Nick Filippone

What would best serve my needs would be a service to copy a part I made myself. I friend of mine says one of our local libraries has such a device. I guess it scans the original and prints out copies. Is this for real? Nick Filippone

Assuming that a category under-entered one year will continue to be so and will therefore be a slam-dunk the next is drawing to an inside straight. Full disclosure: I have tried that myself years ago. It does not work. I can assure you that you are not the only contest entrant or reader of the latest Journal with it's Contest results who noticed the low numbers in 132 and are also greedily licking his or her chops as they anticipate Chattanooga. Furthermore, as the National Convention moves about the country, the interests and target categories of the different attendees will affect category "census." Jim's advice is best. And I will add more. If winning at a National Contest is important to you ( as, I admit, it is to me) spread your "bets" around the contest room by building (to the best of your ability) for several different categories. To bring only one entry to the IPMS National Convention Contest with high expectations of winning is a recipe for disappointment. Regards. Nick- doesn't put all his eggs in one basket- Filippone

Jim is quite right. Why in heaven's would you assume an OOB category is some kind of a cake walk at the Nationals. If you approach the building of an entry for the Nationals "...with neither the interest of the time to turn it into a competitive model" you will end up with just exactly that: a model that is not competitive - in any category! Nick - long ago gave up looking for a quick and lazy path to a National trophy- Filippone

We active aircraft judges spend a lot of time in the days BEFORE the judging even starts patrolling the room and checking on category placement. We discuss it amongst ourselves and refer any knotty problems to Bil Devins, the Head Aircraft Judge for final adjudication. The opinion of the modeler with respect to where he or she thinks his or her entry should be placed is considered, but in the end the final decision is that of the judges as they endeavour, in fairness to all entrants, to apply the posted rules as even-handedly and objectively as humanly possible. Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

Check the National Contest Rules for 2018-which are likely to be pretty much what will be used in 2019. Yes, it is clearly not a vignette or diorama. But it may move it outside of OOB although I am not sure. It is not a vignette or diorama but it does enhance the model. Because it is a figure, does it fall outside the rules barring enhancement with extra parts? It is an interesting question. One might argue that anything might be added to an OOB entry with the instruction on the entry form to the judges to " not judge" whatever he has enhanced the model with: underwing stores, extra cockpit detail, etc. The convention to not judge the figure on a non diorama entry was to make sure the figure did not give an advantage over an entry without a figure. Can that convention also be applied to an OOB entry? Maybe, maybe not. If you want it to be an OOB entry, why not just leave the figure off. Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

To pass muster with respect to alignment, the wings AND the empennage must align. And, ok, Pete. You caught me on a last ditch technique to correct a misaligned model: shaving the bottom of a wheel or shortening a landing gear leg to make a model "stand straight!" If it's not too obvious, it will fool the judges' eye. But overdone it is easily spotted. Of course, I would NEVER do anything so sleazy LOL. Yes, I would l like to see your device in use. Perhaps in Chattanooga. Rusty, Relax! We are all just having a little harmless fun. No need to summon the Forum police! Nick

I see what you are saying with respect to the alignment of the LANDING GEAR. But your last post seems to assume that a misaligned landing gear is the only reason for a misaligned model. It is a very common reason but not the only one. Just as common is the builder who simply glued the wings or elevators on at incorrect or unequal angles such that one is higher or lower than the horizontal plane if the parts have no dihedral or the dihedral (when called for) is unequal. The landing gear could be "true" to each wing and/ or the fuselage and of equal length but the flying surface tips will not be the same distance off the table. An engine cowling glued on with a droop will also not be corrected by proper symmetric installation of landing gear. Are you able to rest the bottom of the instrument on the table to do the manouvers you describe? If not, ( and your use of the word "visually" suggests that you cannot) then you are assuming that your perception of the horizontal when it is held in your hand in mid-air is always really horizontal and therefore the vertical line and everything parallel to it is also really "plumb." Any and all cases of misalignment will quickly and accurately and objectively be identified with the hem measurer with no opportunity for the eye to be fooled. The CAUSE for the misalignment, as I said, is frequently irrelevant. I might add that I keep a hem measurer on my bench and employ it regularly as I assemble my models. It has kept me out of trouble on many occasions! Regards, Nick

I do not know if you understand how a hem measurer works when assessing alignment or even if you understand what most judges mean by proper alignment. By setting the bottom of the hem measurer on the surface of the table adjacent to whatever structure on the airframe you are examining ( usually wing tips and horizontal elevator tips but occasionally underwing stores or propellor spinners), adjusting the cursor to the height of that structure and then moving it to the other side, those structures are either at the same height or they are not! If the heights are equal, those structures and the model are considered to be aligned. If not, they are considered not aligned. WHY they are not aligned is unimportant in judging ( except perhaps when many entries are misaligned and one is trying to decide whose error is less egregious ) although it is usually easy enough to spot the cause once one has been " tipped off" as it were by the hem measurer. I am not sure how your aircraft plotter works but if you are holding it up in mid-air and not resting it on a level surface, it is affected by slight movement by the holder and his or her subjective idea of what is horizontal. Also, without some type of gradation marks for vertical height, even if resting on a level surface, I cannot see how height can be assessed other than by " eyeballing it." In my experience as I pointed out above, that is not a reliable technique. Your plotter is also limited by its fixed width in the horizontal plane. Since models vary greatly in span, unless vertical gradations, even if they were there on the plotter, are exactly apart the same distance as the structures being compared, one still would have to guess to some extent that the heights off the table are the same. For judging purposes, the hem measurer does not even need any gradations or units of measure. The cursor either hits the structures on each side at the same spot ( aligned) or it does not ( out of alignment.) Nick

We should never forget the publicity value of the demonstration teams in our air services as well as those of other nations. Throughout military aviation history, such units have promoted recruitment and have let the taxpayer see what he or she is getting for their money- and encourages them to give more. This usually means rolling out the latest equipment. Washington certainly has a lot worse ways to spend our money! Nick

It is not a micrometer that careful, competent and scrupulously objective judges use to assess alignment. (A micrometer is used to measure the thickness of an item.) Rather, most of us use a hem measurer to, as always, compare one model to another. Such a measurement should not nor would not disqualify a model on that basis alone in the hands of a conscientious IPMS judge. It would permit he or she to decide which models achieved the best alignment AS ONE OF THE SEVERAL CRITERIA that the IPMS Judge's Handbook mandates that we use to evaluate entries. As the hem measurer is brutally objective, it also helps to put the lie to the opinions of those less than careful judges who stand ten feet back from table and swear that a model is out of alignment. A quick application of the hem measurer will prevent this modeler's entry from being unfairly eliminated from competition by sloppy, lazy judges. The hem measurer is an excellent way to make rapid and very accurate assssments of alignment. As usual, if mistakes are being made in its application, don't blame the tool. Blame the workman! Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

MY experience with IPMS "haters" who criticize the importance we place on craftsmanship is that they are modelers who are sorely lacking in craftsmanship themselves. They cannot win a contest so those who can put too much emphasis on craftsmanship. Building a model without trying to do a good job is like playing golf with no particular concern whether the ball ever gets in the cup. Since I joined IPMS in 1964, I have had to listen to the likes of AMSO criticize this venerable organization and its 1/2 century endeavour to raise plastic modelling from the low regard in which it was held ( remember when the wood modelers thought that WE were the ones lacking in craftsmanship?) to the level of excellence it now enjoys. I have long since run out of patience with modelers jealous of what IPMS members have achieved individually and collectively through hard work and a demand for excellence to make plastic modelling every bit as sophisticated and respectable as hand carved balsa and basswood modelling. This was always one of our earliest goals. Hence, I will eschew any semblance of modelling "political correctness!" I will not take back what I said above nor will I apologize for it. As long as such people as AMSO members keep their comments to themselves, I will forbear to criticize them. But once they start the childish nonsense such as was reported above, then they better be prepared to knock the chip off my shoulder that I unashamedly wear for IPMS. Nick Filippone, IPMS #969 and proud enough of it to stick up for it!

My intentionally tongue in cheek remarks were less for your benefit and more for that of the other veterans of this Forum who will easily recall how many times the OOB category debate - ad nauseam- has been beaten to death over the years. I meant no offense. If your post does not ignite yet another discussion whose repetitiveness will be exceeded only by the ennui it will engender in those of us who have suffered through it so many times before, I will be simultaneously very surprised and overflowing with Christmas Joy. Nick " I've heard it all a million times before" (apologies to Petula Clark) Filippone.

Two thoughts:(1) I have been judging at the Nationals and every level below for over 25 years. I have NEVER looked at the instructions except to see if they were there if that contest's rules required them to be. I trust my fellow modelers. There are very few cheats. And anyone who does feel the need to cheat is such a poor modeler to begin with that he or she is never in the running anyway. (2) PLEASE, at this festive time of the year, don't open this can of worms again. Happy Holidays. Regards, Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

Lousy modelers need an organization to help them rationalize their lousy results! l

To me, this is the great roadblock, at least for now, to 3D printers as practical modelling tools. The creation of the program to make the part requires learning to use CAD. If one already has substantial computer skills, perhaps this would be quick and easy. But for the rest of us, time taken to learn such skills is time that could be spent modelling. My idea of the ideal 3D printer is one that scans a part and copies it. Such devices exist, but must be still more expensive. Another alternative, I suppose, is to give someone with CAD skills the part or specifications and let them create the program- if that is even the correct term. There are companies on the Internet that will do such work and make the parts, but they will expect to be paid. I admit that I get jazzed every time a Micromark catalog arrives with a 3D printer for sale. But they are expensive and I do not have the skills to program it nor the time to acquire them. Even if you paid someone to make the 3D parts for you, it would be a long time before you have spent more than the cost of the printer. I think the time will come when all these issues will be worked out in a much more cost friendly way for we modelers. However, is this really modelling? Assembling parts by hand or creating parts or molds for parts with handheld tools that carve and shape and refine is what modelling has historically always been. With 3D printers "some machine will be doing that for you." (Apologies to Zager and Evans.) There is a particular satisfaction in taking a block of balsa or styrene and liberating a fuselage or a hull or a canopy mold from it! Good luck. Regards, Nick Filippone