques with the current year logo on them, like 3x5 in size.. something... but that is for another discussion.  

But I have to say we also hear the opposite of what you say, why waste the money on something like that... Oh well, can't please everyone...

A few years ago I mentioned the paper certificate to one of the SM board members-he said if you want an award win 1,2,3  Realisiticly I figured I would never win the SM but I came for the friendship and fun-- I guess he would be very happy if only three people showed up-at least they would all have an award--

Don't know who that was, or really care.. Not the way I feel ate least..

just an opinion--you wanted to express us an opinion-- I have--you dont have to agree with it

I thank you for your opinion.. Wish we had more who would express.. without being hostile.  Now if we can just come up with some solutions for it...

Thanks!!

See-ya
Mitch

[Skymaster]

I had an interesting conversation with a modeler this past weekend about three views, and he was very confused. He has been on our website and read this tread. I went through this thread and you know what?? I'd be confused as well.

Look I'm sure there has been discrepancies between three views and photos. Isn't that why in the rules the photo takes precedence over the three view. It sounds like the issue is in the judges understanding of how to apply the rules. Further more why is this an issue now?

As far as "doctoring/photoshoping" pictures and three views.... I'm betting that's been going for a while. It's just gotten easier. Funny thing is I know of a modeller who did his own three view, got it approved and he STILL made mistakes. If someone has to cheat to win, I guess they aren't that good to begin with.

To eliminate the three view, now the builder has to find good photos (Not always easy) or do their own photos. Not easy to do either, and what happens if the subject is in a museum and you CAN'T get straight on perfectly square pictures. What happens tha new guy says screw this and goes and flys the warbird circut!!!

Seriously guys, I appreciate the knowledge, experiance, and passion of those who have posted in this thread. However, WE ARE CONFUSING, and TURNING off good people to our sport! Isn't it hard enough to get guys to build scale airplanes and compete?!  Lighten up we are scaring guys off!!!

[Mel Santmyers]

Hello Skymaster.   I will attempt to explain again what I am saying. I Have had a fear that some may not understand this stuff.  You say as I do and the rule book says that photos take presedense. Because we now know that three views are not always accurate or the drawing quality is not equal across the board I am simply saying that we should eliminate them and go to the rotating stand so that the plane can be set at any angle in line with the angle of the photo. This in fact makes it easier for the judge. We simply do not have what we may call professional judges in every part of the country.  If you look at the rule book I am not saying anything would be different except to eliminate the three view drawing. (See 3.1 page 11 of the rule book.) Photos take precedence.  I have pointed out several times where the three views have taken presedense just the opposite of what the book says. I simply do not agree that this is scaring people off as you say. I feel it is simply making it easier and fair for all.  Thank you for replying we need more people willing to speak up.      Mel