0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
It's been a while since anyone has posted in this Forum topic. It seems disinterest has set in. Well, after a few months of Scale Master Qualifiers, I think it's again time time to continue discussions on the future of Scale Masters and shake up some interest. Mike Barbee was the last to post on this subject and suggested that a permanent venue for the Championships be located in the west (Las Vegas maybe) which might bring the attendance numbers up at the Championships. That's all well and good, but unless the number of Qualifiers and participants also go up (not down, as is currently happening), there's only one place for the Scale Masters organizationto go, and thats down hill as well; - into obscurity.What follows is my take on the current situation; you might even call it a dissertation. You make the call........../waconut...
4/18/10The Rise and Fall of Scale Masters Has anyone noticed that for at least 5 years now, that attendance has diminished at regional qualifiers and the Championships have also incurred decreases in attendance? Is it a sign of the times that the number of regional qualifiers has slowly, but surely decreased until that now, in 2010, out of 23 identified qualifiers, we have 15 scheduled, 7 canceled and 2 that are “invites”; the AMA Nats and Top Gun? Top Gun; now that’s what scale competition is all about. Competition by invitation for the “best of the Best” model aircraft with a no nonsense approach to competition.
On the west coast, contestants at the Expert and Team level seem to always the same people with the same airplanes with the same winners, or if not competing at the expert level, are now competing in the Advanced Class – with Bashed ARFs and even sometimes with a previously competing expert Class airplane. For instance, at the SoCal (Hemet CA) qualifier, there were 2 entries in Expert and 2 entries in Team. If one didn’t know that this was the 2010 qualifier, they would have sworn it was 2009, or was it 2008?Scale Masters has now defined the Advanced Class of competition with the intent of increasing attendance hoping that ARFs, ARCs, ARPs and other “ARx’s is the way to go to improve participation numbers. (Open/Fun was kinda always there). Well, if one looks around, one sees the same (mostly) pilots and builders, but they are now giving Advanced Class a whirl. Why maintain an Expert level airplane for one contest a year (maybe two if it’s a Class winner and one can afford to attend the Championships, possibly 2000-3000 miles away). I compete with a ¼ scale Waco F5 Classic, and it is a chore to maintain and prepare for a Qualifier; not the flying portion, but the static. I envy (not really) those who enter molded/fiberglass models that are primarily structurally assembled; gear, radio stuff and engine installed and need only to paint touch-up for a contest. No complaints here, I have empathy for scratch and plan builders, builders who start from stick-kits and bash away to fully emulate the prototype and the occasional Almost Ready to …. (fill in the blank) airplane that really is a work of art and craftsmanship worthy of competing at the Expert Class level. Just look to Jay Stewarts’ (of OEAF fame) bash of the P6E ARF and you tell me it’s an ARF”. Bob Frys’ (another OEAF member) bash of a P47 is another example of what can be done to AR’x’s to be competitive in any Scale Master’s Class, be it Expert, Team or Advanced.So, with Top Gun at the top of the heap for Scale aircraft competition, where does Scale Masters fit in the realm of scale model competition? Nowhere. This organization is mired in the past, has one of the largest competition Rule Books around, demonstrates an intense abhorrence to change, embraces a motto that even Harris Lee would disavow: “Keeping the Dream Alive:!!” to what purpose? Perpetuation I think. Maybe it’s really about keeping it the way it was in the beginning – a few scale modelers with a desire for competition in a controlled environment. And it happened back then. Pilots and builders had at it. Competition was the game. Fun and comradeship was how it was played. Most aircraft were heavy metal; WW2 stuff. Contests were held. Competition rules were modified, and then, stagnation began to set in after the death of Scale Master’s founder, Harris Lee. Keeping up with the times was no longer a priority of Management and Advisors. . Anyone make the connection to the current competition guide’s slant? Anyone connect the dots to Scale Master’s inaction to change? Just look at the last two years of changes to the Competition Guide: all editorial at best. The best example of it is probably the 2010 change: “Documentation location during judging clarified”. This clarifies where one is to place his documentation for Static Judging. Now who proposed this change and obtained a majority vote for its acceptance? Please don’t ask. And, what about other submitted changes that feedback was not provided to the authors as to its disposition? Please don’t ask. No responses will be forthcoming. Unless we (Scale Masters) recognize that the scale modeling competition world has changed, we will fade away, and wish Top Gun the best; which they are. Scale competition of the best.
The Scale Squadron of Southern California, the founding organization of Scale Masters (Harris Lee and 5 other founding fathers were members) seems to see the future of scale modeling and competition is not Scale Masters by its last three years of attitudes and direction toward structured competition. Once a very active Club, the Scale Squadron no longer supports Scale Master Qualifiers here in Southern California or Arizona. In fact, its direction seems to be toward scale Fly-ins. They now sponsor a scale fly-in every June and draw a fairly large contingent of pilots and modelers and obviously a large number of airplanes. The OEAF likewise does the same; holding two Fly-in events every year. This Fly-ins draws 80 or more pilots and over 100 aircraft at each event. And you wonder why no Qualifier was held this year in the Phoenix area. Please don’t ask.
Here on the west coast (Southern California in particular), scale Fly-ins are becoming the thing. Numerous Dawn Patrols (WW1 only), a few Warbirds Over … (obviously WW2 stuff), Golden Age/National Air Race aircraft (need I enumerate?), etc. are all being conducted. And guess what. Competition has crept into these events. Not necessarily structured competition, but Best Of ……. awards. Best Biplane, best Warbird, Best Trainer, Best WW1 military, Peoples/Pilots Choice, etc. A lot of awards are given. A lot of participants win awards for “Best ofs”. Static no longer rules the roost. Static being 50% of one’s Overall Scale Masters Total score no longer applies as no Static judging occurs.. The playing and flying field has now been leveled. It’s now the Plane, Period identifiable (WW1, WW2, Golden Age, etc), Prototypical flights, and overall, a Pretty Damn Good Looking airplane! One can say that to be a Fly-in winner, one need to watch his “Ps”. As the events are mostly held locally, say drawing contestants from within a 100 mile radius, schedule dialogs are being held amongst the area clubs, eliminating most date conflicts and enhancing the probability of higher attendance.
Let’s regress abit and talk about three-views; now there’s a paradox if ever there was one. Show me a documentation 3-view and I’ll show you what PhotoShop can do. One can also say that about photographs, but let’s not go there. 3-views should be used for what they are: a drawing by a draftsman and his interpretation of what the particular aircraft (not necessarily your prototype) he used for his drawing looked like and not as what one’s modeled aircraft outline looks like. Not one of my five Scale Master Waco’s (all were of existing aircraft) 3-views were correct. Each prototype airplane had variants and deviations from existing available drawings. One gets tired of inserting on the drawings, exceptions and differences that were incorporated in the model’s construction (based on photos) but not shown on the drawings. I now use actual photographs of the prototype airplane rather than someone’s drawing of say a typical 1929 Waco CTO. And still I sometimes forget to incorporate some detail a Static Judge is just waiting to pounce on.To sum up this diatribe, Scale Masters had best recognize the second decade of the 21st century as it relates to scale model competition, and the aircraft that are modeled; all the way from scratch built to RTFs. Consider, for instance, 1) combining Expert and Team into one Class and 2), revisit the BOM rule. We then would have basically, two entry classes: Expert and Advanced. Open is just that; open for whatever purpose. I know there are many suggestions out there amongst concerned modelers, but as no Management/Advisory movement of consequence has been observed over the past few years, the attitude of “I give up” is flourishing and as down goes interest, so goes Scale Masters … down the tubes. Fun-flys are now in the forefront here in Southern California/Arizona and are indicative as to what scale modelers now prefer - rather than a structured contest with the same old participants, with the same old planes and having the same old winners.As I fly my Waco during this year and try my best to ready it for another Qualifier (I’ve already competed this year and placed last in Team. Or was it second?). It’s time (2 years of rejuvenating the F5 is getting beyond the pale, especially trying to get a 97 Static) to complete next years competition airplane – a Waco, what else? Maybe I too should completely redo the Waco F5 Classic and use it as a Hanger Queen, only to be seen at Scale Master Qualifiers or at the Championships. A model doesn’t qualify, a Pilot does. Please don’t ask.(Has anyone seen my ARC-bashed Stearman N2S-3? It’s a Fun-fly winner in the making!) /chuck maitre #158...................................../c
I would like to try and explain my reasoning for a change in the way we do static judging. I probably wont have any order. I am not a very good salesman to begin with however I feel the way we do static judging is long overdue for a change. First let me say that 3 view drawings are NOT always very good. This in itself leaves a huge gap in various airplane presentations. So in the rule book page 11 there is a sentence that essentially says you can draw your own or have one drawn for you. Then you send it to an AMA scale contest board member for approval. Are you beginning to see anything yet and what we ask this poor guy to do..
Second. We have always had a judging problem weather we like it or not. For whatever reason throughout the years we have rarely had proficent judges that are always on the same page. A post or two up you probably read about color chips 35 years down the road. On one hand we ask the builders to be accurate and to present a beautiful model then we have on the spur of the moment judges that no matter how hard they try they have seem to have trouble navigating though the paper work some of it because of poor presentation on behalf of the competitor. {Now I am not down on judges,thank god they volunteer to help us.] Now on the other hand how many of you have spent a year or more building a plane that in these days usually sees one or two meets a year? Let me ask a question. Should we as pilots/builders expect a fair analysis? Then to add more we are given a score after the first round of competition,too late to say or do anything about it. I recall one time I was given a low score because my three view showed a door and the photograph did not show that door. The book says photos take preference right? But I find out the judge fixated on that door and down graded me. Of course as mentioned I found out after the first round. I have heard numerous stories of the same type of thing. SOoooo gentlemen here is my idea. FIRST. ELIMINATE the 3 view. {OH MY GOSH] What is he going to do next?SECOND. Place the plane on a newly designed very inexpensive rotating table. THIRD. Using Photographs presented by the builder [I say two in the proposal but could be four or even six] the aircraft is judged at any angle the photo shows. The judges sit at a level that allows them to see NOT ALL but enough of any model to judge it fairly. This method will make judging easier,faster and more accurate than in the past. The builder simply makes his model as close to the photos as possible. He even matchs the color to the photos. How'd ya like that one?
I am not saying I have the total answer with this I and your leaders are open to changes if you see something missing. This new method could also be used as a tool to attract new flyers making it easier to get involvedI hope I have covered everything in this report and I am open to any questions. Mel.We post because we care.
HI FOLKS. I think I have covered the Static scoring issue the best I can. I hope everyone has been able to understand the changes I have submitted and the reason behind them. Please use the next 3 or 4 months of the year to discuss this item. As you have seen Chuck feels pretty much the same. Chuck is also dedicated to the future of the Scale Masters. We certainly do not always agree on things however on this subject we are thinking the same. Chuck lives about 60 miles or so from me so we dont always spend a lot of time speaking.
I cannot leave this without expressing my thought on the statement this organization uses and that is {The best of the best} This statement I feel and by the way I have asked several potential flyers about this statement, I dont think it is a good sales point. Are we intimidating potential flyers with this statement? Discuss this question please.
Thanks to Mitch for giving me and others the chance to try to help make this great tradition continue based on my years of experience and my love to compete. [AND] I cannot leave you tonite without remembering my buddy Harris saying WATCH THINGS FOR ME. Thanks Mel.
What follows is a singular reply to one of Gary Norton’s (via Mitch Baker) many comments on my discussion items. In particular 3-Views.What I said:“Show me a documentation 3-view and I’ll show you what PhotoShop can do. One can also say that about photographs, but let’s not go there. 3-views should be used for what they are: a drawing by a draftsman and his interpretation of what the particular aircraft (not necessarily your prototype) he used for his drawing looked like and not as what one’s modeled aircraft outline looks like. Not one of my five Scale Master Waco’s (all were of existing aircraft) 3-views were correct. Each prototype airplane had variants and deviations from existing available drawings. One gets tired of inserting on the drawings, exceptions and differences that were incorporated in the model’s construction (based on photos) but not shown on the drawings. I now use actual photographs of the prototype airplane rather than someone’s drawing of say a typical 1929 Waco CTO.”What you said or, your take on my comment:“You seem to imply that documentation is universally enhanced or altered to aid in proving static judging principles. I like to believe that the contestant is basically honest. To think otherwise is counter-productive and a sorry reflection on our common man. I certainly agree that 3-views are very often incorrect and require notation of the discrepancies. But this certainly does not mean the competitor is dishonest; only that he/she has done their homework in research of their subject.”My response: you state that I am saying by my comment on 3-views that the documentation is universally enhanced, altered and that we all cheat. You haven't a clue as to what I was saying.. I suggest that you and others who feel that way about my statement read the 2010 Scale Masters Competition Guide, pages 11 and 12. Here’s an excerpt for those who don’t have a copy available:3.2 Accuracy of Outline:*Your regional AMA Scale Contest Board member can approve, by his signature, documentation that may not be from a published source. See AMA Model Aviation Magazine for name of your CBM.…. If any alterations have been made from published sources to reflect greater accuracy they must be approved by a Scale Board Member or other recognized authority with supporting documentation for those changes made.So much for documentation cheating, there is a right way to do it when documentation is modified and the Competition Guide tells you how. I’ve done the AMA route once; the other 3 times I used the “Post-It method” – stuck exceptions all over the 3-views. As I said in my original diatribe (my word, not yours), my last 3-views were 4-views (3 photographs plus 1 drawing top view from a published source) of the actual aircraft.Cheating sometimes is in the eye of the beholder, or as someone once said: There are no rules, just winners and losers./chuck maitre
I am pleased to see the re-posting of this commentary by Chuck. It shows there are concerns in several different areas.I am also concerned. I think for most newbies the things we speak about are not very important after all look at the rule book and how thick it is. One of the things I just mentioned to Mitch was the overall makeup of this organization. When first started it was Harris lee period that called the shots.Harris also had several people that he listened to. If something didnt work it was changed asap. Today we have this board that has to communicate and we all know what that means and if we need a change we wait and we wait. If you don't then get a little older or experienced and you will. My suggestion is something like this. We need ONE leader,chairman or whatever we decide to call them. Then he needs to set up district areas,such as North,South,East and West. and call these people ADVISORS. These advisors can also have as many people as they like to get info from. Based on his or her thinking and suggestions from his four advisors he calls the shots period.Now in addition it can be set up to where where the chairman is on THREE YEAR TERMS voted on by the advisors and not the membership. AND if the advisors are not doing the job then he has the right to make a change.Some may call this harsh however others may call it back to reality. There is only a small group that really knows who is the best for the job. Members seem to make things a popularity contest and not always in the best interest of a smaller organization. We care thats why we post this stuff.
Your reference to initiating separate threads might need a Discussion Manager to sort out the chaff and develop a Prime Item discussion list.I'm not a volunteeer, as I have too much of a reputation of being a "pot-stirrer" and most of the time, not understood as to what I'm saying.
Started by Roly
Started by Mel Santmyers
Started by wrench4alivin
Started by marauderbomber