BRITISH MODEL FLYING ASSOCIATION
SCALE JUDGES GUIDES
FREE FLIGHT - CONTROL LINE - RADIO CONTROL
ISSUE 2
Effective March 2014
INTRODUCTION
These Judges Guides aremanaged solely by the BMFA Scale Technical Committee (STC), they are not restricted to amendment or change on an annual basis and will be readily available to Judges and Competitors on the scale website.
It is hoped that these guides will be enhanced with input from active judges and competitors so that they reflect the knowledge and experience that exists within the scale fraternity. This will offer the greatest benefit to the less experienced and at the same time improve judging standards.
Judges, prospective judges and competitors are invited to forward any suggestions and proposals for improvement of these guides, preferably by e-mail to or toany member of the Scale Technical Committee.
In the UK we are fortunate that the ‘turnover’ of judges is low, however the Scale Technical Committee is conscious of the need to recruit more judges. Any person with experience of scale model aircraft who is considering becoming a Scale Judge is invited to contact the Scale Technical Committee.
STATIC JUDGES
Static Judges must have a good ‘eye’ for detail and because the model must be assessed solely on the documentation submitted by the competitor, they must disregard any prior or special knowledge of the prototype.
Static Judges need to have a good understanding and preferably practical experience of the skills, materials and processes involved in the construction and finishing of scale model aircraft.
FLIGHT JUDGES
Scale Flight Judges must have a good general knowledge of full size aeroplanes and how they fly. Flight judges must also have sufficient depth and breadth of understanding of the performance and limitations applicable to the different categories of full size aeroplanes depending upon their design requirements and genre.
Because judges will inevitably be asked to judge a model of a prototype they will have little or no knowledge of, they will inevitably have to make some assumptions regarding its performance in order to be able to make a comparison between the full size and the model. To minimise this risk, Flight Judges are encouraged to not only attend full size airshows and study historic film in order to refresh and expand their knowledge, but also to do their ‘homework’ so to speak, when new models of less familiar prototypes appear.
SCALE JUDGES GUIDES
INDEX
1.Static Judges Guide for C/L, R/C & FF...... Page 4
2.Static Judges Guide for R/C Stand-Off Scale ...... Page 11
3.Flight Judges Guide for Scale C/L...... Page 13
4.Flight Judges Guide for Scale R/C ...... Page 15
5.Flight Judges Guide for Scale F/F ...... Page 19
6.Judges Guide for Peanut and PistachioScale...... Page 21
7.Judges Guide for Indoor Kit Scale...... Page 23
1.STATICJUDGES GUIDE
Applicable to the following classes:
SCALE R/C (F4C)
SCALE INDOOR R/C
SCALE CONTROL LINE
SCALE FREE FLIGHT CLASSES - EXCLUDING PEANUT, PISTACHIO & KIT SCALE
Relevant Rules - BMFA Rule Book - Section 6.1.2
1.1General
Before any static judging commences the judges should make a general survey of as many as possible of the models entered in the competition in order to establish a standard for the complexity aspects. The entries should be studied in relationship to each other from a superficial aspect only.
The static evaluation is broken down in accordance with rule 6.1.2.4 andeach item is marked out of 10 in increments of 0.1 of a mark. Judges must work as a team and attempt to reach agreement on the marks to be awarded for each item. Although each judge retains the right to differ, any degree of difference should be minimal.
Regardless of the actual marks awarded, it is imperative that an accurate and fair comparison is attained across the whole range of models entered. The relative mark of one model compared to another is the most important standard to be achieved. Judges are encouraged to make use of analysis sheets and electronic or other archive devices to achieve this comparison.
If the model aircraft has completed a scoring flight before being static judged in the same competition any damage sustained during that flight shall be ignored by the static judges provided it is practical to do so and the model is intact.
Judging distances (from the centre of the model) are as prescribed in the following table, which is copied from rule 6.1.2.5.
SCALE CLASS / ITEMS 1 to 3 inc.Outline, Markings & Colour / ITEMS 4 to 6 inc.
Realism, Craftsmanship & Detail / REMARKS
Control Line / 3 metres / No Restriction
R/C (FAI Class F4C) / 5 metres / No Restriction
R/C Stand-Off / n/a / n/a / All at 5 metres
R/C Indoor / 1.5 metres / 0.5 metres
Outdoor FF (I/C power) / 2 metres / 0.5 metres
Outdoor FF (Rubber) / 2 metres / 0.5 metres
Outdoor FF (CO2 or Electric ) / 2 metres / 0.5 metres
Indoor FF (Rubber) / 1.5 metres / 0.5 metres
Indoor FF (CO2 or Electric) / 1.5 metres / 0.5 metres
Peanut / n/a / n/a / No restriction
Pistachio / n/a / n/a / No restriction
Indoor Kit Scale / n/a / n/a / No restriction
The competitor or his helper must be available throughout the judging process to position the model as directed by the judges. Depending upon the size of the model and if necessary additional handlers should also be available.
No measurements are to be taken and the models should not be handled by the judges.
1.2Quality of Documentation
The model must be judged by comparison with the documentation presented and judges should award marks solely on this evidence. Judges must also take into account the quality and clarity of the documentation submittedwhich must be reflected in the marks that the judges award. An accurately constructed and finished model conforming to well presented and clear documentation deserves good marks. Judges must ensure that a competitor does not benefit by default when the documentation is incomplete or of poor quality.
The rules for presentation of documentation are stated in rule 6.1.2.3 and the penalties for not providing these statutory minimum requirements must be enforced. However unless it is of the highest quality, this minimum documentation is unlikely to provide the best evidence for most aspects of static judging.Rule 6.1.2.3 also provides advice on how the documentation should be presented and good presentation should be rewarded, but there is more to ‘quality of documentation’than how it is presented.
1.3Photographs.
Photographs are the prime means of determining the scale accuracy and realism of the model relative to the full size aircraft and must always take precedence over drawings if there is any doubt when judging scale accuracy.
Photographs should be sharp and with good depth of focus and when submitted as evidence of outline accuracy, they must show the complete aircraft. Equally importantly they should not show any proximity related distortion from being taken too close to the subject or perspective distortion resulting from the use of a wide angle lens. (Note: it is hoped to include some examples of this at a later date)
Photographs showing the complete aircraft should also be of a reasonable size and not smaller than A5. Photographs of scale details may be smaller but the location of the detail on the aircraft must be clearly marked.
With the ready availability of computerised photo editing software (e.g. Photoshop), Judges should be on their guard in order to spot photographs of the full size aircraft which have been edited to hide errors and also photographs of the model which have been edited to make the model appear to be the full size.
1.4Scale Drawings.
The specification for drawings is defined in rule 6.1.2.2(b), but line thickness should ideally be no greater than 0.5mm. Drawings showing thick outlines have usually been photographically enlarged from a small image and will be of dubious accuracy. Judges should seek to verify the origin of the drawings and be particularly aware that being labelled an Aircraft Manufacturer’s GA drawing is no guarantee of accuracy.
If a 3-view drawing has been divided in order to show each view of the model with the associated photographs on the same card, Judges must ensure that unless each view has been certified the original three-view should be available as proof of certification.
1.5Proof of Colour.
It is essential that if high marks are to be awarded, a comprehensive standard of colour documentation must be presented
Correct colour may be established from colour photographs; from published descriptions if accompanied by colour chips certified by competent authority; from samples of original paint; or from accepted published colour drawings.
Colour photographs can be reproduced in virtually any shade and the ambient light conditions (colour temperature and polarization) prevailing when the photographs were taken may not be the same as when the model is judged. E.g. photographs taken of the prototype illuminated with artificial light are not reliable proof of colour when the model is judged outdoors.
The optimum photographic proof of colour has to be a good quality photograph of the model and the full size aircraft together preferably taken outdoors or illuminated with the same balanced lighting, which will ensure that any errors introduced by the photo reproduction process will be the same for the model and the full size.
Published colour chips and charts are acceptable when identified in a published written description, but judges should be suspicious when colour patches painted by the competitor are accompanied by a letter authorising authenticity, unless the patches themselves are identified and authorised by a competent authority.
When the model is painted with the same paint used for the full size aircraft, the proof including batch details must be accompanied by certification from the owner of the full size aircraft. This in itself is no guarantee of colour accuracy even when the paint is from the same tin as used on the full size, because the finished colour is often influenced by what it is applied to and the surface material and preparation under the topcoat.
Proof of colour must also indicate whether the finish is matt or gloss.
1.6Proof of Markings
The markings on an aeroplane identify that particular aeroplane from another of the same type (unless of course only one was built). All too often whilst excellent photographs are provided for the aeroplane type, only one photograph shows the subject aeroplane and judges must not make assumptions that the markings are the same on each side of the aeroplane. Comprehensive evidence of wing markings, both upper and lower can be difficult to obtain and whilst photographs of a similar aeroplane may be available, judges should only award high marks if the documentation provides evidence of all the markings
1.7Outline Accuracy
The model should first be positioned in a pose similar to that in the best photograph and checked for any obvious discrepancies. Photographs that are taken at an oblique angle can often give a false impression of dihedral and rigging angles and the drawings may provide a more accurate reference. This procedure is then repeated with other suitable photographs.
(a)Side view, this may be either left or right depending upon the most suitable photograph. A check should be made of the fuselage outline, cabin or canopy shape, cockpit aperture shape, engine cowling, propeller and spinner shape (if applicable), outline of fin and rudder, wing and tailplane sections. Also the shape, angle and position of landing gear legs and nose/tail wheel or skid, the size of wheels and tyres. If applicable a check should be made of wing stagger, wing gap and the shape and arrangement of struts and rigging wires. Particular attention should be given to the aerofoil section and any changes of section along the wing.
(b)Front-end view, for dihedral, wing thickness and taper, washout, wing struts, bracing and gap on multi-wing aircraft. Also the thickness of fin, rudder and tailplane, cross-sections of fuselage and engine cowling, cowling shape and cutouts, propeller size and blade shape (if applicable), shape of cockpit canopy or windshields; size, shape, position and angle of landing gear, wheel track, tyre thickness.
(c)Upper-plan view, for wing outline and fairings, aileron size, flaps; tailplane size and outline; elevator size, shape and cut outs, trim tabs, fuselage shape and taper, cockpit or canopy shape, engine cowling shape. It may be necessary to also examine the underside of the model if there are features of the outline which are not clearly visible in any other view.
The opportunity to check markings on the underside of the model can also be taken whilst checking the plan view.
Judges must carefully examine the Competitors Declaration in order to determine the extent to which any components not manufactured by the competitor have contributed towards the accuracy of outline. Unless it is obvious, or stated in the documentation, judges should elicit information from the competitor during static judging to determine the method ofconstruction. Particular attention must be paid to models whose overall outline is dependent upon the use of moulded major airframe components and precisely who is responsible for their accuracy. The onus of proof of the origin of such components lies with the competitor, and wherecommerciallyavailable parts have contributed towards the outline of the model,the marks for scale accuracy must be reduced accordingly.
1.9Markings Accuracy
Check that the position and size of all markings are correct; that the style and thickness of all letters and figures are correct; that any trim strips are of the correct dimensions and are correctly positioned. Check the layout of camouflage patterns.
Particular emphasis should be made to the relative positioning between markings and key features on the airframe as these often highlight errors in shape and outline and can be a good indication of scale accuracy. It cannot be assumed that the markings are the same on each side of the aeroplane and judges should only award high marks if the documentation provides evidence of all the markings.
1.10Markings Complexity
Prior to commencing the competition the judges should agree the principle for awarding complexity points in relation to markings. A high mark for complexity is not solely dependent upon the number of markings, but the difficulty in achieving the required effect. Complex lettering, particularly when spread over a large area or relating to key positions on the airframe, should attract a higher complexity mark than sparsely positioned markings of more simple design. Curved lines are usually more complex than straight lines. Camouflage patterns should be considered carefully, with the more complex styles involving irregular patterns and indistinct edges being rewarded accordingly. For high marks to be given in this section it is important that proof of markings is comprehensive.
1.11Colour Accuracy
Judges should ensure that when judging colour accuracy, the documentation must be examined under the same ambient light conditions (colour temperature and polarization), as the model i.e. avoid placing the judges chairs in the shade or close to anything where reflected light may not be the same as the light on the model. Judges should also avoid wearing tinted or polarizing glasses.
When the proof of colour is the same paint as the prototype, it is unsafe to assume that the finished colours will be the same. Unless painted in very dark colours the nature of the surface material and the surface preparation (primer/undercoat) will affect the finished topcoat.
Also check the colours used for markings, lettering and insignia including camouflage colour schemes and the correct degree of merging of the shades.
The glossiness should also be checked
1.12Colour Complexity
The system for awarding colour complexity points should be agreed before starting competitive judging. This should not be confined simply to the number of colours used, but also how they are distributed on the model i.e. the complexity of the boundary between colours and whether applied to flat or curved surfaces on fabric or solid surfaces etc. Camouflage patterns should be considered carefully, with the more complex styles involving irregular patterns and indistinct edges being rewarded accordingly.
Consideration should be given to the greater effort involved in reproducing multi-coloured finishes compared to models which feature only one or two basic colours. Up to two complexity points may be given for each main colour that covers a significant part of the airframe. A maximum of a single point may be given for each minor colour, such as those for the insignia, struts, guns, bombs etc. Basic colours of black and white should attract a fraction of a complexity point. It is again essential that if high marks are to be awarded, a comprehensive standard of colour documentation must be presented.
1.13Surface Texture
The texture and appearance of the surface of the model should be a good reproduction of that of the prototype.