I bring up this question as a need for a detailed explanation and for a better understanding of the scale judging techniques. After attending and participating in the Mint Julep Master's Qualifier this weekend, myself and a few other people have raised a eye to the judging techniques. Lets make it clear that myself nor anyone else is crying or trying to make something of it but to better knowledge our selves to the procedure's used to judge the flights.

Why do such competitors such a Mike Barbee, and Greg Hahn, and others who belong in the expert or team scale class still fly in a fun scale class with the average joe?

Are judges suppose to compare each others thoughts on a score for a particular maneuver or are they suppose to be separate opinions, I would think separate? 2 judges per pilot.
-----------
We had a great time and I would really appreciate a reply from anyone interested in giving a knowledgeable answer to these question's and maybe from others who attended the event.

Aaah! The joys of competition.

Your best source of information would typically be the rule book or, in some cases, a separat judges guide is provided.

The judging methodology depends very much on the event and most rule books state how various characteristics are to judged.

The [link=http://www.maac.ca/committees/docs/rules_rcscale.pdf]MAAC Scale rulebook[/link] covers scale competition in Canada, in it you will can find detail, intended for judges, on how to score.

------------------------------------------

As for some competitors competing in fun scale, I can only speak for myself. Although I have competed at the World level, I still enjoy competing in local contests. I don't fly the same models in these contests (I think that would be unfair), I fly my fun scale models. Are you saying that, simply because I may be actively competiing in more rigorous categories/event, I shouldn't be allowed to compete in the local events?

Hope this helps.

Jim

I'm not sure I understand what "fun scale" is. I'm assuming the judging is done at a different distance but could you, if you wished, enter the same model you'd enter in "expert class" in "fun scale?" That certainly would seem to take the "fun" out of it.

I'd assume that what a serious scale modelers might consider "fun scale" would be better than the best some other modelers might every be able to achieve. For example Art's fantabulous EII was entered in "Sport Scale" I believe.

This is just curiousity really as I don't imagine I'll ever compete unless there just happens to be a conveniently located scale event and I just happen to have a scale model in flyable condition at that moment.

The reason some of the more "experienced" pilots also fly in Fun Scale is for more opportunities to fly at a unfamiliar location. This can allow "us" to feel out the overall layout of the surroundings, runway orientation, wind conditions and sometimes even see what the judges are looking for while being able to relax a little by flying a older plane or an ARF. Having these extra flights can help us improve our presentation during our Designer Scale or Sportscale flights with our other models. It can also give the "newer" fliers something to brag about when they place higher in an event than a known competitor. Wouldn't you like to say "I beat (insert a name) last weekend at Mint Julep" at the next club meeting? Many of the larger contests, like the NATS, offer beginner and advanced classes of Fun Scale to offer the true newbies a chance to compete on a more even playing field. I also think that many of "us" do it to stay busy between rounds so we don't have time to sit around and think about " If I had just...."

The judges should score independently, the only item they should discuss is the "realism in flight" score after the flight is complete.

David Hayes

I tend to agree with David, I will only add that we compete for the sheer fun and camaraderie associated with contests. Further, you'd be surprised at what a 'causual' judge may pick out that an 'expert' judge may miss. Contests offer a venue of critics that provide feedback that, in turn, helps you to fine tune your attention to detail.

I would also encourage you 'abufletcher' to participate in contests. It's not just about winning, it's about the experience, and the opportunity to socialize with like minded people. When I compete in the Worlds, I have no delusions of winning (well maybe some ) but, the experience, and wealth of knowledge is well worth the price of admission.

edit ... double post.

I guess I've just never been very good at "club style" events. But then maybe I need to practice my sociability as much as my flying!

Fun Scale is a class where the static score is either 5 points or 0, all that is required for proof is one photo or drawing to prove an airplane similar to the one you are presenting existed in a color scheme similar to that on your model. It is designed to be a "fliers event" since to static scores are basically all the same (like the 2004 USSM Championships). It is intended to increase interest and attendance at "local" scale contests, that are getting harder to find all the time.
It can be a "2 edged sword" for us deciding whether to compete in them or not. I have been to events that I heard comments like "I didn't come here to compete against him!", but I have also heard, "As long as I beat him, I don't care where I finish".
Practice, practice, practice that's the name of the game most of the time, in any type of competition!
I used to enter a "local level" pattern contest once in a while, when they were still around, just to see where my my skills were compared to others not expecting to win (and didn't) just working on positioning and presentation. Don't be afraid to try competition, you may grow to like it. Practicing for an event can also put some meaning back in your sport flying too, when was the last time you worked on centering your manuevers, flying smoothly though a whole flight or following a predetermined flight plan? A manuever done out of order by another contestant "allowed" me to win Master's Class at Top Gun '05, so it may be smart to practice with your caller too.

DJH

Ok, here comes my two cents worth.......

I as well attended the 2005 Mint Julep at Rough River State Park and found a few unsettling things taking place throughout the contest. First off I want to saw that the vent was in luck as far as the weather and only had a crosswind to deal with both days. I enjoyed seeing other models and pilots abilities.....BUT.....

and before i go any further, i want you all to know i DID NOT compete in the event so i dont want to sound like a sore loser!

it was rather aggravating to stand not too far behind the judges during the flights and hearing the pilot call the maneuver and shortly after beginning I literally heard one judge ask the other thoughts on the entrance to a maneuver, or for a scoring level like 7 or 8 for a procedure after it is complete. I found it absolutely ABSURD that they could feel this was a fair sense of judging an event, whether it be model airplanes or ice skating. I dont think you would find a French judge at th olympics ask a Chinese judge his thoughts on and athletes performance, and this is no different! To further my disbelief of this actually happening, i spoke with several people from different classes and when they showed me their score cards, EVERY score in each pair of judges were EXACTLY the same for EVERY maneuver. Now i dont know about the next guy, but i woudl personally think that my indivudual idea of a procedure accuracy on a scale of 1-10 would be a little different if i answered individually and honestly from the guy sitting next to me. I agree with the abovre where the flight realism coudl be discussed, but not EACH maneuver throughout the flight! This if see a sa very poor aspect of this contest that could easily be resolved by seperating the judges. All in all though, it seemed to not failry and impartially score the participants. (and not to linger on it, but i have video available and photos of both jusge pairs comparing scores while judging, as well as not even looking at participants aircraft while he is performing a called maneuver--but honestly woudl prefer not to post them so it dosent become an individual attack becasue all judges were doing the same, just got a few sets on camera.)

Now....about this so called Expert class and Fun class.......

I was delighted to see participants such as Mike Barbie or the like at local level events, i just personally hate that it takes a qualifier for a larger event have them grace a local event with their presence! I guess that I just have a porblem with a person of that experience level and skill competing in a class that is known to be beneath them. IMO, if a airplane manufacturer provides you with an expensive aircraft and all needed components in order to write a review for a magazine....odds are they consider you of a very high skill level with a highly regarded opinion. So basically the woudl classify you in the top percent of pilots, right? I dont see them giving $700 or $800 airplanes to first time pilots to write reviews?! I understand the thought of a pilot of that class wanting to compete in a lower level class so the claim coudl be made that "I won a Mint Juelp with a Great Planes" or then in return Great Planes could say, "Our plane places first!"...or the like. Maybe some magical rule book allows this but common sense has to come into play somwhere. Lets put it in the real world sense for a moment, lets make it a local race track where you have regularly competed for 3 years and have grown to being into the advanced class. so you pull your car up to the line and then learn that John Force has his $180,000 car up against your pinto, all because he is wanting to "broaden his experience at that track"? how would that make you feel, knowing that he has tons more experience than you and virutally unlimited funds for creating his car?? Wouldnt like that much woudl you?

Now, another prime example of such happening is a competitor , that if i am not mistaken, flew a Tiger moth or the like (you know..one of those silly biplanes!). At the awards ceremony either won the advanced class or placed in the top 3. This is only an example not an attack, but shouldnt that pilot be in the expert class, being and all that even the April Model Airplane News magazine (which was handed out at the awards ceremony) included an article about that pilot and airplane and remarked how he had mastered the skill of r/c'ing? Huh?! Maybe I am one of those silly hippies who likes an equal and level playing field and all or something. I just think a little more enforcement in participant classification could made a lot more competitive event instead of the predictable results we saw this past weekend! To top it off our Disctrict VP for AMA was there and apparently didnt see a problem with all this either, makes me wonder what it takes to qualify to be on the AMA board??? I know a few middle school kids that could see thorugh some of the poope there.

Now on to a more hilarious topic of discussion that happened at the 2005 Mint Julep......

There was a guy there who had a beautiful Yellow AT-6, which made an unfortunate belly landing Sat evening after some failure. I saw him on Sunday after the controlled crash to ask how the plane was and his response was the plane is fine and was ust mis tuned after a long time of not running prior to the event. Next I asked when he was up to perform for the judges again, and i almost passed out laughing when he told me he wasnt going to compete because some other participant complained that his AT-6 was too LOUD and it caused the other guy to miss his landing?! What the freak....Deeeeeerrrrrr...... I mean lets see..... I couldnt hear it, thats why i botched my landing, yea right! Anyway this guy told mehe wasnt going to fly the AT-6 on sunday because of that and all and that just urked me that the CD wouldnt step up and at least re-arrange the flight schedule or somethign to allow him to participate. Oh and last i checked.....which would be last month at Thunder Over Louisville, where there were seeveral AT-6's....the full scales are LOUD, with a capital L, so what isnt scale about having a loud gas motor on a model???? Geesh.

On and to just really finish it up, the guy that complained about how loud it was, Sunday, not only botched the landing, but slid his Gee Bee on it's nose after almost cartwheeling down the runway on his landing procedure.....and just to note, the only other plane in the air was a J-3 Cub off in the distance over some trees wiht a 2-stroke onboard!! haha......


So see, there is alot of fun at R/c Events, just not when you have a pretty crummy management going on and all that overlook the obvious parts. I encourage others to attend this club's event as well as others in the future, but i must say, I will only return to the Mint Julep as a spectator, never as a participant after my experiences this year and what I have seen as their standard procedure.

NigrumAirlines i think you have a point and i agree with parts of the others, i just wish more of a governing body had a presence in monitoring events like this, especially if they are to be qualifiers for national events!

anywho, happy crashing....i mean flying!




(and remember, any landing is nothign but a controlled crash!)

Ouch !!!! Watch the SILLY BI-PLANES remarks though.......Fryman (ha ha )

David, thanks for the explanation of "fun scale." As you say this would virtually elminimate any static score from the judging and simply act as a screening measure for the category "scale." It would just be a contest of "scale flying." To be perfectly honest, though, as someone who enjoys the joys of building scale more than flying, I'd be more likely to enter a "fun scale" competition with a 5 or 0 score on the flying (5 being scale flight, 0 being flying a B-17 inverted) and most of the weight on static judging.

BTW, several researchers in the field of testing have suggested that most people are unable to make useful discriminations on a scale of 10. That is to say the difference between 7 and 8 or 3 and 4 are not statistically significant. People do seem to be able to consistently score on a scale of 5.

I also suspect that any attempt to formally divide participants themselves according to "skill level" (whether that be modeling skill or flying skill) would ultimately be futile. On what basis would contestants establish themselves as "amateur" or "expert"? The only reasonable way to make divisions would be in terms of scoring criteria. For example, "sport scale" could have static scores based only on what could be seen DURING the flight. Expert class (static) scoring could be done from literally inches away. The class you would enter your model in would depend on how you wanted to have it judged.

And just so you'all know, I speak from a position of great ignorance here!

Strongly agreed. Scale is about creating an illusion of reality, not just presenting it. Unfortunately very few people seem to think this way anymore. When my scale committee went ahead with fun scale, I knew my heart wasn't in it. This, combined with some personal time pressures (and other political goins on) that lead to my resignation as Scale committee chairman for Canada. I'm much happier as a 'simple' competitor and now have more time to persue this more pleasureable pastime.[8D]

as for the silly biplane comment;

"why would anyone build a monoplane when there are complete aircraft readily available". [8D]

FYI.....the biplane remark was only a lieelt pun on the inside, i am a HUGE fan of biplanes and just threw that in there to catch some readers attention....hehe, no harm meant by it.......

I understand your thoughts, I just play by the current rules.
Dave Platt proposed an event very similar to your thoughts several years ago. He suggested something like, takeoff (not judged) fly around "in a scale-like manner" 3-4 laps and land (not judged), for 50(?) points added to your static score. He couldn't get enough support to field a contest, even as a provisional at the NATS.
There just isn't any incentive to design and build your own aircraft anymore, being grouped together as Designer scale is like flying with a bunch of "outcasts". Where's the recognition for the extra effort? How about a 2% builder's bonus added to static? That would encourage some new designers/designs, it was enough to make modification to the jet kits at Top Gun. I still like to beat folks with their $20,000(+) prefab jets with a few hundred dollars worth of balsa and plywood, even without a builder's bonus, but if I don't enter in the Designer Class at major events, it will be dropped then where will we be, again?
Just my thoughts....

David Hayes

No worries Fyrman, I assumed as much, my reply was in kind, as I tried to impart with my smiley.[8D]

Yeah, it does seem that there is little interest in the hobby (building) aspect of this sport. A sad time indeed. I can only hope that this ARF/profile/prop-hanging thing loses some of it's lustre before too much of the building skills are lost to the next generation.

Progress ... I see a parallel in my father-in-laws car hobby. He's from the generation where you rescued an old truck from some farmer and lovingly rebuilt it over many years. The "pepsi generation" (one of his less offensive terms) prefer to add some "bling bling" to a civic without getting their hands dirty.

It was good to see GH and MB in both events. Many of us compete in both and that’s what it’s there for. Fun scale is defiantly a more relaxed category. The point is to have fun. Many people in that category are “Expert� class fliers without an “Expert class airplane�. I see no reason to exclude anyone. In-fact, this helps to see how your flying stacks up against the best.

As far as the judging, you can nit pick it all day long but the main thing is that they judge everyone the same. I am just glad they came to volunteer their time. Some how the best competitors always rise to the top. .

It would however be beneficial to have more guidance as to maneuvers. The AMA has some info on the website but is weak. For instance, if I do an aileron roll with the Bearcat, I let the nose drop during the maneuver, and tell the judges so. Some understand, some don’t. Guidance for everyone for different type of maneuvers would be good so everyone is on the same page.

As far as being competitive, there is so much more than flying well. As far as flight scores, having the right airplane and picking the right maneuver is everything. It is however slanted towards multi engine airplanes and airplanes with retracts/flaps. That gives the contestants 2 maneuvers with a 10. I can also tell you that some airplanes simply score better. A couple years ago I flew a large aerobatic airplane and a small B-25. I scored 10% better with the B-25 across the board even though I really did not fly any better.

If there is anything I would like to see is some advantage to doing maneuvers slightly more complicated. For instance, a procedure turn is 3 maneuvers, straight flight out, left 90, right 270, straight flight back. 3 maneuvers, relatively simple. I don’t see that the scoring should be the same as a guy that does a 4-point roll. BUT in including difficulty it would open a whole can of worms.

Perhaps we could allow EITHER 10 points for multi OR 10 points for complex airplanes such as retracts, flaps, etc but not both.

Just some thoughts.

I'm not as familiar with rules other than Canada and FAI but, most I've seen provide a complexity factor (k factor) for maneuvers. The issue I have with this is that it benefits the more modern aerobatic type aircraft.

Judging is a difficult task (I know from experience). It's hard to not let your own emotions get involved. For example, I will always score a sloppy egg shaped loop performed by a Jenny higher than a geometrically perfect one performed by a Cap 21.....

As with all competitions, there are good and bad judges. You do need to explain how and why you will perform your maneuvers (and then perform them that way). The rest is literally up to the judges. The one thing I always appreciate from the judges (and ask for in advance) is a written critique I can take away and work on fixing/perfecting. I may disagree but, repeated low scores for a particular maneuver (or detailing) should sway my opinion.[8D]

Part of it may be our aging as a group, looking at the the roster from Top Gun, I only see a very few entered in either Master's or Expert classes (when you're supposed to build your model) that aren't 40(+) years old, the majority of them will tip the scales over 65. I believe there were more over 75 than under 40. Makes me feel young at 45. At the '04 AMA NATS last year, there were a total of 4 seniors(-18) and juniors(-16) flying in all the classes of RC Scale, the only one that built their airplane was Zack Spychalla. The other three were all from this area, all in Fun scale classes, my (youngest of 3) son, Jonathan 12yrs old was the only junior entered. How do we get and keep the youth involved? Finding time to help them fly is tough enough, how do you squeeze building skills into our busy lives too?

DJH

Yea, this was the can of worms I was refering to as this is a scale contest and not an aerobatic contest. What if maneuvers were divided into 2 categories, easy and not as easy. In doing so, to keep the total points, it would require an aditional maneuver if you use 1-2 easy maneuvers. Each would still be based on 10 points and the total flight score would be based on 100, just divided byt the total number of maneuvers.

For instance, a procedure turn (3 maneuvers) would require a toal of 11 maneuvers; 2 easy, and one additional. The max score would be 110, divided by 11 then multiplied by 10.

I like the idea of critiques, but I doubt they have time. Lot's more work for the judges. I am glad to have them there. I enjoy participating requardless of the outcome.

Gary

GOW589, i fully agree! I too was happy to see MB and Gh there. Just wish a little more thought had been put into the scorring system and judging techniques.

Not knocking anyone in particular nor the club or event, just presented me with the feeling of fustration for participants when i saw them put their hard labored beautifully built aircraft up in competition next to a long time expert with and ARF right out of the box...that he got for free.
Just think somethign could be presented to help level the palying field for judgine advanced pilots vs expert pilots when they compete in the same class. Seems to me that this event turned out like may others, he who has the most money in his corner.....wins. (And i hate that.)

I love the comparing to the Honda civic without gettting their hands dirty....seems those things are nothing anymroe but a rolling JCWhitney catalog!!![8D]

You know they could increase the number of points given to realism!?

I'm all for ARF's - particularly one's that at least attempt to be scale. There's one guy at the field with a whole squadron of interesting scale ARF's ranging from an Agcat to a Macchi to a Zero. I'd rather watch him fly than the guys with the Extras and 3-D models anytime -- even if he just goes around in circles.

Dave Platt, I've heard, has very serious doubts about whether serious scale RC modeling will make it into the next generations. Certainly finding a teenager as excited about building flying models as I was back in the 60 and 70's is getting harder and harder. My own son is curious about the flying and has soloed but has no interest I can see in building. Even flying seems kind of slow to his Nintendo conditioned views on entertainment -- way too much time fiddling with engines and such.

What is boils down to is a lack of interest in the aircraft themselves. No one could possibly spend the time it takes to build a scale model unless they love the plane they are modeling. I'm 40-ish and I'd imagine that anyone my age or older had lots and lots of toy airplanes as a kid. I don't think my own boys had a single airplane toy. It was all He-man and monsters. Realism is out! Also when I was growing up boys wanted to be aerospace engineers (or astronauts) when they grew up. Now that's a dull as dirt.

- Realism is just too subjective to award too many points to.[]

- As for critique, a few words suffice e.g. "spin entry not from stall", use of scribes as done in pattern judging makes this easy

- difficult vs. easy is again somewhat subjective. E.g. a split ess is simple for an overpowered aerobatic type and can be quite difficult for an underpowered short coupled multi-winger.

gow359,
I don't know..... straight flight out, procedure turn, and straight flight back gives a lot of opportunity for mark downs. Is a 4 point roll (for instance) harder to score well on? That's a topic for discussion. Rolls do seem to be so much more subjective. I know for my lightly loaded, slow Eindecker, it took forever it seems to complete those three maneuvers (especially when it's turbulent).

And (as you probably know) you can do just the proceedure turn alone.


Fryman,
I love a loud 1 to 1 scale airplane as much as the next guy (Vultee Bt-13s are my favorite!). But that guys T-6/SNJ was too loud for a model airplane at a competition (IMHO). While I'm not certain, I bet it busted the AMA noise guidelines. I've been flying before when a similarly noisy plane came out of a power off maneuver and hit the gas just off to one side, and you think for a moment they're right on top of you. That is distracting and potentially dangerous. Whether or not that caused the guy with the Gee Bee Y to botch his landing or not is hard to say (true, you shouldn't depend on hearing the motor). Sometimes sh... happens.

That's my .o2 worth.