fly109

My Feedback: (1)

There is a simple explanation for the implementation of the 2% rule that was applied to some of the models in this year’s Top Gun. I realize it is not well understood and it looks as though it is unfair to a group whose dominance seems so totally undeniable. If you will give me just a minute I would like to try and explain. I want to also mention that I am not trying to diminish the feats of any of the modelers at this year’s Top Gun as I have met most of them and have seen their abilities. Those modelers who finish in the top 5 or ten at TG are without a doubt serious modelers whose abilities cannot be denied. I spent over an hour today on the phone with Bob Violett and Frank Tiano, as I wanted to make sure that what I am going to say is not off the mark in any way.
To begin with, you have to understand what the focus of Top Gun is. It is NOT to find the world’s best Scale model. It is to determine the best scale Builder/Pilot. For those that have not read or seen the TG rule book, it begins with a “Prime Directive”, it states – “no rule shale be made which either intentionally, or accidentally, produces an advantage to any particular type of subject choice”. It goes on to say – “ Thus it will be seen that the rules contained within this document have been carefully refined to give the contestant a free hand to choose a subject appealing to him; be it acrobatic or non-acrobatic, civilian or military, ancient or modern. Quality alone, both in building and flying, will determine the outcome”.
While no one can deny the advancements in jet technology and flight capabilities in the last decade, how these have effected scale competition is not well understood. Each year these advancements have afforded modelers who build and fly jets to produce a scale model within the rules structure that has an edge in every facet of scale competition. Not only is the flight characteristics of the modern composite jet capable of outperforming others in scale competition against the given judging criteria but now the three components of the static score (1/2 the total outcome) are becoming less and less a product of the modeler. Outline – 30 percent of the total static score is almost completely out of the hands of the composite modeler. Craftsmanship – another 30 percent of the total static score has a large portion of where judges knock off points built at the factory. And in some cases, Color and Markings – another 30 percent are a product of another manufactured source. None of this is wrong or illegal but it does begin to beg the question, “should TG become a contest where everyone flies the latest and most competitive model”? In fact there is a statement in the rule book that addresses this very question.
Here is an analogy that may give some an idea as to the reasoning behind rule changes at TG. If we were to set up a contest that would determine the best Fighter Ace of all time, how would it be done? We would need to assemble fighters and their pilots from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the present day to mention just a few. Greats from each era, masters in their own right such as Eddie Rickenbacker (spelling?) of WWI, Bud Anderson from WWII, The Vietnam Navy F-4 Ace now Senator Cunningham and others would certainly deserve a place in this contest. But how do we allow them to show their abilities and skills in an open arena? We could not ask that everyone fly the same aircraft. I doubt that a stick and rudder man from the early 1900s could even figure out how to close the canopy on an F-14 and I don’t think that an F – 18 pilot would be at home in a
Sopwith Pup but the abilities of each in his own right is without doubt. Obviously if we were to have a contest where we would assume that the best fighter pilot would be the last guy down is winner, our thinking would be flawed.
Lets face it, if we were to let one of our current day aviators in an F –14 and all of the assets this brings to the table loose on a field of previous era aircraft (even when piloted by aces) the results would be unceremoniously obvious. The F – 14 pilots would, using assets from a multitude of sources, have the ability to assess the battlefield and the threats in it. They could determine the order in which their foes are engaged based upon the threat they pose to their aircraft, which, lets face it, would not be that great. They would be on the way back to base as each of their opponents was falling to the earth without a clue as to what had happened. Granted they may not be able to lock up the fabric and wood of the WWI type but a pass near them a high speed should do the trick. So what does that prove? The F – 14 pilot and his RIO is unquestionably deadly, the best, able to defeat all foes now and then, does this end the discussion? Are we willing to say that the guys flying the other aircraft are now not any good? What has this proven?
For years the advancements to some models have had the net effect of a percentage deduction each year to other aircraft by virtue of the advancements while the rules remained unchanged. In the 80’s, before DF perfection, turbines and factory made composite aircraft, the heavily loaded warbird types dominated. When the rulebook for TG was written this was taken into consideration and we saw the domination end. In the years that followed the jets began to emerge dominant. In 89’ and 90’ we saw two jets win, this was followed by three years where props (Sea Fury, Globe Swift, and Waco) won. After this Terry Nitch did the impossible by winning three in a row (BVM F- 86). At about this time, TG separates the expert class into what is now known as expert and Masters classes. Charlie Chambers interrupts Terry’s run by Winning twice with his P – 61 (twin- prop WWII) Terry comes back and wins twice more with his P-80. Jeff Foley meanwhile was cleaning up in the designers (Masters) class and won the overall (Mr. Top Gun) at least once during this time.
Until last year, each and every one of these TG’s were decided by very little of a difference in overall scores which meant that the guys at the top each had a clear and honest chance to win the event. You need also to keep in mind that scale competition is such a subjective sport that if you held a second Top Gun the day after the first, there is every chance that, while the top competitors would still be at the top, the likely hood that they would finish in the same order is nearly impossible. It is very important that the rules allow any model to be competitive, no matter what. As advancements are made, rules are going to be changed to allow this competitiveness. No one wants to see a TG become a scale competition where 60 or 70 of the exact same aircraft shows up to compete.
I want to add that I think the field of jet modelers that showed up this year was truly impressive as are their models. As a jet modeler myself with over half of my business devoted to jets I am still impressed to see all of the great models that show up each year. At the same time, there are a lot of great modelers who fly other models as well and I for one never want to see the diversity that made Top Gun what it is today vanish.

berthoud

My Feedback: (35)

Well said fly109.

Frank and the promotors of Top Gun have done a fantastic job evening out the odds and sqauring the playing field. As I said in one of my first posts the statistics were done--look how close everyone finished. These rules keep the game competitive and enjoyable for the pilot/builder and spectator alike.

Scott

ps. in no way did I mean to take away from those that entered the jets used as an example in my prior posts. I had the opportunity to drool over joe grices f100 at toledo. Its a spectacular model, as Im sure most were at the contest this year...

fly109

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks Scott. By the way, I read an earlier post here where the question was posed about other (prop) composite aircraft getting the deduction such as an Aerotech model. They get the deduction as well as I understand it.
I feel compelled to mention that I responded to this thread not as a proponent of one particular type of model but rather as a supporter of Top Gun itself. I think Top Gun is one of the greatest venues of its type and is directly responsible for a majority of the popularity of scale modeling today. I for one hope to see it continue to be the premiere scale event that it is now. I also hope that the diversity of truly great modeling continues to be the mainstay of this event.

John Redman

My Feedback: (8)

After talking with two competitors who flew BVM F-100's, they told me the 2% deduction rule was only for "jets with composite wings" which targets the BVM F-100's and BVM Rafale (of which there weren't any competing this year).

They did say that the Aerotech aircraft did not recieve the 2% reduction in flight scores.

Please understand this is what I have been told by two modelers whom I trust dearly.

John

mugenkidd

My Feedback: (94)

I do understand that Top Gun is about building and flying, but even looking at the rules you have shared with us, it says "no rule shall be made the produces and advantage", and taking away 2% from one person is obviously giving someone else an advantage. If you want to make 2 classes, kits and homebuilts go ahead and do it that way but no one wants a penalty. Also I am pretty sure that this penalty was only given to jets, can any contestants verify this?

FTiano

My Feedback: (11)

Hi All,

I tried to offer an explanation but something happened and only a few sentences appeared! Anyway, I thought it might be appropriate to give the reasons behind the 2% rule.

As Patrick explained, and he did a perfect job of citing the rule book, the 2% rule only affects models that are almost all composite, perfectly molded, are very accurate in detail and have a distinct flying advantage. Craftsmanship is where the actual deduction stems from, it is only applied at the end, because our computer software only allows it to be done this way. Another cosideration is that most all composite jet models are fairly heavy, handle adverse weather conditions better than most models and have a unique thing called tricycle landing gear to afford better takeoffs in these adverse conditions. Tail draggers and lightly loaded models suffer in that regard.

If we did not have the 2% rule, a handful of the same type of model would be in the winner's circle, time after time, and that would become pretty boring to the press, the spectators, the other pilots and me personally. I do not think that other modelers would show up for Top Gun to compete for 4th thru 10th place if they new that a certain model was going to win, year after year.

We have altered the rules many times in the past and I could not help but notice that when we changed the rules in FAVOR of the jets, no jet person complained! For example, we now allow models of Twin engined jets to compete with just one engine, something very difficult to accomplish with a P-38 or a B-25! We have alowed jets to use speed brakes as a mechanical option, an easy 10 points for just flipping a switch. Some think this is unfair, and it is, and will be changed as well. But, up untill now, 3 manuevers involve a maximum of 30 points and all three can be accomplished by flipping a toggle switch. Again, pretty difficult to do with your typical Fokker D-7. The bottom line is that we just want the event to remain interesting to the public, the modelers, the press and to the compeitors.

The reason that the Aero Tech P-47s, KI-84s and P-51s do not fall under the 2% rule are many. Some are these: They DO require some building, fitting and finishing. They have NOT been a threat in the static circle, on the tarmac or in the sky. They DO have a tailwheel! If Aerotech produced an accurate prop model, all composite, with trike gear, it too would fall under the 2% rule as well. One more thing. Not ALL compopsite jet models receive the 2% deduction. If someone were to scratch build an all composite model, a "one off" model, it does not receive ANY deduction. But, once a team is involved in the designing, tooling and manufacturing process and a machine starts producing parts, the model is a definite candidate.

As stated in the very beginning of the rulebook, The intent of Top Gun was to allow any model to compete and that no model would have an obvious advantage. I think the rulebook has been prety much on target. A low wing trainer type built by Kim Foster almost won the expert class! I would also like to offer my support to anyone who would like to start an all jet competition, similar to TG but with a specific set of rules. That might be the perfect way to please everyone!

As always, thanks for listening.

Mercury

Thanks gentlemen, for the well restrained, intelligent , and mature dialog of this subject matter. I'm impressed!
Joe Grice

fly109

My Feedback: (1)

mugenkidd,

In the second qoute in your last post it mentions "intentionaly or Accidendataly" Thats the point. When the rules were written, the advancments we see today were not around. The rules therefore "accedintally" began to favor the type of models in question more and more over the past ten years. As I mentioned earlier, the net effect of this was a percentage deduction each of the last ten years to those modelers who chose to fly lightweight taildragger props in cross winds that would keep most modelers on the ground.
I will admit the advantage shift was silent and took effect over ten years or so while this 2% deduction to jets was thrown into the mix right away which was cause for much concern. But as Frank mentioned, we now see that it is very close again which means the rules change works.

ghost_rider

My Feedback: (20)

From BVM website"

"A look at the very very close final aggragate scores of the top finishers reveals that if this 2% penalty was not the rule, BVM F-100's would have captured first place in all 3 catagories and the ultimate Top Gun award. In other words, a Grand Slam!
It remains to be seen what next year's handicap might be, if any . The Top Gun rules committee has a difficult challenge. They must keep the interest and participation of all types of scale modelers."

How do you guys explain above facts?.


Regards


Ben

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

I think you missed his point. They aren't legislating against aircraft type.

They are legislating against ARFS. Yep, ARFS. A BVM is very expensive highly detailed ARF that you can buy off the shelf.

Now if Bob competes with it, assuming he personnally made the tooling and plugs, that should be different than if I buy one and compete with it.

Or maybe this analogy will help;

I guess I could pay Jeff Foley for his proven winner, enter it the next year, and win! All I would have to do is claim that it was "highly prefabricated."

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Huh...wait...we must be slipping.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

HAH! That's a good one, I take it you have not built one of these composite "ARFs"

I spent 7 months building this ARF. No telling how many months (years?) that Joe Grice spent building his F-100 "ARF"

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

sure

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

How much longer would it have taken if he had to carve the plug, lay up the glass, do the panel line detailing, build the components of the cockpit, assemble the cockpit...etc, etc, etc.?

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Not as long as if he had to chop down the tree, oh wait, make the ax to chop down the tree, ooooh no wait some more, invent fire to forge the ax head....

If that was the theory them you would penalize all of the molded planes, not just the wings of jets. I think the intent was to make sure the F-100 did not win all of the positions.

I can tell you I have seen the F-100 fly along with other jets, it just flies better, that plane is a total package.

Make no mistake that rule was to make sure they did not have 1-2-3 of BVM F-100s in all categories in another year or 2

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I don't think Joe's cockpit is commercial.

I just think this whole concept of Joe's plane being an ARF is absolutley ridiculaous. I saw that plane, it is as if it was pulled from a display at the Smithsonian.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

A simple clarification;

BVM, Fiberclassics, Aerotech. They're all arfs. Granted, they're expensive, and in some cases highly detailed, but still arfs. When the structure is already done for you, when the panel lines are built, when the rivet detail is molded in...its an ARF, simple and plain.

Vailly, Ziroli, Dave Platte, Brian Taylor are not arfs (assuming that we are talking about the all wood kits).

Just my humble opinion. So now I'll be quiet on this part of the subject and let the thread get back on the main topic.

FTiano

My Feedback: (11)

To answer Ghost Riders question of what could have happened or what will happen, let me explain.

As I originally said, ANY model deemed to have an unfair advantage will continue to be addressed. This is a Top Gun rule, that all aircraft have the same chance of doing well. Yes, model choice is up to the individual and I am sure that the WW One guys know they are in a somewhat precarious positiojn fromthe start!

The fact that the F-100s did not sweep again proves the rule change worked. I am NOT saying these are ARFs as some have said! I am saying that the highly prefabricated, PERFECT, flying surfaces and skin detail is far above what the average modeler can produce at his home workshop. And I am certain that performance is just about guaranteed from a model of this calibre. I am also certain that Joe Grice is one of the few that could make any wooden model look as good as a composite one, even if he used a knife and fork, with one arm in a sling. But, Joe is NOT your average or above average modeler. He is a Master Modeler. as in one in a million, like Bob Violett, Dave Platt, Patrick McCurry, Graeme Mears and some others. And, once AGAIN, these models received the deduction in the Craftsmanship department as well as for their ability to handle adverse weather conditions. It is not really very complicated if you think about it.

But, be that as it may, I am delighted to have a non bashing conversation about the rules of TG. However, these rules will remain the same, with a few more changes for next year, regardless of what is said, Pro or Con, in this forum! Remember, when the invitation arrives, it can always be sent back with the "Cannot Attend" box checked.

How about it Ghost Rider, are you up to the invitation? The challenge? Whattaya say? We'd love to have you join us. And any others who feel qualified! It is a lot of fun and very rewarding. Just ask Joseph!

Thanks for listening, FT

jetpilot

My Feedback: (48)

P51
Can you come over and finish my BVM F100 ARF that I picked up last May. Its been almost ready to fly and compete in Top Gun for a year now. The aluminum finish I put on only took a few months and the rivits just a wee bit longer. Man I had no idea when I bought this ARF that the other 10% I had to do was going to take over a year.
Scott

-JC-

My Feedback: (26)

Now that we have the 2% rule explained, I'd like to direct your attention to the official Top gun website. I just uploaded 163 megabytes of gorgeous digital photos, courtesy of Gerry Yarrish & Matt Boyd from Model Airplane News.

I decided to leave the pictures in their original high resolution for the best quality. This means that if you are on broadband, you're in for a treat, but if you are on dial-up you are in for a long night.

Enjoy.

Top Gun 2003 Photos

barneybaru

My Feedback: (4)

This is an interesting debate. Very Flawed
Clearly the 2% rule is designed to reduce the ability of a competitor to win, regardless of the ARF or composite wing debate.

FOLLOW THE MONEY - This 2% rule is all about money. The rule was imposed because of money no other reason. It has nothing to do with winners and everything to do with losers.

Tiger Woods won the last two Masters did the previous losers jump up and down and demand he use a square ball? Likely they prayed he broke a finger or leg but more than likely they practiced and tried to perfect their game. Does the Olympic committee handicap any of the competitors? The US could clearly out spend Jamaica when it came to the Bobsled team or any other sport for that matter. The point being the playing field was level when the clock started or the starter gun fired.

The 2% rule was a flight deduction. After each flying round I got my score and 2% was deducted. The best I could do was 98 out of 100. Fair nope. Follow the Money
Was I risking less because I did not carve the fuselage out of a old growth redwood tree? No. I was risking as much as anyone else in that competition.
Is the BV F-100D ( > $10,000.) any less difficult to fly than a tail dragger? No. It is if you have no idea what "wing down top rudder" is.
It is one thing to sit in your weather proof workshop listening to your favorite DJ while building your interpretation of a P-51D or a F-100D, but it is entirely different when you roll your little creation out on the runway and face the elements. Crosswinds, battery failure, flame outs, radio hits, and of course the ever present brain dump.
Did the composite wing on the F-100D, reduce the risk or increase my skill? Nope. Did it help settle my nerves as I was trying to do the best I could in front of the judges? Nope. Did it help me fly in the crosswinds. Nope. The composite wing only did what I told it to do - just like every other wing that created lift in the competition. So clearly there has very little to do with a composite wing.

EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE NOT WILLING TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN.

So if your not willing to do what it takes and you still want to win you contrive a plan to handicap Tiger Woods. Make his golf ball 2% heavier.

Paul Bageman
Team Scale - Bageman/ Taylor
Top Gun 2003 BVM F-100D

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

..that post is like a fart in a phonebooth :-)

Congrats to you and Mark at TopGun. See you soon.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

Paul,

That's just about as well said as it can be I think.

-Doug

ghost_rider

My Feedback: (20)

Thanks Frank for asking, but unfortunately I am not a TopGun type of a guy. I know my capabilities and I could not compete with all those names you listed in your post. I’m just a happy Sunday flyer and very satisfied with it.

After reading Paul Bageman’s post, I hereby rest my case because I could not state it any better than he did.

Regards

Ben

-JC-

My Feedback: (26)

We can like the 2% rule or not, something has to be done in order to find the real Top Gun objective which is to find the best scale builder/pilot around. If it takes a certain type of aircraft to do so, something is needed to even the score in order for the contest to be fair.

Maybe instead of giving Jets a 2% penalty for performing better in crosswind, tracking straight on the runway and sounding realistic, we should give those hard to fly subjects a bonus instead.

With a WW1 fighter you have to fly a full 10 maneuvers. They have no shortcut's like jets with flaps, retracts, ordenance drops etc. So maybe they should get a 10 for being that specific type of plane. Maybe there should be a bonus for taildraggers and biplanes. Whatever may be the case, the options will be discussed a whole lot before being implemented. One thing is sure. if it takes a turbine jet to win Top Gun, the event will quickly turn into a jets only event and die in a matter of a few years.

Maybe a seperate class for jets is whats needed. This however would ruin the chances of finding the best builder/pilot. What class should he come from?