Three view stuff and more.

[Mitchell Baker]

 Just going to say one things about a comment Mel made, if a contestant knows that something was done that contradicted the guide book, then that should have been brought to the attention of the chief judge or CD and fixed.

I'm not sure I agree with the stand...  How does your stand handle the top view?  Also if you are using photos for just color and markings they would take precedence over 3-views for outline?  If you build to your 3-views does it matter if they are not as actuate as a picture?   I like the use of both cause I don't think you can get a full 360 degree view of the plane.  What if only pic's are that can be found are a 3/4 shot from the front left side of the plane? Only judge that part of the plane?  Just questions that come to my mind..  But I think this is all good discussion.  I have to look, but what does AMA say for this?  Again as I said before, the closer we stay to AMA rules (not saying they are right or wrong) the better chance we have of getting more contestants. 

See-ya
Mitch

[Mel Santmyers]

Hi Mitch. I will try and answer your post as well. I fully understand why some call this idea (The dumbing down)  scenario. I prefer to call it simply the new way. Your plane versus the photo period. Why is it so difficult to eliminate the three view? We all know about three views now. OR do we ?  OR do we want everyone to draw their own,have it approved etc?  Do we really think that would work?  I wish someone would come up with an idea that makes sense so we could ultilize them somehow as simply an alternative to the photos instead of the other way around.   The (Rotating) stand.  It is about 32"high and you are sitting in a chair. You can still see the top you can still see the bottom. You will not see a plan view of course but you will certainly see enough to judge it. AND ANYONE CAN JUDGE IT. You also get a 360 degree view of the model. Try to visualize this turn table. I have built one and used it however I would like to see someone else try this. Mitch there is no doubt the mind sets would need to change. AND it would still fall in the rules. However It is simply time to do something else.  Remember this. Almost 3000 hits on the two post with less than 400 members.  WHY??   Mel.

[rcphotog]

In support of Mel's idea regarding the use of a turn-table for static judging: the table is simply an additional tool ( not ment to replace our current methods) A contestant would still be able to stand his model on the nose if the judges require it to examine the topside and underside.   The added value: allows the model to be positioned nearly exact to the angle that most photos depict when taken at airshows and museums ( in addition to the requisite; side profiles, LEFT & RIGHT and the FRONT view ) A person can "see" everything he needs to regarding the "shape" of an object by comparing the model to the photo .... as long as there is no appearent distortion from the use of an extreme wide angle lens by the photographer. ( for this reason it's recomended to shoot photos whenever possible with at least a 105mm lens. = no compression effects or wide angle distortion ) this is for those who wish to take there own documentation photos. ***Remember a 3-view drawing shows no perspective of the object*** this is why when judging, it's important to position the model as close as possible to match the photo. *** Remember Photos take precidence over 3-views*** not the other-way-round.
    I know of three contestants that have told me when static judges down graded something based on comparisons made EXCLUSIVLEY with the 3-views and the photos were never consulted. That should not happen. Evidence that some judges don't understand the judging "quide lines".
    All this is meant to aide in the process for fair & accurate judging. A contestant spends months and even years building his prefered choice of subject, and a judge spends all of 7.5 minutes evaluating it. The builder deserves the best from our judges.

Ken.

[Mitchell Baker]

Ok, first Mel, I'm not saying I like or dislike your idea.... I am an analysis and I try to look at all angles, and come up with questions where others may not, just to help explain things completely with everyone...  I don't want any of my questioning to be thought as a personal attack on you or your ideas....

I do like the table as an optional enhancement to judging..  If it works as you and Ken say, then it will become a standard at any event.  As judges/contestants use it at some events, like it and recommend it at other events they go to.  I also don't see why we can't put it as an addendum to the guide with the plans and suggestions of use to help that out. 

One to the 3-view/photo thing.  I still say that *under the current rules* if someone knows that the judges are not following the guidelines that is not a fault of the rules, but lack of experience/training of the judges and lack of over site from the chief judge and/or CD. 

How would you make sure there is enough documentation to verify everything?  Number of ribs on a wing?  Panel placement? Access panels under the wings?  Stabs?  etc.  Part of the outline judging is making sure all that detail has been properly built into the model, right?  That is the part I can't see in your proposal.  Am I missing something ?

I also think this discussion is great. 

See-ya
Mitch

[rcphotog]

Mitch,
Items like you mention: panel lines, hatches, number of wing ribs etc. are to be judged ONLY by the Craftsmanship judge.

The Outline judge is to ONLY gauge the accuracy of the "outline" in the strictest sence. Any details that fall "inside" of the outline will be judged by the Craftsmanship judge. Remember, the "Outline" judge is gauging accuracy of the "SHAPE" of a 3-dimentional object compared to a 2-dimentional drawing that has NO perspective. A near impossibilty without supporting photos.

Case in point:
Take the average TopFlite Corsair: .60 size on up to Giant-Scale. Topflite screwed up the "shape" of the empenage between the cockpit and the verticle stab. The model built as per the plans ends up with a "flat-sided" section. That's not correct. It should be curved / rounded somewhat. In a 3-view drawing, you can not see the "shape" the entire length of the fuselage. Typical 3-views don't give you the fuselage cross-sections. This is why photos take priority and SHOULD be used.

Ken.

[Mitchell Baker]

Yea, sorry about that miss... could not remember who did what and was to lazy to pull up the guide.. Going by memory of shoulder surfing some judging and watching the outline judge (I thought) count wing ribs.  I do need to go back and re-read the static judging section.  I was just using it as an example.  I agree as far as pictures should be used over 3-views, since as has been said, you can't get a really good perspective of the subject.  So, how can you make sure all the ribs and panel lines are accurate with just a picture?  I know there's not going to be once answer fits all... 

See-ya
Mitch

[Mel Santmyers]

Hi Mitch.  Thats the one problem with this net stuff. A person does not always feel the emotion correctly as in a  typical conversation.  I actually like your questions and appreciate your interest.  More later when I digest the items you and Ken have talked about.   Thanks.   Mel

[j_whitney]

Mitch,
Items like you mention: panel lines, hatches, number of wing ribs etc. are to be judged ONLY by the Craftsmanship judge.

The Outline judge is to ONLY gauge the accuracy of the "outline" in the strictest sence. Any details that fall "inside" of the outline will be judged by the Craftsmanship judge. Remember, the "Outline" judge is gauging accuracy of the "SHAPE" of a 3-dimentional object compared to a 2-dimentional drawing that has NO perspective. A near impossibilty without supporting photos.

Case in point:
Take the average TopFlite Corsair: .60 size on up to Giant-Scale. Topflite screwed up the "shape" of the empenage between the cockpit and the verticle stab. The model built as per the plans ends up with a "flat-sided" section. That's not correct. It should be curved / rounded somewhat. In a 3-view drawing, you can not see the "shape" the entire length of the fuselage. Typical 3-views don't give you the fuselage cross-sections. This is why photos take priority and SHOULD be used.

Ken.

A couple if questions:  How many photos are to  be submitted for the outline judging - and are they supposed to represent the traditional front/side/plan views?

What is supposed to be submitted for color/finish/markings?  What is supposed to be submitted for craftsmanship?

[rcphotog]

A couple if questions:  How many photos are to  be submitted for the outline judging - and are they supposed to represent the traditional front/side/plan views?

What is supposed to be submitted for color/finish/markings?  What is supposed to be submitted for craftsmanship?

Jeff,
The number of photos is entirely up to you. There is only a limit on the total number of pages you provide all three judges.I beleive it's 8 total for everything. How many photos you put on each page is up to you. Just ask yourself: "what would I need as a judge to evaluate - the outline ( the outside perimeter ), - the color & markings ( color chips optional but recomended ), - the "quality" craftsmanship of my building skills ( accuracy of size, shape and placement of surface details ) and yes .... number of wing ribs, number of rib stitches near the wing root verses the tip etc. for a fabric covered wing."
  Remember, the OUTLINE and COLOR / MARKINGS judges are sitting 15 feet away.
                     the CRAFTSMANSHIP judge can, should and needs to approach the model up to a 4 foot distance.
Getting back on topic, photos & 3-views: think to yourself what you need to prove the "shape" / outline of the rudder is accurate for your exact version of the plane; ie, SNJ-2 vrs. SNJ-5. If you can only find a 3-view for an SNJ-5, you can use a photo to support your SNJ-2. Remember it's up to you to prove your model's accuracy by any means necessary.If you're wondering just what an "outline" judge is looking at?  think of back when you built plastic models. Take one half of the fuse and trace the "outline" onto paper. That "line" represents all that the judge ( should be ) evaluating. I realize that it's nearly impossible to get photos of your prototype taken at exactly the side-view, headon view and the "plan-form" view so I'm not recommending throwing out the 3-views, only saying that they should only be used as a guide. If the contestant doesn't include enough info to prove his model's accuracy, then the judge can only give you  credit for the things he can verify.

Ken.

[Mel Santmyers]

Hi Mitch,Jeff. Thanks again for your questions. Before I start please remember this idea will not match everything or line of the current system.. It will take a new mind set where as you may only see a portion of the top or bottom view for example but surely enough to judge adequetly and to maintain the quality of aircraft we now see..  The views certainly will not be traditional as you mention. The number of ribs? Yup this may be lost To some extent. Is it lost now to some extent as well? The rotating turn table will match any angle of the photos. The model itself will represent the color markings etc. against the photos submitted. The same applies for craftmanshipThe model will represent itself and as Ken says the  judge for that is allowed to approach closer to check. He also mentions the use of a three view as a guide. I am not sure about that but is worth thinking about.
Help me out here with WW1 planes. I said color drawings and black and white photos. Sound OK?
Thank you guys and try to think more because I really think this Turntable thing is good for the future. Mel

[j_whitney]

Just reread most of this thread (halfway through page 3).  Mel and Ken seem to want to do away with 3-views altogether and rely exclusively on photos.  If I have mis-stated that, please correct me.  A couple of things spring to mind.  Why force a competitor into using one or the other?  Laisez faire - caveat emptor, etc,  The competitor that figures it out and builds to his documentation should take the cake, right?  Whether he builds to poor 3-views or excellent photos.  As John Eaton or someone pointed out, if you try to build to historic accuracy, you will most often not do well UNLESS you can back it up.  The other thing is WWI.  There are photos of WWI airplanes, not nearly as numerous or as clear as those of WWII aircraft.  You have to rely on published 3-views (and annotate with photos whever possible and needed).  "Proving" the plan view of any airplane strictly with photos is very difficult, well nigh impossible.  Unless photos are taken air to air, or from the top balcony of a hanger or similir there is just not enough plan info available to accurately judge (hence Chuck M's reliance on a drawn 3-view for his Waco).

As far as the lazy susan, it is a great idea - but I don't want to see it mandated.  One of the leading causes of the Civil War was State's Rights.  Same thing here - the State (Qualifier) should not necessarily be dictated to any more than is necessary.   Having a table to mount the airplane being judged on has proven sufficient in the past.  Eventually the lazy susan will catch on - but it should not be forced on the clubs.

Some Qualifiers, BTW, are qualifiers in name only:  Mint Julep, Top Gun and the Nats.  What about foreign qualifiers (none that I know of yet)?

[rcphotog]

Jeff and others reading (lurking ) this thread.

Mel & I are not advocating throwing out the 3-views. We are simply stating what's in the official guide. Photos take priority over 3-views. Mel's contentions are from years of knowing ( at our local regional events ) that some members are building strickly to 3-views that in many instances are hand drawn by the contestant and supposidly "approved" by some man-behind-the-curtain

I feel 3-views can get you in the neighborhood of accuracy, but if when compared to photos you find a mis-match, then the photos always trump the drawings. Once again, the Outline judge does not evaluate any details inside of the outer-perimeter-line such as wing ribs, inspection ports, rivets, panels, cockpit doors etc. Those idems are evaluated by the Craftsmanship judge.

As for the turn-table, we're not suggesting that it be manditory rather, an additional tool that can aid in static judging. Use it, don't use it. It's just a suggestion.
Ken.
btw; yes, you can draw your own 3-views as per the guide.

[Mel Santmyers]

Hi guys. Thanks for the quick replies. Yes I am reluctantly agreeing to the implantation of the Turntable being on a voluntary basis because I can see all the questions that can arise because this is such a radially new idea. OVER TIME I feel the qualifiers will see the benefits it allows for judges and contestants and begin to use it  in all the qualifiers. If anyone out there has a specific question please ask me here on this forum.  Now the next step is to see if our officers like this idea enough to advertise it,get people to build the rotating stand and start to use it this coming season if they choose too with or without three views of course. There choice.   Mel.

[Mitchell Baker]

No Ken, I do believe Mel is says scrap the 3-views..

Mel, I'm not against new things, I just want to make sure that we keep the "Best of the Best" going.  It's not suppose to be easy to build, detail and win expert.  It's suppose to be somewhat of a challenge.  IMHO

The rotating turn table will match any angle of the photos. The model itself will represent the color markings etc. against the photos submitted. The same applies for craftmanshipThe model will represent itself and as Ken says the  judge for that is allowed to approach closer to check. He also mentions the use of a three view as a guide. I am not sure about that but is worth thinking about.

Pretty much no 3-views in judging at all.  Also to me would loose those little details in the judging.

The number of ribs? Yup this may be lost To some extent. Is it lost now to some extent as well?

If it's lost now to some extent, is that not the fault of the judges?  Not the rules?

So, unless you have a picture of the underside of a P-51 stab,  you can't be marked down on the location of the access panels, or anything else for that matter.  So does that mean I could leave them out?  

First, I think Mel, you should put in an official submitting with the plans for the rotating table. I don't think that would be a big issue to get included with the next release of the guild, but you need to hurry.  You should be able to click on the "propose change" on the left side of the front page to start the process.  You can email me a copy of the plans for the table.  I would just start out as a tool to help static judging.

Also Mel, pretty much anything we do is voluntary.  The only place we can mandate the rules is the Champs. We can't and should not try to think that we can impose any rules on any qualifier as exclusive.  Unlike IMAC, USSMA is not the only game in town for Scale Competition.  Those who want to fly IMAC style competition only have one place to go, IMAC so they can impose what they want.  Whereas we are not, you can fly in the NATS, or a club can just fly AMA rules only and not worry about USSMA. Many of the east coast qualifiers are move AMA rules than USSMA, but if you exclude them, you will exclude 3 of the biggest qualifiers in the country. Mint Julep, NATS and Top Gun (not AMA rules, but not USSMA rules) which between the 3 we get close to 50% of the qualified pilots.

See-ya
Mitch

[j_whitney]

Mitch - do you see any reason why it could not be included in the Guide, in the section with the sketch of "dual judging"?  (where the judges are in the middle and there are static tables front and rear)

[Mitchell Baker]

No Jeff, check my second to last paragraph in the my last post...

--Mitch

[Mel Santmyers]

Good morning troops. I truly am pleased with everyone's comments. Please go to page 2  of this forum ans see post 24. It will show the rotating stand the items it takes to make one etc. as a matter of fact see the various comments that surround that post.     Mitch is correct I would like to see the three views go away. BUT!  As I have explained this may take a lot longer than I expected. So maybe the choice is the way to go.
Mitch and others are correct we may lose this and that.  As a long time modeler I cannot see someone building a scale plane and leaving a door off for example. We build for ourselves first not for a judge. I do not really know how to explain this but in lieu of the correct words I have to ask. Have we somehow gotten ahead of ourselves,the world is different today. There are many different facets to our hobby. We have to compete with far more events such as funflys,WW1 events,electrics etc. Not to mention all the other things we do now.  If we would be dumbing down as some say maybe the time has come to do just that and should the time come to make competing tougher we would know how to do it.     Mel.

[Lawrence Harville]

who is RCphotog?

without a name it is hard to know if it is someone who is a compeitior or just someone stateing an opnion without having to live under those proposal

Our club site has eliminated fake names  for just this reason  so we know who we are talking to

I know a lot of people but I dont know everyone by their cb handles

[Mitchell Baker]

All I know is his name is Ken.  After I set up the forums I added the "First Name, Last Name" requirement during registration.  I have turned on viewing the first name currently.  Looking at how to limit the viewing of the names to only folks logged into the site.  The mod I am using only has display or no-display option. 

See-ya
Mitch

[Mel Santmyers]

Mitch. I tried to post as you said for the change or addition but an error comes up. TOPIC OR BOARD IS MISSING OR OFF LIMITS.     Mel.

[Mitchell Baker]

Mel it worked.  The forum that goes to is a closed forum.. right now for admins only.  Your only the second person to use it .. thanks.. but I got the info.. I popped you an e-mail as well..

See-ya
Mitch

[paulsf86]

Leaving pictures or 3 views out to escape judging certain parts of the airplanes does not seem to work.  At the championships a couple of years back, I was asked for documentation that I had left out.  The areas of the airplane were judged anyway.  The judging was very fair but still included

Paul S

[Jeffrey Pike]

So much of this sport relies on the honor system. It always will. We all know each other. Do we cheat our friends for a trophy? I know the fix is in sometimes, but so be it. Only a fool would be disappointed after spending thousands when cheated out of a trophy. It is about the oos and ahhs we get, if we get cheated sometimes, so be it. I still have fun. I use as many 3 views as I can find, a plastic model if available and photos to shape my model. I pick the closet three view and correct the obvious errors in the three view based on all of my research. If there are those that correct their three views to reflect the errors in their model, well shame on them. I am still gonna' have fun. The judges need a three view to make their job manageable.

[Mel Santmyers]

I do not quite understand Jeffreys post. He says he knows the fix is in somtimes. I have never even thought of that in all my years. Then he "CORRECTS" the three views he uses based on this and that. I have to assume that he certainly does know what to do. Then Jeffrey says that the judges need a three view to make their job manageable. I would like to ask Jeffrey to consider again
" knowing" what he now knows about three views especially their quality between airplanes and the huge amount of emphasis on three views that the judges have given them in the past. I seem to have to remind those that seem to focus on cheating that this whole subject has not been about that on my behalf. It has been about an equal chance for everyone.
To continue. As mentioned recently I have sent in to the board the turntable idea to be used by those that would like to try it in their area in 2013 or they will be able to use if approved, the current method as well or use both if they care to. This entire issue is in their hands now. Very little in the rule book would have to be changed where it starts out to say 'if no three view drawing exists" The word exists may say "is used" for example. I do believe that this small change will help to improve attendance simply because there are those that simply do not have the time or knowledge to use the old path of what are many times poor three views and simply want to be judged on their model and photos.  Mel.

[Jeffrey Pike]

To be clear about "fix", I have seen a bright pink model of the Strawberry Bitch B-24 score 100 in static at the Nats. Some of the contests that I have attended over the years, resented "outsiders". I had a flight judge at the Scale Masters Nationals tell me that he flew in a proto type of my model and there is no way it could climb out at 30 degrees and that is why he down graded my score. Judges are regular folks, we all have friends to which we are partial. If we had ten judges and threw out the high and low score, then it may be "about an equal chance for everyone".  I always make a note on the three view about the changes I make and support it with pictures. I have read in the threads about adjusting the three view to the model, but I could care less if it happens. Just like I could care less about three local judges, judging the locals. I go for the fun of compitetion, win or lose. Sure its more fun to win but fun never the less. The judges need a three view in my opinion whether it is "corrected" to reflect the truth, or "fixed" to cover a flaw. We are on the honor system about our documentation and building. I produced a two day scale contest here in Baton Rouge in the 1980's. We would average about 35 models. Our sport/hobby is dying and it is sad.