Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
November 22, 2019, 05:14:05 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] 6 7 8 9 10   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Kit Scale 2019 Models  (Read 12185 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 443



Ignore
« Reply #100 on: September 17, 2018, 11:04:27 AM »

Hi Pete

Sorry, wasn't suggesting that you were trying to get around the rulebook. 
Just thinking out loud as it were, so a poor choice of of phrase on my part.

Was just trying to think from the Judge/CD's point of view.

I.e. if someone entered a 150% version and the original plan was just blown up - it would still say KK (or Veron etc.) and the smaller original dimensions on there.
Or do they re-draw the whole thing and include the new drawing/new designer's name so it is definately a new laser cut kit with new sizes.

John M
Logged
danmellor
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 56
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,246


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #101 on: September 17, 2018, 07:01:20 PM »

Pete, this was meant to be a thread to discuss next year's models. That's exactly what you (and others) did!

Carry on...
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,992




Ignore
« Reply #102 on: September 18, 2018, 03:18:34 AM »

Cheers, Dan! Okay...
My instinct is still that the 150% kits are proper kits, but John, you do have a very good point about the wood size dilemma and I hadn't factored that in at all.  My guess is that the Replikit 150 plans are indeed just blown up versions of the old plans, without any redrawing and with no adjustment of any stated wood sizes. Is that right?
 On the other hand, if there are laser cut parts in the box then someone must have decided, for those parts at least, whether to go with the original wood thicknesses or to increase them, for instance from 1/16 to 3/32. I hope they haven't gone thicker though, as I reckon you'd usually get away with keeping most sizes the same and so end up with a much more lightly loaded, floaty model. I can see that any discrepancy between the provided plan and the model does present a big problem for the judges though. I suppose they'd just have to make a ruling on it. I for one won't be arguing with their conclusion, although I do think it will be a shame if that conclusion is that the 150% kits should be banned from KS altogether.

Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 443



Ignore
« Reply #103 on: September 18, 2018, 04:11:21 AM »

Pete

We have an STC meeting on October 6th so I will raise it in AOB.

My take is that it should be ok.
But an old blown up plan may cause some judging issues, because anyone could do the same to get a larger model.

I know that in outdoor FF a 10% enlargement from original is allowed.

Sorry Dan for the hi-jack, but it does have some relevance to next year's models.

Regards John M
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,992




Ignore
« Reply #104 on: September 18, 2018, 04:38:16 AM »

Thanks John. It will be interesting to hear what the STC think. Just to reiterate; I'm not all that bothered about this as there are about a million other potential kit projects I can do without going near the 150 Replikits!

But an old blown up plan may cause some judging issues, because anyone could do the same to get a larger model.
Well they could, but they won't. Who's seriously going to turn up with a blatently rule breaking model to an indoor KS contest?
For bonafide enlargements though I suppose the Replikit box lid, or a printout of a relevant webpage would quickly show the judges that the enlarged version had been kitted.

I know that in outdoor FF a 10% enlargement from original is allowed.
The 10% rule applies to the AM/MA designs contest. For outdoor kit scale you can enlarge it as much as you like.
Logged
danmellor
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 56
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,246


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #105 on: September 18, 2018, 06:52:33 PM »

Just had a peek into the Chippie kit. All the stripwood has been resized on the plan, and the formers are nice and light 3/32" so the wood sizes should cause no problems static wise!

Cheers,

Dan.
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,896




Ignore
« Reply #106 on: September 19, 2018, 09:02:37 AM »

Can't you enlarge the KK plan and go from there?  It does not have to be built from a kit does it - merely the plan?

No, you can't enlarge the kit plan under indoor KS rules, David. The Replikit 150% Veron plan would be okay, but that's only because Replikit actually produced a kit in that enlarged size.

Of course - had I thought about it for a minute or so........indoor but for outdoor "The model should (must??)be built to the kit plan which may be enlarged or reduced". 

I am not intending debate because the kit scale event has largely proved itself as very workable and everyone clearly understand the spirit intent and good sense of the rules, but do we have a case of when is a kit not a qualifying kit? 

I think I can follow the idea that if someone produces a kit of a model originally kitted with all the bits, but it is not "complete" (that is sans wire decals rubber etc.) e.g a short kit it can be argued that not being as per the original it is not a qualifying kit. I understand a qualifying model can simply be built from a plan. 

But what about one of the "modern" kits which is thereby manufactured, but a short kit, Does it qualify as a "kit" because that is how it is first marketed. It is not a re vamp of an original complete kit. But a manufactured (rubber) powered scale aircraft kit......

And a 150% kit although a remake of say the Keil Kaft Chipmunk (as has been said) is a kit in its own right - a manufactured rubber powered scale aircraft kit. So are not wood sizes up to the manufacturer?

My interest is that I have a couple of short kits which are "original" - including the plan- not a redraw/remake of say KK or Veron so is it not a qualifying kit?  But I am content to accept and follow Petes example when he says " I wouldn't enter a new 'short kit' (that is one which never existed as a full kit) in KS".   I can see that a short kit (of any origin) may not to be considered entirely in the spirit of things. 

The ones I have, being aimed I guess at a different market, show colours markings and rather more scale detail that the KK or Veron ones. They omit some wood and other things like wire tissue rubber etc.  That is preferable as far as I am concerned as I have strip wood wire tissue etc.

The detail on the plan could operate against me of course because I suppose if I did not follow the plan to its full extent I could be marked down.  That would not matter because it is my choice. It is "qualifying" as an entrant which is the issue.  Points and prizes are up to me.

So in short (and sorry if I have missed answers contained in earlier discussions)  can I

(a) enter a model built just from the plan prepared for a short kit
 
(b) enter a model built from an original short kit - that is not a short kit using for example the plan from an original full kit but where the copyright or origination rights rest with the manufacturer of the kit. That is he does not have licence from the original owner to use the plan.

(c) a model which is an enlarged version of an original kitted design with or without varied timber sizes, but is otherwise a newly manufactured kit in its own right.  (I accept indoor models cannot be enlarged versions).

If these questions are not easily answered "Yes/No" then OK - I will opt for a model that has no issues as I do not want time taken of volunteers on something that I can easily accommodate.  It is simply I have the plan of a Rumpler from an original short kit and a short kit of the ZL-CS1 floatplane. As Pete also says there are many others from which I can choose.
Logged
ChrisH
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 48



Ignore
« Reply #107 on: September 19, 2018, 11:37:59 AM »

Should we lobby the Indoor Scale Committee for a Rule change, simply allowing any previously kitted designs to be enlarged?

If such a change was made, should there be a requirement to enlarge the wood sections by the same percentage as the span etc. was enlarged?

Why not allow freedom to revise the wood cross section in all kits, to avoid using vast quantities of super light quality wood simply to reduce weight?

Regarding DavidJP's question about short kits...

Personally I don't see any objection to Kit Scale models being built from a 'short kit', or indeed a 'full kit, or rather a drawing supplied with what was once offered as a short or full kit.

My only slight hesitance lies in the cottage industry nature of some kits, where the availability of the kits may be somewhat limited.

Is there an accepted definition of what must be included in a short kit, or the minimum availability of kits in general?

Cynically perhaps, one could produce the drawing of your model, and offer a limited run of 'very short kits'.   An extensive run of 3 plans, each with a length of piano wire Sellotaped to the back, might fill the requirement!
Logged
Mefot
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 293




Ignore
« Reply #108 on: September 19, 2018, 11:56:28 AM »

If I remember correctly Chris Blanch(?) won kit scale with a Sablatnig floatplane a few years ago and that was built from a short kit. I would think if the word kit is in the description it should qualify !!!  Smiley
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,992




Ignore
« Reply #109 on: September 19, 2018, 12:23:24 PM »

If a short kit has already won, then that would seem to be your answer; yes, they're allowed. Makes sense I suppose as even some kits which aren't actually called 'short kits' don't necessarily provide absolutely everthing you need.
Also, I think Dan's revelation about his Replikit Chippie having the wood resized on the plan clears up John M's judging concern and surely makes that (and presumaby the other enlarged Replikits) allowable too.

Cynically perhaps, one could produce the drawing of your model, and offer a limited run of 'very short kits'.   An extensive run of 3 plans, each with a length of piano wire Sellotaped to the back, might fill the requirement!
Well I suppose there might be people who are desperate to find a way to enter kit scale with a model which isn't a scale kit. Not sure who they'd be though!  Cheesy

Should we lobby the Indoor Scale Committee for a Rule change, simply allowing any previously kitted designs to be enlarged?
Personally, I'd say absolutely not. The indoor KS rules don't need changing because they're attracting loads of very varied entries just as they are. If someone really wants to enlarge a design they still can, and put it in an open class instead, or in outdoor KS (where you can do what you like and get no points for plan adherence in any case).
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 443



Ignore
« Reply #110 on: September 19, 2018, 01:22:32 PM »

I'm on it guys, but not going to waste anyone's time discussing the endless possibilities.  The rules are pretty clear already just need a clarification.

Suffice to say a ruling will be coming forth sometime after the 6th October STC meeting.  In plenty of time for you all to make a model before the April 28th indoor nats date.

John M
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,896




Ignore
« Reply #111 on: September 21, 2018, 04:30:00 AM »

Certainly I would not want any lobby for a rule change but am content to leave it entirely to the tech committee to take any route they feel appropriate. So far in my book as an observer they have not disgraced themselves in anyway.

As John says the rules are clear and so interpretation is up to the entrant. 

So far as anyone attempting to smart Alec their way round the rules is concerned they would fail because that would be seen as vexatious and not in the spirit of the occasion. So he (I doubt any of our lady colleagues would stoop so low) would soon be dismissed from the congregation.

So if I enter my floatplane can the organisers provide a suitable resovoir of water please that can be manouverable for the landings.  I am sure Richard Crossley would appreciate it for his Coronado that flys beautifully,if he he can tape a couple of pieces of piano wire and Balsa to a plan and sell some in time.  Kind of thing the Norfolk triumvirate are good at!
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 35
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,519




Ignore
« Reply #112 on: October 03, 2018, 05:48:44 AM »

MINOR KS RULE QUESTION:  if the kit plan says to use paper for, say, decking (but doesn't explicitly state something like 'advanced builders can substitute sheet balsa for paper') can one instead use very thin balsa (1/64) without incurring penalties ?  If the answer is that it isn't technically allowed, does this fall into the same category as the major felonies, each of which would attract a full 5 marks static score penalty - or would the sentence be more lenient?

From the current Judges Guide:
Judges should use their discretion over the total deductions made, particularly as some manufacturers offer alternate options on the plan for such things as separate control surfaces. As a guide, the following should each attract a 5 mark deduction:
(a)  Fully painted surface finish (including light airbrushing).
(b)  Separate control surfaces where these are not shown on the plan. Note that 5 is the maximum deduction; a lower figure may be awarded for a single-surface infringement.
(c)  Significantly increased, or reduced, dihedral (unless already penalised under ‘workmanship’).
(d)  Addition of a significant amount of detail (other than a pilot, which is not penalised).
(e)  Installation of artificial aids to stability other than manually adjustable trim tabs.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,992




Ignore
« Reply #113 on: October 03, 2018, 09:06:49 AM »

Jon, I certainly don't want to pre-empt any judge's views on this, but as I understand it the whole 'stick to the plan' aspect of Kit Scale is there to ensure the less experienced or beginner modeller is not at a disadvantge against experts who can tweak the designs to make them fly better. So, in the case of substiting balsa for paper, perhaps the question should be, "Would the balsa substitution give you a flying advantage?" Sometimes, such as when it is used for rear decking for instance, or anywhere where weight-saving is crucial, I would think the answer would be "Yes". I've no idea what the actual penalty might be though, or if indeed there'd be any. I suspect it's a 'depends on the judge on the day' kind of scenario.

If it were me, I'd use balsa anywhere it pleased me as it'll probably look better whatever mark it gets.
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 35
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,519




Ignore
« Reply #114 on: October 03, 2018, 09:18:20 AM »

If it were me, I'd use balsa anywhere it pleased me as it'll probably look better whatever mark it gets.

Well said Pete - my sentiments entirely!

My reason for preferring very thin balsa over paper has nothing to do with improving the model's flying performance or overall appearance - its just that (in my fat-fingered experience) paper dents so easily and is tricky to push back from inside a tiny fuselage, making the model look progressively worse.  Shocked
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,897


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #115 on: October 03, 2018, 09:49:10 AM »

This is one of the things that bug me about Kit Scale. It wouldn't bother me what was used for this kind of thing.
I would do away with penalties for making something better (including paint) ... just not score more points for it.
Eg. If a balsa version is executed as well as the stated paper then equal points.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,992




Ignore
« Reply #116 on: October 03, 2018, 10:22:18 AM »

Eg. If a balsa version is executed as well as the stated paper then equal points.
That's a potential problem though, Russ, because it may be easier to achieve a well executed finish with balsa. But only if you have enough skill and experience to do it, and an old hand's confidence to deviate from the plan.

I think the best thing is to see the phenomenon of Kit Scale as something beautiful, but which we will never fully understand or control.  It's a bit like the weather for instance; just go with it, maybe carry an umbrella, and enjoy whatever fortune fate brings!
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,897


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #117 on: October 03, 2018, 11:16:15 AM »

Pete,
If it's easier to do then yes,  nibble the score down a bit.
My problem with it is that I primarily build scale models to enjoy them ... not exclusively for competition.
Use the example of my SE5 from the Aerographics kit. I did build that with the competition in mind but not necessarily how the kit is intended to be built. As many that have covered in brown tissue will know ... the tissue overlaps show a lot. As a result,  I have built a model that I am happy with as a kit scale competition model ... but not entirely happy with it as a rendition of a scale model kit.
I would love to do Dave Causer's Aerographics Camel for the kit scale comp ... but the rules would leave me with a model that I am not entirely satisfied with. Finishing it properly is more important to me.
Surely those that say that kit scale is an event not just for beginners will understand this?  Smiley

Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #118 on: October 03, 2018, 01:29:05 PM »

Just finish it as you see fit, whatever floats your boat.  Most of the points going are in the flying, and so as an expert you can get your points back in that end of the competition...

I like a tissue finish, for me it’s nostalgia, and I think figures quite a lot for a few in Kit scale (for novices and “experts” alike) over true scale fidelity.

The answer other than that is simple, build your model to a good standard, deviate from the kit and the kit scale rules, to make it a better representation of the real thing and enter in into open.

IIRC Graham Banham’s Tripacer won/placed on a number of occasions in kit scale and was fully painted...

As Jon knows, make it fly well and it will win, (you don’t have to barnstorm the pits though  Grin Grin Grin)

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

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,897


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #119 on: October 03, 2018, 02:43:27 PM »

Andrew,
I have nothing against tissue finish ... I just think that some more sophisticated kits deserve the 'full treatment'.
As an advocate of kit scale as an event in its own right yourself ..  I am surprised to hear you point me in the direction of open. I still consider myself as an -intermediate' so it's still a big jump for me.
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,897


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #120 on: October 03, 2018, 03:10:40 PM »

Just to add .... the standard of flying in kit scale is very high. Jon made his model fly very, very well! Grin
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 35
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,519




Ignore
« Reply #121 on: October 03, 2018, 03:24:07 PM »

Good points Andrew, especially about flying points being worth 2/3rds of the total in KS, but there's no point in throwing away 5, 10 or even 15 static marks for silly things which can be easily avoided.  BTW I also like a predominately tissue finish... albeit with a dab of paint here or there to help lift appearances!  

Jon

PS What pits?  As far as I'm concerned, that was all Hunland!  Cheesy

PPS Russ, just bang one out for next year's KS  Smiley
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,992




Ignore
« Reply #122 on: October 03, 2018, 04:54:36 PM »

Kit Scale, as is, ticks an awful lot of boxes for most of us. No class is going to suit all of its participants exactly, so you just have to take a best fit approach. If unsure, just build what you like and then decide whether to stick it in Kit Scale, Open, or both. It doesn't much matter unless you're desperate to win. All any of the spectators care about is whether it looks nice and flies well (and if it doesn't- never mind!)
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 05:17:02 PM by Pete Fardell » Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Online Online

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 658



Ignore
« Reply #123 on: October 03, 2018, 05:10:49 PM »

I always find this debate facinating. We also find kit scale well supported and so far there has been no pressure to change the rules. Our rules are the same as the BMFA indoor rules but we use then for outdoors as well and often use the same models but with more power. The view of the FF Scale SIG is that it is up to the modeller to make the decision as to what they want to add to a model and accept any penalty that may incurr. In some cases I have painted the model because I wanted and accept the hit. Some of us even fly our models in Open scale as well and are competitive as well as adding to the numbers.
Ricky
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,897


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #124 on: October 03, 2018, 05:38:21 PM »

In 2008 I entered kit scale with a fully painted model.
I decided to take the hit and was happy to still be placed 1st in static, so I do understand the situation.
I'm only doing a bit of self trumpeting to emphasise that I would prefer to be able to fully finish a model and not gain anything for it ... but not to lose anything for it either.
I can easily live with the existing rules, but I would rather not have to make the decision of "build to the rules or build as I build?"
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10   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!