Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
January 24, 2020, 05:28:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Andy Sephton's new proposals for UK Indoor Scale  (Read 4071 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
John Churchill
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 81



Ignore
« Reply #75 on: August 07, 2014, 06:10:50 AM »

Pete, I know what you mean, Andrews Harvard was thought to be rather special I guess because of it's quality of build and the fact that it is not an easy subject to get to fly well. The build quality, adherence to plan and colour scheme should in my opinion have attracted higher marks in static, but I'm not a judge and to be honest have no ambition to become one.

 Andrew is convinced he was marked down because he included a drinking straw exhaust pipe not shown on the plan, a fair comment as the rules stand but maybe the addition of such details should not be marked down but merely ignored, the only penalty being the additional weight which would affect the flight score; any comments?

One way of rewarding such models could be by giving bonus points to low wing aircraft........

Understand what you're driving at Russ, we certainly don't want any kit scale specials creeping in!!!!!!

Bill, lets remove the 'character' (whatever that may mean), from the judging, far too subjective; plan fidelity, build quality and colour scheme is the sum total of what is presented for static judging, there is nothing else imho.
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #76 on: August 07, 2014, 07:28:07 AM »

Re the Harvard......

There were a few deviations that I did irrespective of the marks I would loose, some like the wheel wells I had to do because as Phil Smith had drawn it was virtually impossible to cover and would have completely knackered up the wing section (look at the plan and you will see what I mean) but others that I added to make it look like a better scale job to the prototype and to add this "character" element.  It pained me to omit so many obvious (and easy to do simply) elements, would I do the same now?  Yes I would.

Some of these things I feel that were judged as deviations and should not have been given that they weren't exactly tricky or complex to do and added to the "character", for me there is a difference in adding the drinking straw (available to the teenage me) and a fully airbrushed scheme (not available to the teenage me), but that is entirely my risk and I accept that.  In previous years we had the marking sheets back, this time no, so I will never know.

What did concern me was that I did happen to wander into the room as they held my model, and they were busy looking at the plan for where it shows the paper cowl ring (which it doesn't show), and commenting on the size of the wheels.  Now for those who know the Veron Truflite plans know that there are two features of them

1) Phil Smith was stuck with using those very silly little wheels for all of the kits (at least they were light and not like the lumps KK supplied!) they look VERY silly on WW1 types especially!

2) The plans don't have a lot of annotation and don't show certain things, which are included in the instructions, mainly including the dihedral and the application of fillets and paper details (such as said cowl ring)

3) Dependant on the age of the kit the instructions were either printed on the side of the plan or on a separate sheet (the ones I have are 50/50 with or without)

I did pass by cough and say "look at the instructions sheet" (which I included, but they hadn't seen) and whistle a bit in a cheeky way and wander off.  Whether or not they took any notice is another thing, and perhaps it was naughty of me to interject I dunno.  Or indeed the wheels and the cowl never got me the marks knocked off -  again I dunno!  However I does suggest that if this does apply to your model then make it obvious that this information is available.

Seeing the pictures in Aeromodeller made up for any disappointment I felt at the time, and I have to be really grateful that I got it to fly at all, the hall closed at 10:00 PM at 9:55 John and I was still there, "one last try" I said, as we made one more last ditch crap shoot adjustment, which fortunately nailed it...... 

Andrew

Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,774



Ignore
« Reply #77 on: August 07, 2014, 08:20:36 AM »


What did concern me was that I did happen to wander into the room as they held my model, and they were busy looking at the plan for where it shows the paper cowl ring (which it doesn't show), and commenting on the size of the wheels.  Now for those who know the Veron Truflite plans know that there are two features of them

1) Phil Smith was stuck with using those very silly little wheels for all of the kits (at least they were light and not like the lumps KK supplied!) they look VERY silly on WW1 types especially!

...but you are allowed to change the silly wheels.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #78 on: August 07, 2014, 08:41:11 AM »

I think his point is he did change the wheels, so why were the judges commenting on them. Perhaps they were were saying, "So glad he changed those silly wheels- let's add some character points!"
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 97
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,729


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #79 on: August 07, 2014, 08:57:24 AM »

I did pass by cough and say "look at the instructions sheet" (which I included, but they hadn't seen) and whistle a bit in a cheeky way and wander off. 

One of the methods I've used to boost my scale points is to clarify any discrepancies in red text in a place where the judges will see it. 100% of the scale details on my models are circled in bright red on the documentation. I put a red note above the 3-view (this is for judged events, obviously) stating that it is only for dimensional reference. Then I have a separate section entitle "color and markings" which shows color and any important markings, with minor bits circled in red. Then I have a third section, "Details/workmanship" which shows photos of each segment of the aircraft where there is anything other than flat tissue, with red circles around things like pitot tubes, control horns, position lights, etc. Each item is labeled, and for items like lights, it is denoted that there's more than one. I make it very clear in the documentation that the 3-view is not to be used in judging workmanship, details, markings, etc. Lastly, there is a page devoted to any bonus points the aircraft might qualify for.

I've gotten a lot of compliments from judges on this stuff. My planes get judged faster than anyone else's, and consistently get very high marks (FAC competition, mind you) despite my less than stellar finishing skills and wrinkled covering. Just the way I present my documentation has raised my static marks almost 20%, which is the difference between middle of the pack and winning.

I do have a policy of never building a scale model for which I cannot provide at least 3 photos. And I do my level best to make sure they are color photos, though it is possible to make inferences based on shading and the like.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,774



Ignore
« Reply #80 on: August 07, 2014, 10:56:27 AM »

You are absolutely correct. It is a very good idea to tailor your docs to the rules and make life easy for the judges. Get them on your side. Even at RC World Champs you got handed piles of books and were expected to figure it out.
Logged
John Churchill
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 81



Ignore
« Reply #81 on: August 07, 2014, 12:58:01 PM »

Pete, the problem with awarding 'character' points to (say) a Veron model fitted with scale sized wheels is that it infers that the builder of a model with the undersized wheels would in effect be penalised for building his model to the plan....not quite fair I think.

I too was in the judging room (to retrieve my model) when I overheard the judges comments re a KK Luscombe Silvair in the context of 'character' points. In their opinion it really looked like a Silvair and was probably the ideal KS model. It was a very well built and finished model, but the comments made me think (rightly or wrongly) that choosing the right kit to build to impress the judges on the day might be very important if you want to do well. This would seem to penalise builders of other perfectly eligible models which have less accurate plans. Character points - too subjective imo.

To get back to Andy's original proposals, I don't agree with combining CO2/Electric with Open rubber, they are different disciplines. With electric flight you have some control over the flight pattern via the Zombie (almost RC by proxy Wink Grin).

Certainly retain Kit Scale, although I feel it's gone beyond an 'introductory' event and become a hotly contested, highly successful class.

An intermediate class would be good for the comp as a whole, but with relaxed documentation so as to allow a more diverse range of models. As I've said before some very interesting prototypes cannot be entered because either they have never been kitted or adequate documentation cannot be put together.

Would hate to see Pistachio go but there's not time in one day for everything.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 01:11:16 PM by John Churchill » Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #82 on: August 07, 2014, 01:05:32 PM »

I think his point is he did change the wheels, so why were the judges commenting on them.

Yes I thought that they were exempt, and did therefore wonder why they were commenting on them (unless of course they were saying how much they liked them!) Grin

Andrew
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 03:06:31 PM by Andrew Darby » Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,964


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #83 on: August 07, 2014, 02:58:29 PM »

Quote
Would hate to see Pistachio go but there's not time in one day for everything.

I still cannot see the logic in removing Pistachio to save administration and time. It is flown in the same slot as Peanut and can be judged by the same people.
The lower number of entrants mean less time taken too.
I do think the lower entry in Pistachio is due to it's difficulty .... but then, it is a national competition. In this way, it is more meaningful to me than Kit Scale.
Using the musical acts of Stock, Aitken and Waterman or Simon Cowell as an analogy! ....OK, they may have been popular .... but I still want to hear the real music played (insert your own favourite act here!)

Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,964


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #84 on: August 07, 2014, 03:12:10 PM »

.... forgive the 'over-emphasis' of the analogy by the way! ..... nobody entering the Nats is a 'Sonia'!
Logged
Andy Sephton
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 204




Ignore
« Reply #85 on: August 07, 2014, 03:32:18 PM »

Time for another input from me......a lot of you have gone way off the initial questions and made some false assumptions on the way. I strongly suggest that you read the following posts to get back on track: Post nos 1, 3, 4, 43 and 49. I would also suggest that you read the BMFA Scale Rules and the BMFA Scale Technical Committee Judges Guide.

For those of you who don't want to do the research, I'll reiterate: only formal responses to the Scale technical Committee will be taken into account, if you don't write to one of us by email or letter, your views won't count.

Now having said that, here's a few hints:

- Combining the classes does work. We do it for most of the non-nationals BMFA events both indoors and out. Judging CO2, electric, rubber, ic and Rapier to the same flying schedule works. (This does not mean that we are going to combine the classes, but it does mean that if we do, it will work)

- Combining Peanut and Pistachio will not work - look at the rules and judges guides and you'll understand why.

- Geting competitors to judge each others models will not work. Competitors don't have the time to prepare and fly their own models let alone judging 20+ other models. Further it's impossible to get most of them to write their name and model on a bit of paper for the commentator so how are we to get them to fill in a judging schedule. Finally, how would you legislate for those who can't be bothered, leave early or only judge half of the field......

- I have not stated that losing Pistachio will gain time...it will only gain two judges.

That's all for now,

Andy

PS: notwithstanding the above, I am enjoying the thread. ;-)

Logged

Too much thrust is never enough!
Bryanair
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 203


Bryan Lea




Ignore
« Reply #86 on: August 07, 2014, 04:08:14 PM »

I did go to some trouble with my entry to fill in the commentator's notes but there was NO commentary at Nottingham!
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #87 on: August 07, 2014, 04:15:19 PM »

.... forgive the 'over-emphasis' of the analogy by the way! ..... nobody entering the Nats is a 'Sonia'!

No but I dance a little bit like a fat Rick Astley.... Grin Cheesy

Oh, yes. I filled my form in too.

I'm oot!

Andrew
Logged
John Churchill
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 81



Ignore
« Reply #88 on: August 07, 2014, 04:34:05 PM »

Filled my form in too, disappointed there was no commentary, wasn't there a technical problem? (Not that it's important to this thread)!
Logged
Andy Sephton
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 204




Ignore
« Reply #89 on: August 07, 2014, 04:39:21 PM »

You're quite right, the commentary didn't work at Nottingham. I booked it for the event, but one of their systems was U/S and 'somebody' had forgotten to charge the batteries on the standby....prob the same person who 'forgot' to book the catering.

Apols to all for the inconvenience......do any of you want the job next year?
Logged

Too much thrust is never enough!
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #90 on: August 07, 2014, 06:57:08 PM »

I will plead exemption from the commentator job with the same excuse as I made when you suggested more of us might like to try judging: namely that I was at the back of the queue when they were handing out the gorm rations and when I got to the front there was very little left.

Combining the classes does work. We do it for most of the non-nationals BMFA events both indoors and out. Judging CO2, electric, rubber, ic and Rapier to the same flying schedule works. (This does not mean that we are going to combine the classes, but it does mean that if we do, it will work)
I've entered a rubber model in a few combined comps now and agree that it works. It's not quite so much fun as entering Rubber only though and I still really hope Co2/electric and rubber are not combined at the Nats. I wonder if anyone feels otherwise.

Andy, thanks for getting us back on track. I think the reason this thread has strayed from the original topic is first because it's a discussion forum and that's the fun of it, but also because saving time is one of the things you said you want to do, and Kit Scale judging seemed to be the one thing which was taking up a great deal of it. Once we talk about the judging, then we're always going to get on to the rules as well. I must admit I really enjoy these convoluted Kit Scale discussions and the way now and again ideas like Russ's start them up again.

Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,964


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #91 on: August 07, 2014, 07:16:43 PM »

Quote
I'll reiterate: only formal responses to the Scale technical Committee will be taken into account, if you don't write to one of us by email or letter, your views won't count.

I don't think anyone is ready for this yet Andy? I think it is useful to thrash out ideas here first .... there are so many ways that things can be played out without any of them necessarily being 'The Right One'.
I still have other differing options that I have thought of that could work in my own mind ... as I expect others will have too. I can't see the harm in 'straying around' in this thread to gauge responses to all kinds of suggestions.
Logged
Andy Sephton
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 204




Ignore
« Reply #92 on: August 08, 2014, 12:41:23 AM »

Quote
I'll reiterate: only formal responses to the Scale technical Committee will be taken into account, if you don't write to one of us by email or letter, your views won't count.

I don't think anyone is ready for this yet Andy? I think it is useful to thrash out ideas here first .... there are so many ways that things can be played out without any of them necessarily being 'The Right One'.
I still have other differing options that I have thought of that could work in my own mind ... as I expect others will have too. I can't see the harm in 'straying around' in this thread to gauge responses to all kinds of suggestions.


You're quite right Russ and I agree with you. I just wanted to make it clear that any views expressed on the Forums would not be taken into account when it's discussed formally......unless they're giving in writing to a committee member. Notwithstanding and as I said in my last post, I'm enjoying the thread.
Logged

Too much thrust is never enough!
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #93 on: August 13, 2014, 06:33:42 PM »

I like your recent Kit Scale proposal: to allow motor peg position changes and built up tail surfaces- seems fair to me (and I'll probably say so formally once I hear what other people think.)
Also, I was wondering, is there any reason why things like extra detail and paint finishes can't simply be ignored rather than penalised in Kit Scale? If they weren't penalised it would mean someone could build a model and enter it in both Kit Scale and Open Rubber or CO2/electric. It wouldn't be marked down in Kit scale ( but wouldn't be given extra marks either) but would still be in with a better shout in the other class too. Would that maybe encourage more Kit Scalers to make the leap?
Logged
Andy Sephton
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 204




Ignore
« Reply #94 on: August 14, 2014, 01:42:22 AM »

Thanks Pete.

I must admit that I like your proposal about reducing the impact of modifications in Kit Scale. However, I'm not sure whether or not it would move the class away from it's original aim. Modifications and painted finish were penalised in order not to make the class too complicated for a beginner.

In respect of entering the same model in two classes, from experience it's a nightmare. Back in 1987 I entered the same model in Peanut, CO2 and Open rubber. In 1988, 90 and 91 I did the same with a different model in Open Rubber and CO2. The logistics of getting the model statically judged twice and having it ready for 8 or more flights is a very stressful exercise and one I would not recommend.
Logged

Too much thrust is never enough!
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 97
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,729


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #95 on: August 14, 2014, 07:45:53 AM »

Modifications and painted finish were penalised in order not to make the class too complicated for a beginner.

In the FAC, we have the specific rule that painted finishes are not to receive higher marks than traditional finishes. It works well. I've entered raw tissue finished models and gotten competitive marks against painted models. For a while there was the perception that an airbrush was required to be competitive, but that seems to have largely gone away now. What does affect one's marks is the quality of the finish, but even then I've found that sufficient detail can make up for a less than perfect finish.

As for entering a model in multiple classes, the FAC has what is in my opinion a somewhat arcane restriction on that. There are specific exceptions, and I've played the game of having a model in multiple events. It works, and works well, but it requires planning. I think the biggest rule that folks fail to attend to is to have the model trimmed before the event! I've got competitors who think I walk on water because they hardly ever see my planes misbehave. I have achieved this level of perfection (hah!) in their eyes because of my policy of not trimming at contests. If the model isn't trimmed, it doesn't attend. And Mike Midkiff has it right-no model is trimmed until it's made at least 50 flights!
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #96 on: August 14, 2014, 11:02:14 AM »

Modifications and painted finish were penalised in order not to make the class too complicated for a beginner
I realise that, but if the painted finish and extra scale details were simply unrewarded, rather than specifically penalised in the scoring then beginners would still have no need to add them to be competitive. In fact the undetailed, unpainted model would theoretically fly better so still have an advantage.
I'll certainly  take your word for it about entering a model multiple classes being stressful though; it's bad enough getting it ready for 4 flights in one class! Even so, if a bit more detail and a paint finish could be safely added to a kit scale model then couldn't it more easily be entered in another class at future comps (eg the following year)?
Logged
Rich Moore
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 42
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,454




Ignore
« Reply #97 on: August 14, 2014, 12:01:38 PM »

A painted finish would make it harder for judges to assess 'deviation' from the plan, and although a nice model can be ruined by a bad paint finish (at least it can by me), a good paint finish can also mask bad workmanship. A 'tissue only' finish is probably appropriate, at least with regard to kit-scale, for this reason.
Logged

It wasn't me
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #98 on: August 14, 2014, 01:26:09 PM »

It's a good point (although I doubt whether the previous kit scale models which have won despite painted finishes were anything other than beautifully built). In any case though,  I may well be wrong in my premise that anyone wants to use their kit scale model in another class. It was just a thought.
Logged
Rich Moore
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 42
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,454




Ignore
« Reply #99 on: August 14, 2014, 01:40:20 PM »

...although, to be honest, I was (am) seriously thinking about entering my next kit-scale model in the open class as well. 
Logged

It wasn't me
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!