Hoss, Chris and Rock -

I'll try to match this so it touches all of our concerns...

1.) Hoss, I remember - pleasantly - meeting you at a NATS - in the 70's? - where you did something Official in connection with one of the CL Events. You liked to 'challenge' fixed standpoints, then - which is FINE. I'm glad to see you in here lately. The only point you made that I feel uncomfortable with is your suggestion that it is that mfrs of Classic-era kits may try to suppress an idea like Super-70s. Just how much clout is there in a few guys hiring laser cutting for parts and packing boxes one by one in their basements or garages? There are only one or two "kit" makers who have a much larger operation that than. It certainly isn't enough, in most cases, to control or influence much. There is a fairly large mfr back east, what's left of an all-time hero outfit in Illinois, and a very nice effort in SoCal, all offering kits of a quality we couldn't even dream of in the 50's, or 60's. Sig Mfg is still among us with their traditionally nicely made kits, great plans and (usually) very decent wood.

***By accident more than by plan, I happen to be a plank-owner (founding member) of PAMPA. It's just that I got to the 1973 Oshkosh Nats, where it happened. You were an active modeler then, surely you remember how little membership there was in AMA in general, and CL in particular. PAMPA, MACA and NCLRA got started about then, and THEY all helped revive and sustain CL interest ever since, IMHO.

***Not everything I've seen done by, with, or against PAMPA makes total sense to me. There's still strong feeling on each side after a recent serious disagreement. That is to be regretted. There are good ideas and willing workers on both sides of any issue you care to point out - I'd prefer it if there were a bit more willingness to "meet minds" on both sides where a few are reluctant to even listen to the other. And, trust me?, it is basically only a few blinkered loudmouths who agitate the hardest of the feelings and comments. I don't consider you, Chris or myself as that pig-headed stubborn. (Hope I'm right on that .)

***Instead of staunch and long-serving PAMPA "stars" and of the "Classic Kit Mfrs" being the cause of one problem, consider the influence of the ARF and ARC mfrs. You cited, and stressed phrases from, PAMPA's Classic Event rules about building and flying models of the specific era. ARF/ARC mfrs get no benefit from that idea; their products do not encourage building. Some major mfrs offer ARFs - e.g. the first CL ARF to appear was a Nobler, from TopFlite, what's left of the original TopFlite company... These have helped people get into CL Stunt. If you prefer to build, and I, AND Chris, do too, don't you feel a sense of being somehow cheated against when someone either buys an ARF, or buys the labor of an expert, to AVOID the time, money and effort involved, then tells you you shouldn't get recognition because you DID put in the necessary work?

***anyhoo, I consider PAMPA still to be more open and supportive of stunt than any private mfrs club, and MORE OPEN to negotiating new and different ideas than anything else I've seen over the past 36 years or so PAMPA has been around. At its best, it is more democratic, in the sense of open to more ideas from more people, than other factors have shown themselves to be. THIS IS PART OF WHY I PUT THE QUESTION IN RC-UNIVERSE - there are many who look in here who are not active in other mainstream CLPA forums. I, for one, would like to hear comment not just from both extreme edges of sometimes sharply divided "sides."

2.) Chris - if you're still with me - I'm trying to keep as cool about differing opinions as I can. NOT caving to them, but -if it can be done- hearing them and going from there. Hoss is basically a good-guy, but sometimes likes to 'present' as confrontational. Glad to see you in here, and very glad to see Mr. Horrace C. in here, too. I think we need as many ideas as possible, from people who accept the basic agreement that the wishes of the majority - fairly measured - prevail. Like OTS and Classic, it took a significant while for those ideas to percolate to national acceptance. Some ideas now being insisted on in some places may, eventually, do that, too. Eventually. NOT RAHT NAOW just because someone hollers louder...

3.) Rock, if YOU are still with me...
The separation between Classes that we're looking at for our Fall contest is made when when a contestant signs up. We are about settled on the idea that one contestant won't be eligible to fly BOTH Classic and Super-70s in Tucson this Fall. Both events will be flown on the same circle, before the same judges, in the same "block" (flight order, circle usage, officials, timing) to prevent things getting out of hand with an overkill of different events run separately. Scoresheets will show which event the flier entered. The scores will be posted according to the event entered - A Classic entrant's score goes on the scoreboard for Classic; a Super-70s entrant's score on the Super-70's scoreboard.

***The restriction of Super 70s to models from within the era - January 1, 1970 to December 31, 1979 - ONLY, is largely so that we don't encourage an event that will likely kill Classic. The rolling cut-off that Classic started with, stopped making sense when larger-engined, foamie stunters became dominant. That is a hallmark of the 1970s, although there were a few pioneers in such at the end of the Classic years. For a fairer test of interest in Super 70s, it would only confuse what we're trying to establish, to allow Classic, and even OTS, models to enter a Super 70s event.

***Does that help? The reasons to limit a flier from entering both Classic and Super-70s are that we are sure to have at least one guy stuck with flying two different models, back to back with no break, or at least an entrant somewhere else on the site flying or officiating in another event when called to the Classic/S70s circle. The idea to offer Super-70s is basically to see if there is good support for it in an actual contest. It's so much easier to sit back and say, yeah, yeah, good idea. YOU go do it at your contest, and maybe, just maybe, I might support your efforts...

***So, at worst, we'll be out one extra set of awards. At least, we're offering a chance to see if there is promise in Super 70s in our part of the country. A show of strength, not necessarily a huge entry, but of decent support, can lead to Super 70s growing into an event that HAS to be offered separately. ...e.g., NOT combined with Classic.