Edition: Model Aviation - 1992/12
Page Numbers: 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

Focus on Competition

A Note From the Technical Director

Bob Underwood

Many months ago, after learning that I would be the Contest Director for the Scale World Championships, I thought long and hard about how it might bring more members of the United States scale modeling community together with the world group. Having been a competitor in both venues, I realized that various perceptions exist that create misunderstandings between the two. In order to generate a better realization from both sides of the scale world, I proposed that the Academy run a pre-event. The idea suggested was the Scale Shoot-Out.

I had three basic goals in mind in proposing the event. First, I felt that it might show U.S. scalers that the FAI event is not the mysterious, convoluted thing many of them feel it is. I hoped that modelers from the U.S. would learn that a model built to the seven-kilogram limit can be of reasonable size and fly well, with the modelers exhibiting high skill levels. Granted, some aspects of the FAI scale program may be hard to swallow (such as the weight limit and flight bonus), but by and large there is little difference between FAI and the present Top Gun or Scalemasters events.

The second goal centered on showing the FAI scale community that a first-class scale contest can be run in much less time than is currently devoted to the F4C and F4B events. Presently, a full week is required to accommodate 40 to 50 competitors with the static judging and three rounds of flying.

The third reason for the Shoot-Out was to provide an activity that would attract spectators. To that end, the Shoot-Out provided a beautiful draw to the hustle and bustle of FAI model setup and led us directly into the colorful opening ceremony of the World Championships.

The concept of the Shoot-Out was presented to the Top Gun and Scalemasters management and was given the blessing of the two groups. The winners from both events were invited to attend. In addition, we extended invitations to the winners of the AMA Nationals, enabling us to obtain a first-class list of competitors. We hoped to include 20–25 competitors so the event would be meaningful but comfortable for the time frame available. In reality, we wound up with a list of 17 competitors. We missed the higher number because many individuals had won two or three events, and five people who wished to come found themselves planeless because of mishaps.

So what was the result? In two days we static-judged the models and flew six rounds. Of the 102 possible flights, we actually flew 100. On only two flights did we have to record a zero; in each instance a mechanical problem occurred. There was not even one crash — in fact, nothing close to a crash occurred. Someone did break a prop, but for the life of me I don't know who it was. The wind was right down the runway and light both days, which helped, but personally I cannot recall any event that was as error-free.

Another thing that made the event such a joy was the complete lack of over-officialness. The contestants were very contest oriented; we felt it wasn't necessary to lead anybody by the hand—and they weren't. The meet literally ran itself.

We used two flight lines with two judges each for the first two rounds of flying, and three judges for the last four rounds. Static judging employed the three-table technique with one judge for each of the three judging categories. We started static about 8:30 a.m., and the flying was in the afternoon.

Judges and officials (organized on site by Darlene Frederick) included:

  • Darlene Frederick
  • Wayne Frederick
  • Vern Altamarino
  • Don Lowe
  • John Guenther
  • Bert Dugan
  • Hank Cavasso

Other officials:

  • Line director: Ron Hesselbrock
  • Transmitter impound: George Steiner
  • Tabulation: Brenda Wren (Headquarters), Anne Underwood, Cathy Underwood

At first blush the scores—both static and flying—might appear artificially compressed. I am not certain I would subscribe to that concept after looking over the scores and considering the number of rounds flown. For the static scores, remember that the contestants were the best from three of the major events in this country (and arguably four, since the winner of the Canadian Nationals was present as well). There were no poorly built or poorly documented models. In addition, the excellent site and favorable wind and weather conditions made it difficult to come up with any reasons for a blown flight or maneuver. It was rare for someone to blow a maneuver, let alone a whole flight.

Another factor was our scoring method: we flew six rounds and took the average of the best two for adding to the static score. With no attrition and such consistent flying, virtually everyone produced at least two good counters. Had we only flown three or four rounds, the scores would have been more typical of scale events. Please remember we used pure AMA Sport Scale rules, 4.6 and all.

And the end result? Many happy faces. Everyone seemed to enjoy getting together—and flying their hearts out.

To end this column: number one was Kim Foster with his Curtiss Jenny at 185.74 points. Second was Dick Hansen with his Albatros at 183.83. Third was David Pape with his Kinner Sportster at 183.60. Fourth was Jeff Foley, whose Zero A6M3 flew to a 183.45 total. Fifth place was Chuck Nelson and his Waco UKS 7F at 183.44 points.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a fifth-grade teacher like me) to tell you the results were close: the overall point spread from first to fifth was 2.3 points. Between second and fifth the spread was only about .39 points.

A number of the Shoot-Out participants and officials stayed around and enjoyed the Scale World Championships for at least a few days. Conversations between U.S. competitors and foreign competitors were enjoyable and productive in generating friendships and understanding. Many of the FAI competitors and officials were impressed with the skill levels evidenced and by the efficient manner in which the event ran. Spectators enjoyed the event as well. In brief, I guess the goals originally envisioned for the Shoot-Out were realized. A bunch of people wondered whether we'd do it again. Hm!

Scale Shoot-Out Results

  1. Kim Foster — 185.74 — Curtiss Jenny
  2. Dick Hansen — 183.83 — Albatros
  3. David Pape — 183.60 — Kinner Sportster
  4. Jeff Foley — 183.45 — Zero A6M3
  5. Chuck Nelson — 183.44 — Waco UKS 7F
  6. Terry Nitsch — 183.27 — F-86 Sabre
  7. Bruce Tharpe — 182.33 — Spacewalker
  8. Bob Wischer — 179.52 — Piper Pacer
  9. Wayne Siewert — 179.45 — Porsche Mooney
  10. David Hayes — 179.35 — Rockwell Thrush Commander
  11. Irv Searl — 178.94 — Ryan STA Special
  12. Gerald Mong — 177.77 — Globe Swift
  13. Nick Tusa — 176.59 — Fokker D-VII
  14. Earl Thompson — 176.52 — Wirraway
  15. Hal Parenti — 176.03 — Piper Twin Comanche
  16. George Buso — 174.52 — Nieuport 28
  17. Henry Mausolf — 172.34 — Sukhoi SU26M

---

FAI-Class Electric Powered Motor Gliders

World Championship F3E — Papendal 1992

Rankings After Round: 7

Overall results (per round data included):

  1. Freudenthaler, Rudolf — AUS — Score: 4292, lps: 27, dur: 300 sec, mot: 5 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 730, round rank: 1
  2. Bridgeman, Jerry — USA — Score: 4288, lps: 25, dur: 301 sec, mot: 4 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 700, round rank: 4
  3. Perrin, Jason — USA — Score: 4267, lps: 26, dur: 302 sec, mot: 8 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 710, round rank: 3
  4. Leodolter, Urs — SWITZ — Score: 4214, lps: 25, dur: 303 sec, mot: 7 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 695, round rank: 5
  5. Weissgerber, Franz — GER — Score: 4170, lps: 23, dur: 301 sec, mot: 7 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 667, round rank: 14
  6. Geringer, Michael — AUS — Score: 4152, lps: 24, dur: 298 sec, mot: 6 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 682, round rank: 8
  7. Neu, Steve — USA — Score: 4129, lps: 24, dur: 296 sec, mot: 6 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 680, round rank: 11
  8. Fraisse, Jean-Miche — FRA — Score: 4082, lps: 26, dur: 298 sec, mot: 7 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 711, round rank: 2
  9. Hubner, Norbert — GER — Score: 4080, lps: 24, dur: 300 sec, mot: 3 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 687, round rank: 7
  10. Strebel, Roger — SWITZ — Score: 4075, lps: 23, dur: 301 sec, mot: 7 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 667, round rank: 14
  11. Legou, Martial — FRA — Score: 4067, lps: 25, dur: 296 sec, mot: 8 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 693, round rank: 6
  12. Safarik, Dieter — AUS — Score: 4039, lps: 24, dur: 301 sec, mot: 8 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 681, round rank: 9
  13. Vis, Jaap — HOL — Score: 3994, lps: 23, dur: 290 sec, mot: 10 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 655, round rank: 20
  14. Verdenck, Dirk — BEL — Score: 3964, lps: 24, dur: 299 sec, mot: 10 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 662, round rank: 15
  15. Asema, Jean-Christophe — FRA — Score: 3954, lps: 24, dur: 297 sec, mot: 8 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 679, round rank: 13
  16. Schwartz, Frank — GER — Score: 3951, lps: 25, dur: 299 sec, mot: 8 sec, Ind pts: 15, pen pts: 0, total pts: 681, round rank: 19
  17. Carletti, Mario — ITA — Score: 3934, lps: 23, dur: 295 sec, mot: 7 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 663, round rank: 17
  18. Giovone, Vittorio — ITA — Score: 3925, lps: 23, dur: 296 sec, mot: 9 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 662, round rank: 18
  19. Aghem, Gianmaria — ITA — Score: 3925, lps: 24, dur: 298 sec, mot: 6 sec, Ind pts: 15, pen pts: 0, total pts: 667, round rank: 10
  20. Peeters, Benny — BEL — Score: 3914, lps: 24, dur: 302 sec, mot: 8 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 680, round rank: 11
  21. Levenstam, Rikard — SWE — Score: 3869, lps: 21, dur: 302 sec, mot: 6 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 636, round rank: 25
  22. Bleisch, Karl — SWITZ — Score: 3868, lps: 22, dur: 300 sec, mot: 10 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 650, round rank: 21
  23. Sakuraba, Tsuyoshi — JPN — Score: 3862, lps: 23, dur: 293 sec, mot: 3 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 646, round rank: 23
  24. Sjoberg, Bo — SWE — Score: 3824, lps: 22, dur: 307 sec, mot: 8 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 645, round rank: 24
  25. Ruisjink, Rick — HOL — Score: 3808, lps: 24, dur: 303 sec, mot: 7 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 650, round rank: 21
  26. Hustak, Petr — SFR — Score: 3755, lps: 22, dur: 295 sec, mot: 8 sec, Ind pts: 15, pen pts: 0, total pts: 632, round rank: 27
  27. Hobby, David — AUST — Score: 3727, lps: 22, dur: 299 sec, mot: 9 sec, Ind pts: 15, pen pts: 0, total pts: 635, round rank: 26
  28. Tinka, Juraj — SFR — Score: 3691, lps: 21, dur: 304 sec, mot: 13 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 629, round rank: 28
  29. Pike, Raymond — AUST — Score: 3675, lps: 20, dur: 280 sec, mot: 22 sec, Ind pts: 0, pen pts: 0, total pts: 558, round rank: 36
  30. Janacek, Bedrich — SFR — Score: 3664, lps: 21, dur: 298 sec, mot: 14 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 628, round rank: 29
  31. Brown, Gordon — GBR — Score: 3617, lps: 0, dur: 0 sec, mot: 0 sec, Ind pts: 0, pen pts: 0, total pts: 37, round rank: 37
  32. Pine, Peter — AUST — Score: 3571, lps: 20, dur: 298 sec, mot: 13 sec, Ind pts: 0, pen pts: 0, total pts: 615, round rank: 32
  33. Handley, Ian — GBR — Score: 3501, lps: 19, dur: 307 sec, mot: 17 sec, Ind pts: 15, pen pts: 0, total pts: 576, round rank: 34
  34. Mettam, Stephen — GBR — Score: 3462, lps: 18, dur: 292 sec, mot: 12 sec, Ind pts: 15, pen pts: 0, total pts: 565, round rank: 35
  35. Gijbels, Alfons — BEL — Score: 3379, lps: 21, dur: 287 sec, mot: 10 sec, Ind pts: 30, pen pts: 0, total pts: 622, round rank: 30
  36. Keim, Peter — HOL — Score: 3056, lps: 21, dur: 299 sec, mot: 9 sec, Ind pts: 15, pen pts: 0, total pts: 620, round rank: 31
  37. Samuelsson, Bo — SWE — Score: 3013, lps: 0, dur: 0 sec, mot: 0 sec, Ind pts: 0, pen pts: 0, total pts: 37, round rank: 37
  38. Nagai, Shigeki — JPN — Score: 2973, lps: 21, dur: 305 sec, mot: 12 sec, Ind pts: 0, pen pts: 0, total pts: 598, round rank: 33
  39. Nakamura, Kenji — JPN — Score: 1884, lps: 0, dur: 0 sec, mot: 0 sec, Ind pts: 0, pen pts: 0, total pts: 0, round rank: 37

Team Rankings — F3E Papendal 1992

  1. United States — Team Score: 12,684
  2. Austria — Team Score: 12,483
  3. Germany — Team Score: 12,204
  4. Switzerland — Team Score: 12,157
  5. France — Team Score: 12,103
  6. Italy — Team Score: 11,784
  7. Belgium — Team Score: 11,257
  8. Czechoslovakia — Team Score: 11,110
  9. Australia — Team Score: 10,973
  10. Netherlands — Team Score: 10,856
  11. Sweden — Team Score: 10,706
  12. Great Britain — Team Score: 10,580
  13. Japan — Team Score: 8,695

(December 1992)

---

F4C Radio Control 1992 Scale World Championships

FAI-AMA — Muncie, Indiana, U.S.A.

Individual Results for All Competitors

  1. Peter McDermott — United Kingdom — Sopwith Triplane — Static: 1864.5 — F1: 1430 — F2: 1632 — F3: 1810 — Score: 1721.0 — Final: 3585.5
  2. Andreas Luthi — Switzerland — Nieuport N-28 — Static: 1756.5 — F1: 1503 — F2: 1700 — F3: 1687 — Score: 1693.5 — Final: 3450.0
  3. Max Merchenschlager — Germany — Albatros DVA — Static: 1726.5 — F1: 1651 — F2: 1731 — F3: 1715 — Score: 1723.0 — Final: 3449.5
  4. Mick Reeves — United Kingdom — Sopwith Strutter — Static: 1794.0 — F1: 1520 — F2: 1515 — F3: 1747 — Score: 1633.5 — Final: 3427.5
  5. Ray Torres — United States — Cessna 02A — Static: 1755.0 — F1: 834 — F2: 1699 — F3: 1604 — Score: 1651.5 — Final: 3406.5
  6. Chris Foss — United Kingdom — Dalotel — Static: 1673.0 — F1: 1453 — F2: 1612 — F3: 1510 — Score: 1561.0 — Final: 3234.0
  7. Charles Levy — France — Stampe — Static: 1719.0 — F1: 1202 — F2: 1459 — F3: 1421 — Score: 1440.0 — Final: 3159.0
  8. Jean Rousseau — France — Dewoitine — Static: 1670.5 — F1: 1058 — F2: 1333 — F3: 1574 — Score: 1453.5 — Final: 3124.0
  9. Robert Hanft — United States — Fokker DR1 — Static: 1570.5 — F1: 1343 — F2: 1610 — F3: 1452 — Score: 1531.0 — Final: 3101.5
  10. Juergen Steinberger — Germany — Fokker DVII — Static: 1659.0 — F1: 1034 — F2: 1412 — F3: 1457 — Score: 1434.5 — Final: 3093.5
  11. Esbjorn Stroman — Sweden — Sopwith Camel — Static: 1696.5 — F1: 1118 — F2: 1287 — F3: 1416 — Score: 1351.5 — Final: 3048.0
  12. Yvon Mourier — France — Caudron Luciole — Static: 1455.0 — F1: 1398 — F2: 1454 — F3: 1716 — Score: 1585.0 — Final: 3040.0
  13. Stefan Gaudynski — Poland — DH-88 Comet — Static: 1644.0 — F1: 1187 — F2: 1329 — F3: 1396 — Score: 1362.5 — Final: 3006.5
  14. Kjell-Åke Elofsson — Sweden — Saab 91C — Static: 1660.5 — F1: 956 — F2: 1206 — F3: 1451 — Score: 1328.5 — Final: 2989.0
  15. Vladislav Waclawik — Czechoslovakia — CR-714 — Static: 1577.0 — F1: 1326 — F2: 1394 — F3: 1423 — Score: 1408.5 — Final: 2985.5
  16. Kim Foster — United States — Nieuport 28 — Static: 1385.0 — F1: 1313 — F2: 1525 — F3: 1543 — Score: 1534.0 — Final: 2919.0
  17. Neil Allen — South Africa — Nieuport 28 — Static: 1359.0 — F1: 1544 — F2: 1467 — F3: 1498 — Score: 1521.0 — Final: 2880.0
  18. Max Geppert — Germany — Hanriot — Static: 1420.5 — F1: 1187 — F2: 1397 — F3: 1342 — Score: 1369.5 — Final: 2790.0
  19. Pavel Fencl — Czechoslovakia — Knoller C II — Static: 1765.5 — F1: 1424 — F2: 589 — F3: 0 — Score: 1006.5 — Final: 2772.0
  20. Jiri Jilek — Czechoslovakia — Avro 504K — Static: 1452.0 — F1: 1266 — F2: 1231 — F3: 1318 — Score: 1292.0 — Final: 2744.0
  21. Noel Whitehead — Australia — Pitts S2A — Static: 1347.0 — F1: 1484 — F2: 671 — F3: 1278 — Score: 1381.0 — Final: 2728.0
  22. Shuzo Yamamoto — Japan — DH82A Tiger Moth — Static: 1275.0 — F1: 1311 — F2: 1520 — F3: 1178 — Score: 1415.5 — Final: 2690.5
  23. Witold Stefanski — Poland — Yak 18 — Static: 1302.0 — F1: 1118 — F2: 1131 — F3: 1153 — Score: 1142.0 — Final: 2444.0
  24. Bryn Roberts — South Africa — Dart Kitten — Static: 1230.0 — F1: 700 — F2: 1126 — F3: 1294 — Score: 1210.0 — Final: 2440.0
  25. Sigurd Borreesen — Norway — PT-26 — Static: 1314.0 — F1: 1025 — F2: 1065 — F3: 1083 — Score: 1074.0 — Final: 2388.0
  26. Toshio Furuta — Japan — Mitsubishi Type 1, Betty — Static: 1404.0 — F1: 822 — F2: 0 — F3: 1137 — Score: 979.5 — Final: 2383.5
  27. Ireneusz Pudelko — Poland — PZL 101 Gawron — Static: 1209.0 — F1: 763 — F2: 1147 — F3: 1057 — Score: 1102.0 — Final: 2311.0
  28. Humphrey LeGrice — South Africa — Midget Mustang — Static: 980.0 — F1: 1337 — F2: 1321 — F3: 1212 — Score: 1329.0 — Final: 2309.0
  29. Ron Barr — Canada — Pietenpol — Static: 1007.5 — F1: 444 — F2: 1319 — F3: 1218 — Score: 1268.5 — Final: 2276.0
  30. Daniel Jorda — Spain — Fokker DR1 — Static: 894.0 — F1: 1256 — F2: 1406 — F3: 1298 — Score: 1352.0 — Final: 2246.0
  31. Karl Gross — Canada — Beechcraft — Static: 841.5 — F1: 1098 — F2: 1469 — F3: 1290 — Score: 1379.5 — Final: 2221.0
  32. Gerard Rutten — Netherlands — DH89A — Static: 1036.5 — F1: 0 — F2: 1174 — F3: 1184 — Score: 1179.0 — Final: 2215.5
  33. Jaume Gispert — Spain — Bucker Jungmeister — Static: 1021.5 — F1: 1194 — F2: 1147 — F3: 496 — Score: 1184.0 — Final: 2205.5
  34. Gosta Lofgren — Sweden — Fokker D-VII — Static: 915.5 — F1: 735 — F2: 1288 — F3: 1178 — Score: 1233.0 — Final: 2148.5
  35. Bjorn Opsetmyren — Norway — Chipmunk MK20 — Static: 918.5 — F1: 1033 — F2: 1211 — F3: 931 — Score: 1122.0 — Final: 2040.5
  36. Javier Izquierdo — Spain — Grumman Bearcat — Static: 745.5 — F1: 1142 — F2: 1274 — F3: 983 — Score: 1208.0 — Final: 1953.5
  37. Junichi Okamoto — Japan — DH82A Tiger Moth — Static: 789.0 — F1: 1067 — F2: 1250 — F3: 1054 — Score: 1158.5 — Final: 1947.5
  38. Chris Gauntley — Canada — Curtis Twin JN — Static: 964.0 — F1: 930 — F2: 444 — F3: 905 — Score: 917.5 — Final: 1881.5
  39. Han Waasdorp — Netherlands — Grumman Tracker — Static: 1182.0 — F1: 0 — F2: 0 — F3: 0 — Score: 0.0 — Final: 1182.0
  40. Ton van Munsteren — Netherlands — Bucker Jungmeister — Static: 972.0 — F1: 0 — F2: 155 — F3: 224 — Score: 189.5 — Final: 1161.5
  41. Kenneth Battersby — Australia — DH82 — Static: 762.0 — F1: 523 — F2: 264 — F3: 0 — Score: 393.5 — Final: 1155.5

Also listed:

  • James Brennan — Australia — (no aircraft listed) — Static: 0.0 — F1: 0 — F2: 0 — F3: 0 — Score: 0.0 — Final: 0.0

Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.