[WWI] Flying Model Judging (was: Re: Gratuitous posting)

[Ray Boorman]

ProfLooneys type of judging reminds me of a true story,  years ago at
a certain IPMS show in Western Canada. When I say years ago  I'm
meaning  the early 1970s. John Tarvin of airframe fame used to tell
this story, and its set when the IPMS accuracy police were at there
worst. Anyway John and some of his buddies were getting a little bit
ticked of by some of the silliness they were seeing by the scale
police. So they hatched a plan to shall we say embarrass the judges.
They jointly built and developed plans, some faked pictures (long
before pc's and photoshop) and a history for an Italian Tweeners
floatplane. John actually built the model and anyone who has seen
Johns models knows he can build a mean model. Anyway they entered it
in the next years IPMS show. They named the aircraft a Macchi Castrati
which should have been a big clue. The model won best in show. They
were so suprised they never did let on to the fake.

As to what you write ProfLooney, it sounds by the way you write that
your looking down your nose at the current IPMS method of judging.
Whereas I would say that the two systems are different and cannot be
compared they in fact have different purposes. Back when I flew RC
in the eighties, aircraft in the scale competitions had to show the
credentials you state because the key was to build a flying model that
could fly and look exactly like the real thing. Not so easily done
since to make a model that flew safely and realisticly was hard to do
if you kept it a complete replica. This obviously is not something
that happens with non flying scale models that we for eample enter in
IPMS   shows.

There is also scale accuracy, sorry to say it but no scale model is
100% accurate even in shape, outline and colouring. Especially the
last since its subjective and prone to things like scale effect even
if the real aircraft is brand new.  Having said all of that lets leave
it that there are different systems of judging different types of
models and neither is best or perfect.

lol sorry sheesh didn't mean to get on a soapbox, Ray


On Nov 26, 2007 6:21 PM, Proflooney <proflooney at mchsi.com> wrote:
> yea it kinda sounds it from an outsiders view point but if ya ever really
> look at some of the pics of the competitions entrants you will notice theres
> usually a huge variety and most are fairly reasonable in their schemes,
> those that would just use something to get by are few and far between most
> entrants spend months researching their paint scheme.
>
> Go Here and take a look at this years  championships theres several nice WWI
> planes and theres a nice 3rd scale Alb DIII that places exceptionally high
> up in static usually. thats the other thing after 3 seasons you have to
> change the markings to compete with that plane and after 6 seasons have to
> have a new aircraft though it can be of the same type.
> http://ussma-midwest.org/photos/index.php?cat=0 check out some of the
> championships photo albums
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Shannon" <shingend at ix.netcom.com>
> To: "World War I Modeling Mailing List" <wwi at wwi-models.org>
>
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 5:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [WWI] Flying Model Judging (was: Re: Gratuitous posting)
>
>
> >I get it.  I just don't agree with the way the system works.  If all you
> > need is some profile indicating the 'validity' of the scheme, it is as
> > subject to abuse as a politician's war chest.  It is amazing what
> > Photoshop
> > can do with a photo, and still leave the watermark intact.
> >
> > I prefer it where the controversy is allowed front and center.  It allows
> > for more variety and the models become a teaching tool.  If you say,
> > "Voss'
> > Fokker F.I is viewed as having two possibilities with good arguments for
> > each camp.  I chose this scheme because I thought it would be interesting
> > to test the possibility of one or the other," that should be more
> > important
> > than whether the exact colors of erroneous reproduction are matched
> > exactly
> > -- unless you state clearly that you are only matching the reproduction.
> > But then, no one will submit anything historically based because the
> > historical record was in black and white.  Thus the appalling Pepto-Bismol
> > Pink Sp*tf*r*s, bright blue 'camouflage' Lou IV P-%! M*st*ngs, inaccurate
> > versions of DrI.425/17, and the like get promulgated as the 'truth'
> > because
> > that is what the warbirds are painted.
> >
> > The judging scheme is as it is.  Nothing I can do will change it.  I can
> > register my view that it is an absurd and limiting way to do it, however.
> >
> > Mark Shannon
> > shingend at ix.netcom.com
> >
> >
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Proflooney <proflooney at mchsi.com>
> >> To: World War I Modeling Mailing List <wwi at wwi-models.org>
> >> Date: 11/24/2007 9:45:26 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [WWI] Gratuitous posting
> >>
> >> I dont think you get it Mark. A judge can only go by what you present
> > him.
> >> he cannot use his knowledge of the subject to judge you. The judge looks
> > at
> >> a blank outline of your plane as though he has never seen one before and
> > it
> >> is your story telling (ie reference) that fleshes the subject out giving
> > it
> >> color markings a history etc. if your story matches what he sees when
> >> looking at your plane then you win. the better you are at story telling
> > the
> >> better the score you get.
> >>
> >>
> >> the point is it doesnt matter if there are 5 other people saying
> > different
> >> things the only thing a judge can go by is what you show him, and you
> > would
> >> not show him 5 different versions of what people say it looked like but
> > only
> >> 1.
> >>
> >> I guess the best way is to use the example a fokker drI flown by the red
> >> baron himself.
> >>
> >> 2 guys enter the competition both with a DRI supposedly the same subject.
> >> Both have a black and white photo. both has documentation by field
> > mechanics
> >> that worked on the plane. One says it is red with black markings the
> > other
> >> that it was purple with white markings. the judge judges the first and
> > gives
> >> him a 98.75 for static. he goes to the purple plane and goes through the
> >> docs both men have exactly the same doc package other than what the
> > mechanic
> >> says. both pilots have exact matching paint chips to their paint schemes.
> >>
> >> what score do you think the purple plane would get? 98.75 of course why
> >> because the pilot proved his version just as the other pilot had all with
> > a
> >> simple published written statement.
> >>
> >> so you see it doesnt matter how many versions of the story are out there
> > but
> >> that you match the version of the story you are telling with proof.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ NOD32 2687 (20071126) Information __________
> >
> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
>
>