Hi everyone,

I seem to remember some scale contest rules that allowed a commercial scale plastic model to be used as part of your documentation. Does anyone know if this is true?

Thanks in advance,

Matt

AMA Scale competition rules 6.2.C, Proof of Scale, for Radio Controlled Sport Scale (Sportsman and Explert):

A plastic model of the type available commercially, unmodified and unpainted may be used. The use of a plasitc model as proof of Accuracy of Outline will require the deletion of two (2) 8 1/2 X 11" pages, or their equivalent as provided in paragraph 4.5, below.

Scott

Thanks very much Scott.

This is different than Scalemasters/Top Gun rules?

THanks again,

Both Scale Masters and Top Gun have their own set of rules. You can down load the Scale Masters rules from..
http://www.scalemasters.org/Home.html

Let me ask a simple question from the perspective of a plastic scale modeler and model manufacturer. Why would you want to use them? That would be like using third hand information. The plastic manufacturer goes out and researches and gets plans and then translates that to a 3D form. All of those steps could be misinterperted. Case in point. My company manufactures 1/24 scale WW1 kits. The first project was a Pfalz D3 done from very well know plans and drawings. Very complete model with full cockpit interior. It was not until after release that a very prominent WW1 historian from Windsock reviewed it and said that the fuselage was too short. The plans were off! I Won't change it now. I would have to change the tools, redo the interior bulkheads as well as redesign all interior parts to fit the new parts. I realize my company is obscure, and many manufactures today are using state of the art technologies but that does not chande the facts that they can get it wrong. Revell came out with a Fokker D7 about 10 years ago that was so bad that building it correctly to scale was more work than doing it from scratch!

Because some planes PLANS are not available and neither are the models.

My Saab Draken is a DODO bird.

I have a 1/72 of it, if I want to scale it up.

Geezer planes do not live forever. I know. I AM a geezer.

Well I guess that answers my first question. Now let me show you how ignorant I am ( I don't compete yet) by asking another. What would prevent the judge from asking how accurate is the model ? For instance it was common knowledge, a few years ago, that many of the old Aurora kits were not very accurate.
Aside from these questions, You would take a 1/72 scale model and blow it up to produce a working model involving not only reproducing the outline and scale details, but designing it so that the CG is correct, thrust lines, angle of incidence etc? My hat is off to you sir. I found out many years ago that scratch builing is only a matter of having confidence in your own abilities. It appears some of us have bigger ones than others

You touch a very important point about trueism of scale in a AMA judging.

The old rules basicly stated 3 views from a commerical manufacturer.

I would have interpeted that to mean if the plane you built exactly matched the plans, it should win as easily as a Ziroli, As there is a % of error allowed. And NO ONE knows were the errors are anymore.

Rule #1, your plane must match your documentation. Not all three views are correct either and that is well documentated.
No matter, your job is to demonstrate to the Judges that YOUR model faithfully represents YOUR documentation. The better you do that the better your static scores.

Bob is absolutely right.
We cannot bring a full scale airplane with us for competition, even if one existed. A person who is an 'Expert Authority' of a particular airplane is not an acceptable form of proof of scale either. So what can you do?
The AMA rules gives us 3 choices, 3-views, photos, or a plastic model. If you choose 3-views, what source? If you were to research and collect 3-views from 10 different (acceptable) sources, and compared them, chances are, the'll all have differences. If you choose photos, what if you are modeling a plane that no longer exists, and photos are not sufficient to adequately prove scale? Reading about the restoration of full scale airplanes, there are times when even factory drawings do not match a specific airframe. As for a 1/72 scale model not being large enough, many 3 views that meet the AMA criteria for being acceptable, are drawn at 1/72 scale too. Of course, as a competitor who is trying to win, you will want to select the best documentation you can to provide as proof of scale. And if you want to score well, it would probably be best to select your documentation first, then build your model to match your documentation. After all, judges have no other source of information about a model other than the documentation provided by the modeler.

Scale competition is an aspect of the hobby I want to explore. I have not competed, and have seen only a few examples of documentation packs. I am curious, is anyone aware of someone who has used a plastic model for proof of scale and won a major AMA scale event?

Scott

So,Scott that would bring up the obvious which would be to bring all 3 types of documentation if possible. AS it turns out I have all 3 for a project I am considering. For Bob that presents a gamble. If he builds for competition, he must base it on a model alone and although he will have built a project I assume he enjoys, he will have invested much time and effort on just 1 form of documentation and the most dubious.
Hey Bob perhaps you could contact the model manufacturer and ask if they have any drawings. Is your kit complete with instructions? Maybe there are drawings in the instructions?

From what I have seen of the high end competitions, top gun, NATS, super scale heli, they all state they want a "published" 3-view of the aircraft. The easiest place to get this is the pilots manual or in many cases the little plastic models do have a 'published' 3-view. Having been a judge in scale events, (helicopters only of course), the 3-view is to make sure that empennages are correctly located, correct proportions, ect. They are not used for the detail stuff. That is where your documentation and pictures come into play. Essentially, if you are using a plastic model you are making a scale model of a scale model that may not be correct, and as I judge I would not accept such documentation. I have no seen the statement in the rules about the plastic model being ok for a 3 view.

Concentrate on the details you have good picutres of. If you can make the detail look like the picture you will get good marks. If it isn't documented in pictures, and all fancy and stuff, from the judges standpoint, too bad, nice part, but no proof, so it isn't "judged'.

Regardless, a three view is not that hard to get, even from stuff way out of production. Even coffee table books have 3 views. Just look.
Jack

feep I do plane on competing with my plane. The Mfg supplied me with 3 views that he had approved by the Scale Contest board in the UK. So that takes care of the Views for outlines.
Since the model I am making is patterened after a Full Scale Replica, completed in 2004, I have photos showing where my plane matches the Full Size plane. I'm using the photos for color documentation as well as for some of the details. If there is a difference between the three views and my plane and the photographs of the full scale I have to point out the differences to the judges. This is because my plane is a model of a particular full scale and not a model of the supplied 3 view. So you could say that my plane is "Model Specific" to one aircraft of a Generic Type...
Judging for scale outline etc takes place at 15 feet. Judging for finish and craftsmanship takes place at 4 feet. That's for the US Scale Masters and I think AMA too. No judging at all of the interior! Thats for AMA, Scale Masters and I think Top Gun.

Feep, The rules in AMA limit how much documentation you can bring. Specificaly, it states that if you use a model as proof of scale, you must reduce the number of pages in your docs book. The three options are 6.2.A (three views), 6.2.B (photos), and 6.2.C (plastic model) and are presented as use A, or B or C. My impression is that 3 views are the desired method. I would consider photos if I had access to the specific plane I was modeling. Using a plastic model would be my last choice. I would try and avoid bringing documentation that provides conflicting views. One might even look into the possibility of creating a new set of 3 views and having them approved by an athoritive source as allowed under section 6.2.B. It all depends on what is available, and what you want to build. Using a plastic model is allowed under the AMA rules, but I wouldn't say it is the best way to go in a major event.

Scott

Thanks for all the info Scott.I don't want to take over Matt's thread but I will say this. I am considering doing a scratch built 1/4 scale Fok 3 and I manufacture this plane in plastic in 1/24 scale. I don't think I would bring the model as documentation.( Although it would be a hoot to have a 1/4 scale pilot standing next to the plastic model with a transmitter in his hands) I have the luxury of much documentation because of the research I did to produce the model and if I were a judge I would favor acceptable documents over anyone's 3d renderings. Whatever, direction I take, I will remember the lesson I learned when I was competing with scale plastic models. ...Quit when it's not fun and build for yourself and not for the judges.

They are very easy to get for hundreds of subjets, and you can use it as a 3d reference while building your model. And like others have said, you are judged on how closely you match the documentation, not how close you are to someone's idea of the real aircraft.

The point is moot cause I want to build to scalemasters rules anyway. Thanks very much for the feedback everyone.

Several years ago, I was building a contest scale model. I had a set of the original drawings (from the builder. These drawings exactly matched a plastic model from Williams Brothers. Yippee. 2 sources matched. I then got real smart and ordered a set of photographs from a well known source of documentation on the west coast. Spent a ton with him for these. What he sent were photos (snapshot quality) of a reproduction of the original that used volkswagen wheels and god knows what for an engine. looked like a Ford Falcon radiatior hung on for cooling, and the builder had not even followed the planform for the copy. It just looked like the original (kinda-sorta) So much for trusting that source of documentation again. I finally found a set of 3 views in an obsolete encyclopedia. Bingo. I guess that my point is that Gold is where you find it. Of course I'm not the foremost authority on this.