Top Gun?
06-14-2015, 12:39 PM
#101
Scale is all about matching 3 views and not necessarily an actual airplane. Many of the designs (especially the war years) are hard to pin down. So unless you actually have a real example to duplicate, you are creating an artists impression. This especially holds true with colors.
A perfect example is the JU 87 Stuka. It is almost impossible to find a 3-view that shows straight ailerons. The real airplane had straight ailerons. So in competition, you have to match your 3-view, even though it does not match the real aircraft. Not that this is a big deal. but I see a lot of discussion about what is and is not scale. It does not matter really as long as your model duplicates the docs. That is what is getting judged.
A perfect example is the JU 87 Stuka. It is almost impossible to find a 3-view that shows straight ailerons. The real airplane had straight ailerons. So in competition, you have to match your 3-view, even though it does not match the real aircraft. Not that this is a big deal. but I see a lot of discussion about what is and is not scale. It does not matter really as long as your model duplicates the docs. That is what is getting judged.
06-14-2015, 01:12 PM
#102
Top Gun is a wonderful event run by Frank and his crew. The planes are all top notch from the ARFs in Pro Am to the Expert and Masters classes. Will an ARF ever win Top Gun? Nope...and that's how it should be. What I am seeing most posts sailing by is what you have to do after you build it? It's time to fly it...in front of judges. This is where it can really sink you...and where Top Gun really comes into it's own. Simply, if you can't fly...and fly it well...you are doomed.
Top Gun is a blast to be a part of and I look forward to it every year. Thanks again Frank...from all of us...for all that you do for the modeling community.
Boli
Top Gun is a blast to be a part of and I look forward to it every year. Thanks again Frank...from all of us...for all that you do for the modeling community.
Boli
06-14-2015, 08:42 PM
#103
My Feedback: (8)
Vertical Grimmace,
A perfect example is the JU 87 Stuka. It is almost impossible to find a 3-view that shows straight ailerons. The real airplane had straight ailerons. So in competition, you have to match your 3-view, even though it does not match the real aircraft. Not that this is a big deal. but I see a lot of discussion about what is and is not scale. It does not matter really as long as your model duplicates the docs. That is what is getting judged.
this is not truly correct. Where as your 3 view may not be absolutely accurate you can augment you doc package with photos of the real aircraft. I can only imagine how al out impossible it is to find a true accurate 3-view of a Stuka. So when the 3-view is drawn wrong then back up that part with pictures of the full scale and you are fine. A little more work in the doc package but absolutely doable.
A perfect example is the JU 87 Stuka. It is almost impossible to find a 3-view that shows straight ailerons. The real airplane had straight ailerons. So in competition, you have to match your 3-view, even though it does not match the real aircraft. Not that this is a big deal. but I see a lot of discussion about what is and is not scale. It does not matter really as long as your model duplicates the docs. That is what is getting judged.
this is not truly correct. Where as your 3 view may not be absolutely accurate you can augment you doc package with photos of the real aircraft. I can only imagine how al out impossible it is to find a true accurate 3-view of a Stuka. So when the 3-view is drawn wrong then back up that part with pictures of the full scale and you are fine. A little more work in the doc package but absolutely doable.
06-15-2015, 07:23 AM
#104
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vertical Grimmace,
A perfect example is the JU 87 Stuka. It is almost impossible to find a 3-view that shows straight ailerons. The real airplane had straight ailerons. So in competition, you have to match your 3-view, even though it does not match the real aircraft. Not that this is a big deal. but I see a lot of discussion about what is and is not scale. It does not matter really as long as your model duplicates the docs. That is what is getting judged.
this is not truly correct. Where as your 3 view may not be absolutely accurate you can augment you doc package with photos of the real aircraft. I can only imagine how al out impossible it is to find a true accurate 3-view of a Stuka. So when the 3-view is drawn wrong then back up that part with pictures of the full scale and you are fine. A little more work in the doc package but absolutely doable.
A perfect example is the JU 87 Stuka. It is almost impossible to find a 3-view that shows straight ailerons. The real airplane had straight ailerons. So in competition, you have to match your 3-view, even though it does not match the real aircraft. Not that this is a big deal. but I see a lot of discussion about what is and is not scale. It does not matter really as long as your model duplicates the docs. That is what is getting judged.
this is not truly correct. Where as your 3 view may not be absolutely accurate you can augment you doc package with photos of the real aircraft. I can only imagine how al out impossible it is to find a true accurate 3-view of a Stuka. So when the 3-view is drawn wrong then back up that part with pictures of the full scale and you are fine. A little more work in the doc package but absolutely doable.
Go figure.......
06-15-2015, 08:17 AM
#105
Top Gun is a wonderful event run by Frank and his crew. The planes are all top notch from the ARFs in Pro Am to the Expert and Masters classes. Will an ARF ever win Top Gun? Nope...and that's how it should be. What I am seeing most posts sailing by is what you have to do after you build it? It's time to fly it...in front of judges. This is where it can really sink you...and where Top Gun really comes into it's own. Simply, if you can't fly...and fly it well...you are doomed.
Top Gun is a blast to be a part of and I look forward to it every year. Thanks again Frank...from all of us...for all that you do for the modeling community.
Boli
Top Gun is a blast to be a part of and I look forward to it every year. Thanks again Frank...from all of us...for all that you do for the modeling community.
Boli
06-15-2015, 08:51 AM
#106
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Caracas, VENEZUELA
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not referring to this particular case, but in general, blaming the judges for your scores is wrong ! Because it just doesn't let you advance.
We can't forget that the game is not about what "you" think about your plane or your flights, but about how the judges saw it.
It's about analyzing your scores, figuring out what was it that they didn't like, making necessary changes, adapting .......
It is also wrong cruising thru the field showing how unfair the judges were with you. Although comforting, for the other competitors you are just "making their day" as Clint Eastwood would say
Jack
06-15-2015, 09:45 AM
#107
My Feedback: (102)
Top Gun may not be what it originally started out as, but I don't know since I have only had the chance to participate in it for the past seven years or so. To me it is the greatest opportunity I have to learn new tricks from guys who are absolutely some of the most awesome guys on the planet. I will never win, but it sure is fun trying. Frank is right. It is a heck of a lot different flying at home than when you get on the flightline, with the judges three feet away, a 90 degree crosswind and hundreds of spectators, and you have "one" chance not to screw the pooch. Everyone is a critic, and most of the time you feel lucky just to be able to get it up and back down in one piece. I saw a lot of awesome builders lose their planes in the practice rounds, flying in conditions that most of us would not even put a plane in the car to go to the field. No one wants to go out and fly in a 20 mph cross wind and be judged. I don't fly with a gyro, but I don't discount those who do. It is my fault if I don't, but most of the time it makes me feel like I have lost some control. I just never learned how to properly set it up. I spent some time talking to Ali though and got lots of good pointers on how to do it.
For me Top Gun is a social event. Its better than most family reunions I go to, and much more fun. Frank runs a fair and honest contest. the judges are fair and things balance out. Those of you who are interested, take Frank up on his invitation. The Pro Am flying is furiously competitive, without the static judging, and some people can win with just a few 100ths of a point. We cheer each other on, and the competition is friendly People like Boli, Tom Smith, Dino, Ali, Dustin, Andy, Jack, Barry, Aarhan, and Frankie T make it fun.
For me Top Gun is a social event. Its better than most family reunions I go to, and much more fun. Frank runs a fair and honest contest. the judges are fair and things balance out. Those of you who are interested, take Frank up on his invitation. The Pro Am flying is furiously competitive, without the static judging, and some people can win with just a few 100ths of a point. We cheer each other on, and the competition is friendly People like Boli, Tom Smith, Dino, Ali, Dustin, Andy, Jack, Barry, Aarhan, and Frankie T make it fun.
06-17-2015, 06:08 AM
#111
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Monticello,
IL
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fender,
Building a flying model is simple. Building an Accurate Scale Flying model is not. Building the airframe is really only about 20% of the wok. While i agree with your comparisons of models being no where near the same in accuracy, the realization is the "kit" is only a small part of the entire process.
Some guys will spend years researching and collecting documentation on the specific subject they have chosen. This is probably one of the largest parts of building a scale model.
Then they will build the airframe to match the documentation as closely as possible. For composite models, this could mean major surgery or making entirely new parts.
Then they spent more time getting all of the details done, painting, nomenclature, etc. this isnt a simple "that looks good". The top guys will literally measure the real airplane and shrink it down and get it placed Exactly where it needs to be.
So if someone is serious about competing with a XX brand "kit" in gelcoat, they may put in way more effort than someone who has the money to buy a scale jets or mibo or whatever accurate "kit". Just because they start with something that may be considered an Arf, doesnt necessarily mean they put less effort and came with a poorer quality model.
Building a flying model is simple. Building an Accurate Scale Flying model is not. Building the airframe is really only about 20% of the wok. While i agree with your comparisons of models being no where near the same in accuracy, the realization is the "kit" is only a small part of the entire process.
Some guys will spend years researching and collecting documentation on the specific subject they have chosen. This is probably one of the largest parts of building a scale model.
Then they will build the airframe to match the documentation as closely as possible. For composite models, this could mean major surgery or making entirely new parts.
Then they spent more time getting all of the details done, painting, nomenclature, etc. this isnt a simple "that looks good". The top guys will literally measure the real airplane and shrink it down and get it placed Exactly where it needs to be.
So if someone is serious about competing with a XX brand "kit" in gelcoat, they may put in way more effort than someone who has the money to buy a scale jets or mibo or whatever accurate "kit". Just because they start with something that may be considered an Arf, doesnt necessarily mean they put less effort and came with a poorer quality model.
06-17-2015, 06:37 AM
#112
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Monticello,
IL
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 104 was a white Gel cote Kit, Skymaster offers unpainted basic kits similar to a lot of the EU kits. I just ordered a new F-104 from Airworld and on first impression, it's a lot less work than the SM version was to get to a competition level. Unfortunately Skymasters success is often labeled them as a pre painted ARF manufacturer, yet they also offer a builders version of their kits, and for those frugal types they are a lot cheaper. My F-104 build would be like taking the covering off a H9 Corsair and re-doing it to a competition level model, it's a lot of work, perhaps more than scratch in some areas but it can be done. Would it still be called a H9 ARF?, in the right context definitely not, however without somebody understanding the context of what's involved it could be assumed it's just a ARF Kit. Part of the Static Judging process (which validates the context of the build) is you have to show your build process, to validate time invested, it greatly affects your workmanship score.
I believe the intent of the term ARF is plastic film covered, pre painted model. What ever canvas you decide to use, whether it be a scratched built airframe, or a basic fiberglass kit, or re-covered ARF offering, there are 1000's of hours of work to get your scale project looking like a real aircraft, which is what Top Gun is all about for me, making my aircraft look and fly as realistic as possible.
I believe the intent of the term ARF is plastic film covered, pre painted model. What ever canvas you decide to use, whether it be a scratched built airframe, or a basic fiberglass kit, or re-covered ARF offering, there are 1000's of hours of work to get your scale project looking like a real aircraft, which is what Top Gun is all about for me, making my aircraft look and fly as realistic as possible.
06-18-2015, 01:51 AM
#113
My 104 was a white Gel cote Kit, Skymaster offers unpainted basic kits similar to a lot of the EU kits. I just ordered a new F-104 from Airworld and on first impression, it's a lot less work than the SM version was to get to a competition level. Unfortunately Skymasters success is often labeled them as a pre painted ARF manufacturer, yet they also offer a builders version of their kits, and for those frugal types they are a lot cheaper. My F-104 build would be like taking the covering off a H9 Corsair and re-doing it to a competition level model, it's a lot of work, perhaps more than scratch in some areas but it can be done. Would it still be called a H9 ARF?, in the right context definitely not, however without somebody understanding the context of what's involved it could be assumed it's just a ARF Kit. Part of the Static Judging process (which validates the context of the build) is you have to show your build process, to validate time invested, it greatly affects your workmanship score.
I believe the intent of the term ARF is plastic film covered, pre painted model. What ever canvas you decide to use, whether it be a scratched built airframe, or a basic fiberglass kit, or re-covered ARF offering, there are 1000's of hours of work to get your scale project looking like a real aircraft, which is what Top Gun is all about for me, making my aircraft look and fly as realistic as possible.
I believe the intent of the term ARF is plastic film covered, pre painted model. What ever canvas you decide to use, whether it be a scratched built airframe, or a basic fiberglass kit, or re-covered ARF offering, there are 1000's of hours of work to get your scale project looking like a real aircraft, which is what Top Gun is all about for me, making my aircraft look and fly as realistic as possible.
What you do is outstanding Peter. I have scaled up a couple of white gel coat SM kits so I know how hard it is to do accurately. Filling of seam lines, sanding, painting, decal placement.
I like many scale modellers have made IFF antennas out of toothpicks, static discharges out of sewing pins, landing lights out of torch lenses, accurate weathering based on how old the full scale version is and where it was based. As Peter said 100s of hours work. ARF? Don't think so.
06-18-2015, 08:33 AM
#114
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Diego, CA,
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather than you old timers (I say that with respect) complaining about ARFs and the lack of builders, why don't some of you hold classes or clinics to teach newcomers the skill necessary to become a builder? Not only is there a lack of kits, but there is also a lack of resources for those who want to learn.
Last edited by Jet20; 06-18-2015 at 08:39 AM.
06-18-2015, 08:36 AM
#115
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Diego, CA,
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get an invitation to Top Gun a person only needs to ask for one. we then ask for some photos of his work and ask if he is experienced in flying in front of people. If the airplane is worthy of the invitation, he gets it! Pretty simple actually. we have NO way of knowing WHO is out there that may be qualified, never have, so we rely on requests OR recommendations. As far as the turbine thing, unless I am mistaken, the first turbine model to fly in the USA was a BVM F-16 powered by a JPX, propane burning turbine. That happened at Top Gun, in W. Palm Beach in 1991 I believe.
Thanks for clarifying how one gets invited. I've always dreamed of competing at Top Gun so will be in contact with you when I'm able to confirm the logistics (make sure there's trailer space for an airplane) and have a Top Gun worthy airplane (my F4D Skyray).
06-19-2015, 11:12 AM
#116
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Norfolk , UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scale is all about matching 3 views and not necessarily an actual airplane. Many of the designs (especially the war years) are hard to pin down. So unless you actually have a real example to duplicate, you are creating an artists impression. This especially holds true with colors.
A perfect example is the JU 87 Stuka. It is almost impossible to find a 3-view that shows straight ailerons. The real airplane had straight ailerons. So in competition, you have to match your 3-view, even though it does not match the real aircraft. Not that this is a big deal. but I see a lot of discussion about what is and is not scale. It does not matter really as long as your model duplicates the docs. That is what is getting judged.
A perfect example is the JU 87 Stuka. It is almost impossible to find a 3-view that shows straight ailerons. The real airplane had straight ailerons. So in competition, you have to match your 3-view, even though it does not match the real aircraft. Not that this is a big deal. but I see a lot of discussion about what is and is not scale. It does not matter really as long as your model duplicates the docs. That is what is getting judged.
He commented that
"There are circulating on the Internet en masse faulty drawings showing these tapered design of aileron - but are all false. Even the Ziroli model is completely wrong and has also some error in fuselage construction."
I believe the 3 view below came from the aircraft operating manual. I am pretty sure with some digging this could be found on the Internet. I am using this as an example of making more determined efforts in getting correct documentation for competitions. Just using faulty 3 views obtained from the Internet does not seem the best way to document your aircraft.
A couple of years ago now I acquired a large model jet Boulton Paul P111 in part made condition. Although i was not going to enter it in competitions I wanted some more accurate information on the plane. Amazingly I managed to get hold of a downloadable copy of the original secret prototype handling and servicing notes as only one original prototype was made this set of notes must be the only set issued. As another example I recently acquired a WW2 starter motor for the Me262 Jumo 004 engine. I had no info when I bought it but now have the German notes from Wartime and a secret set of notes where Farnborough tested the little 2 stroke motor. As this was in English and very detailed with sectional drawings it was very helpful as I have had to make some missing parts. I also made contact with a German guy who is the world expert in them and he has given me plenty of tips and some drawings.
Time spent collecting documentation before making a model will be rewarded. Those that get good marks at JWM especially must produce detailed information.
John
06-19-2015, 01:27 PM
#117
I was sure that 3 views exist that show the correct aileron shape as parallel. I contacted the master builder in Germany via a friend of mine in Germany who very kindly sent me the wartime photos and plan view.
He commented that
"There are circulating on the Internet en masse faulty drawings showing these tapered design of aileron - but are all false. Even the Ziroli model is completely wrong and has also some error in fuselage construction."
I believe the 3 view below came from the aircraft operating manual. I am pretty sure with some digging this could be found on the Internet. I am using this as an example of making more determined efforts in getting correct documentation for competitions. Just using faulty 3 views obtained from the Internet does not seem the best way to document your aircraft.
A couple of years ago now I acquired a large model jet Boulton Paul P111 in part made condition. Although i was not going to enter it in competitions I wanted some more accurate information on the plane. Amazingly I managed to get hold of a downloadable copy of the original secret prototype handling and servicing notes as only one original prototype was made this set of notes must be the only set issued. As another example I recently acquired a WW2 starter motor for the Me262 Jumo 004 engine. I had no info when I bought it but now have the German notes from Wartime and a secret set of notes where Farnborough tested the little 2 stroke motor. As this was in English and very detailed with sectional drawings it was very helpful as I have had to make some missing parts. I also made contact with a German guy who is the world expert in them and he has given me plenty of tips and some drawings.
Time spent collecting documentation before making a model will be rewarded. Those that get good marks at JWM especially must produce detailed information.
John
He commented that
"There are circulating on the Internet en masse faulty drawings showing these tapered design of aileron - but are all false. Even the Ziroli model is completely wrong and has also some error in fuselage construction."
I believe the 3 view below came from the aircraft operating manual. I am pretty sure with some digging this could be found on the Internet. I am using this as an example of making more determined efforts in getting correct documentation for competitions. Just using faulty 3 views obtained from the Internet does not seem the best way to document your aircraft.
A couple of years ago now I acquired a large model jet Boulton Paul P111 in part made condition. Although i was not going to enter it in competitions I wanted some more accurate information on the plane. Amazingly I managed to get hold of a downloadable copy of the original secret prototype handling and servicing notes as only one original prototype was made this set of notes must be the only set issued. As another example I recently acquired a WW2 starter motor for the Me262 Jumo 004 engine. I had no info when I bought it but now have the German notes from Wartime and a secret set of notes where Farnborough tested the little 2 stroke motor. As this was in English and very detailed with sectional drawings it was very helpful as I have had to make some missing parts. I also made contact with a German guy who is the world expert in them and he has given me plenty of tips and some drawings.
Time spent collecting documentation before making a model will be rewarded. Those that get good marks at JWM especially must produce detailed information.
John
I actually have found a 3 view with the straight ailerons. I guess my point is, it really does not matter if the 3-view is accurate or not (other than it makes you feel good) so long as your model matches the one you submit to the judges.
I had planned on my Stuka to straighten out the ailerons, but only after securing a 3 view that showed them that way, otherwise I would have built it wrong, to match the documents that prevail out there. In fact, all of the plastic models seem to be wrong as well. As useful as plastic models are to us RC scale modelers, they are just as inaccurate as anything.
