Why was it moved? An aircraft question

[PeteJ 144]

 

 

First of all, let me say that I am only seeking an answer.  I tried to talk to the judge at the contest without success and I have sent an email to the head aircraft judge and have had no response. 

Here is the question.  I entered the aircraft below in the category 175 - In Fight and it was moved to category 820 - hypothetical.  Now I understand that it would fit both categories but most of the effort in this went into making it an in flight display.  Cutting a model in half and mounting it to a mirrored surface took far more effort and skill than the decal application, although  the decals were no walk in the park.  My general understanding if that a model could go in more then one category the modelers choice will be honored. 

I am not complaining about the judging because frankly I referred to it as a "3 foot" model.  Looks good from 3 feet away.  My fault.  I spent a lot of time engineering the mount and display and was rushed with the finish.  

I want to know why it was determined that this was more hypothetical than in flight.  I intend to do this technique again when I have time to build  the aircraft to a higher standard.  I just don't want it kicked out of In Flight because I missed something in the rules. 

For those not familiar with the catagory, here is pargraph II-10 from the contest rules:

10. In-Flight Aircraft. Generally, Aircraft models in an “in-flight, gear-up” condition mounted on stands will be entered in this new category. The model must depict a retractable-landing-gear prototype, modeled with the landing gear fully retracted. Models of fixed-gear prototypes or aircraft with fully or partially extended landing gear displayed on stands will be placed in the appropriate regular Aircraft categories, as will seaplanes displayed on stands, unless the depicted prototype has retractable landing gear modeled in the gear-up position. Spinning props and jet exhaust emissions may be simulated, but are not required. Similarly, crew figures are optional. This is not an “in-flight diorama” category; models will be judged solely as individual aircraft. Note that aircraft models on stands fitting the 1/144 scale definition are to be entered in the appropriate 1/144 regular or OOB categories.

[Nick Filippone 60]

Generally speaking, once an aircraft is depicted in unauthentic markings, as this is, it does not qualify for ANY aircraft category. Since the F-35, as far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, is not being operated by the Thunderbirds, and therefore has never been marked as you have marked it, it becomes a hypothetical entry by definition. And, no, generally, this is not left to the discretion of the entrant. Much time is spent by the Aircraft Class judging team, prior to the actual judging, in scouring the aircraft categories, to relocate entries mis- located by the modeler. We almost never consult the builder to adjudicate this. This entry, while clever and quite dramatic and skillful in its execution, as marked, does not depict a real aircraft. Moving it to hypothetical is the correct call. I hope this helps to clear up this admittedly sometimes subtle "point of law." Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge.

[ghodges 457]

Nick is exactly correct!

That said, I totally disagree with this IPMSUSA rule. IPMS "prides" itself on not making "accuracy" a judging criteria and yet decides that ACCURATE markings are a requirement for the regular categories!

I find this a bit odd, since we judge on the basics, and you can judge hypothetical markings EXACTLY the same way as accurate markings are judged. So why separate them out? Simply make "accurate" and "hypothetical" markings a tie-breaker. If a model in hypothetical markings is better built than every other model in a category; so what? Aren't we supposed to be rewarding craftsmanship?

 

GIL

[PeteJ 144]

Probably arguing a fine point here as to unauthentic.  Do the Thunderbirds operate the F-35? No, not yet, but the attached image is from the Lockheed Martin web site and the decals were derived from this and other similar images published on their web site so a case could be made that this is official release of this color scheme.  

Edited September 10, 2018 by PeteJ

[Nick Filippone 60]

While this may be the official release of the "proposed" scheme, since it has yet to be applied to an actual F-35, it is thus hypothetical.

All category designations could be argued as arbitrary. The goal has always been, in so far as practical, to group "like with like." A realistic scheme or configuration, it might be said, should not be in a category with something that isn't real. It would be impossible to decide if something on the unreal was wrong or simply, well, unreal. While we do not judge just on basics, they are much of the beginning of making early "cuts." But gross errors such as a pink B-17 would not be abided, regardless of how well the basics were executed. Why should an excellent real model knock out an excellent hypothetical model simply because the hypothetical builder has a more creative mind and a more vivid imagination? It shouldn't. So let him or her compete against other creative minds and and vivid imaginations. Nick 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeteJ 144]

18 hours ago, Nick Filippone said:

While this may be the official release of the "proposed" scheme, since it has yet to be applied to an actual F-35, it is thus hypothetical.

All category designations could be argued as arbitrary. The goal has always been, in so far as practical, to group "like with like." A realistic scheme or configuration, it might be said, should not be in a category with something that isn't real. It would be impossible to decide if something on the unreal was wrong or simply, well, unreal. While we do not judge just on basics, they are much of the beginning of making early "cuts." But gross errors such as a pink B-17 would not be abided, regardless of how well the basics were executed. Why should an excellent real model knock out an excellent hypothetical model simply because the hypothetical builder has a more creative mind and a more vivid imagination? It shouldn't. So let him or her compete against other creative minds and and vivid imaginations. Nick 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, got it.  That leaves one final question.  Had it been done in a standard USAF paint scheme,  would it have been left in "In Flight"?   I guess that comes down to what qualifies as a stand, right? 

[Nick Filippone 60]

I think that your F-35 in real markings would have been left there. The fact that you came up with a novel way to depict an aircraft in flight is does not, and in my opinion, matter. And, again, let me congratulate you on a creative and striking concept, very well executed. Nick

[PeteJ 144]

4 hours ago, Nick Filippone said:

I think that your F-35 in real markings would have been left there. The fact that you came up with a novel way to depict an aircraft in flight is does not, and in my opinion, matter. And, again, let me congratulate you on a creative and striking concept, very well executed. Nick

Thank you for your explanations.  It was most instructive and thanks for the positive comments. 

[Highlander 38]

On 9/10/2018 at 6:57 PM, Nick Filippone said:

All category designations could be argued as arbitrary

No kidding.  While most are crystal clear, some can get quite convoluted ... and arbitrary.  While judging at the last Nats, we had several discussions which boiled down to, "Why was that entry moved?  And why wasn't that one?"  With no real consensus.

[johneaton 4]

As a taxpayer, I will be royally ticked off if any demonstration team uses an airplane as expensive to buy and operate as the F-35.  I'm hoping for retired F-15's in that role!

[PeteJ 144]

14 minutes ago, johneaton said:

As a taxpayer, I will be royally ticked off if any demonstration team uses an airplane as expensive to buy and operate as the F-35.  I'm hoping for retired F-15's in that role!

The interesting thing about discussing cost of military aircraft is that the development cost is always included in that discussion which really distorts the figures.  When you talk about the F-35 they say it is 90 million per aircraft.  The F-15 by comparison was 27 million.  That was in 1972 dollars and for about 1300 aircraft.  The F-35 is in current dollars and is for 1,800 aircraft.  If there is a world wide demand for the aircraft that cost will go down even further.  The latest contract dropped the cost by 5%.  Out of 1,800 aircraft to spare 7 for the Thunderbirds hardly seems but a drop in the bucket. 

I can also see the Blue Angels going that route also.  The last time both teams flew the same aircraft was the F-4.  Also, it is not as if the aircraft are purpose built for the teams.  Airframes circulate through the teams on a regular basis and are returned to full combat duty when they are done.  The demonstration teams only have them on loan. 

Incidentally, the teams have had a requirement since they converted to the F-16 that the aircraft can be converted to combat ready within 48 hours.  Google "Thunderbird F-16 Warbird" to see one actually meet that standard.  Interesting story. 

[Nick Filippone 60]

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