News:


  • March 29, 2024, 07:33:16 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: ARF ???  (Read 5159 times)

Offline B Norton

  • B-NO
  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 111
ARF ???
« on: August 23, 2016, 02:56:12 PM »
OK after sitting here looking @ my new cardinal and knowing all the upgrades and changes I made. What is the official definition of a ARF? I know what some say but it changes from person to person and region to region.Just thought I get some sort of general consensus . I would like to here the opinion of every body from beginner to experts and if this has been covered before sorry.

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2016, 03:09:45 PM »
From what I understand, it's ok to use one major component, be it wing or fuselage, but if it's the wing, the BC has to be installed by the owner/flyer. As suspect as the ARF/ARC control systems are, that's a real good idea, IF they are done correctly with good hardware. I have no idea where this rule is written down. Maybe somebody else knows?   :P Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline Mark Scarborough

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5918
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2016, 04:50:42 PM »
the reality is, it only matters if number one, you fly at the NATS where BOM is enforced
and number two if your contest awards appearance points , if you did not build it, you dont get points..

that said, there are some contests that award something like 0-10 for ARC adn 10-20 for BOM,, ( not sure, this is just what I recall)

so as I think Brett has said,, when you go to bed at night can you say in good conciense that you built the airplane? if you can say that, then you built it,,
For years the rat race had me going around in circles, Now I do it for fun!
EXILED IN PULLMAN WA
AMA 842137

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2016, 05:07:24 PM »
Steve's definition applies to Open and Advanced at the NATs. If you build one of the major components, either fues or wing, and apply finish, you are the builder of the model. If you build the fues and buy the wing, it is also necessary for you to install controls.

This definition is a recent clarification of BOM criteria.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
ARF ???
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2016, 05:12:15 PM »
In the past many Open models and Advanced models at the NATS used wings built by someone other than the competitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2016, 05:50:50 PM »
In the past many Open models and Advanced models at the NATS used wings built by someone other than the competitor.

    Which was legal at the time, and legal now (specifically called out).

    Dennis and his cohorts have been using this "but someone used a Bobby Hunt wing!!!!!" for the last 10-15 years to incorrectly claim that "everybody was cheating" as a way to argue against BOM. It was never illegal. MOST of the arguing about BOM has been about such strawman claims.

     Brett

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2016, 05:51:19 PM »
The rules do spell it out.  Basically, though, if you started with a big box from Brodak that said "ARF" on it, then you'll have a stiff uphill battle to convince anyone it's not an ARF.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
ARF ???
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2016, 06:10:51 PM »
Brett I never said Bob Hunt wing on these forums. What is the matter with you Brett. I have no cohorts. My opinions and observations are my own. I support BOM criteria. Everyone is cheating? I never said that. I know better.

When I built my own plane and flew it at the NATs in Advanced it was judged for appearance. When I flew a plane someone else built I said so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2016, 06:17:38 PM »
A model with a professionally built wing, tail feathers and flaps, can qualify as a BOM model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Clint Ormosen

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2628
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2016, 06:43:19 PM »
A model with a professionally built wing, tail feathers and flaps, can qualify as a BOM model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it can, and that's some BS.
-Clint-

AMA 559593
Finding new and innovated ways to screw up the pattern since 1993

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12804
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2016, 06:50:28 PM »
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2016, 07:27:26 PM »
Brett I never said Bob Hunt wing on these forums. What is the matter with you Brett. I have no cohorts. My opinions and observations are my own. I support BOM criteria. Everyone is cheating? I never said that. I know better.

   And now you try to deny the basic facts to deflect the criticism. This has been going on for more than a decade.

     Brett

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2016, 07:32:15 PM »
A model with a professionally built wing, tail feathers and flaps, can qualify as a BOM model.

   Not any more. That was part of the rule change. ONE item can be professionally built, the others cannot. This closes the loophole from the 2005 NATs and definitively excludes ARFs and ARCs. And before you get on this track - Orestes did in fact satisfy Warren that he "built" his wings, tail, etc, and was therefore compliant both before and after.

   Anything else?

    Brett

Offline Mike Griffin

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2755
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2016, 07:32:50 PM »
I have a question and I do not mean to be flippant or ignite another flaming feud about this BOM stuff but if you are going to have a BOM rule at the NATS (from what I can gather this is the only contest that it is a factor) why don't you just say that every piece  of the model a contestant is going to fly had to be assembled by that contestant.  No part of that airplane could be prebuilt by any other person. The airplane could be built from scratch or from a kit but no third party pre built components can be use in the construction of the model.  Wouldn't that eliminate all this debate?  Or is what I am suggesting just too simple?

Thank you

Mike

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2016, 07:33:22 PM »
Yes it can, and that's some BS.

  Actually, that is explicitly excluded as of the last rules cycle.

     Brett

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
ARF ???
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2016, 07:39:00 PM »
Flaps and tail surfaces are not major components. Competitor can qualify as BOM if those components are built by someone other than the person flying the plane. This is a clarification that was made when the rule was adopted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2016, 07:42:22 PM »
This is the clarification of Eric Vignola (sp) addendum.  Was that changed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2016, 07:44:02 PM »
In any case, wouldn't flaps be considered part of the wing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2016, 07:51:52 PM »
Clint is apparently under the same impression I am.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Clint Ormosen

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2628
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2016, 07:59:20 PM »
Clint is apparently under the same impression I am.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I read the new rules, I see where someone could skirt the intent and do exactly as you mentioned. However, I'm not in favor of doing that. I support the BOM. You don't.
-Clint-

AMA 559593
Finding new and innovated ways to screw up the pattern since 1993

Offline Clint Ormosen

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2628
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2016, 08:04:47 PM »
I have a question and I do not mean to be flippant or ignite another flaming feud about this BOM stuff but if you are going to have a BOM rule at the NATS (from what I can gather this is the only contest that it is a factor) why don't you just say that every piece  of the model a contestant is going to fly had to be assembled by that contestant.  No part of that airplane could be prebuilt by any other person. The airplane could be built from scratch or from a kit but no third party pre built components can be use in the construction of the model.  Wouldn't that eliminate all this debate?  Or is what I am suggesting just too simple?

Thank you

Mike

Oh Mike Mike Mike. I wish it was just that simple. Problem is there are just too many gray areas. With new materials being used such a carbon wings and fuselages, where is the line between you built it or someone else did it. This just goes on and on and on .....
-Clint-

AMA 559593
Finding new and innovated ways to screw up the pattern since 1993

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
ARF ???
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2016, 08:42:36 PM »
Really. I don't support BOM. Who the heck are you. Clint. Look at the rules section some time. Not only do I support BOM I support the inclusion of points awarded for originality of design.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Mike Griffin

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2755
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2016, 08:42:59 PM »
"sigh"   Clint I guess you are right... why cant anything just be simple?    

Mike

Offline Clint Ormosen

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2628
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2016, 09:20:12 PM »
Really. I don't support BOM. Who the heck are you. Clint. Look at the rules section some time. Not only do I support BOM I support the inclusion of points awarded for originality of design.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, my mistake. I must have been misreading your posts for the last decade. Sorry.
-Clint-

AMA 559593
Finding new and innovated ways to screw up the pattern since 1993

Offline Clint Ormosen

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2628
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2016, 09:21:23 PM »
"sigh"   Clint I guess you are right... why cant anything just be simple?    

Mike

I wish I knew, Mike. Seems like such a simple concept, doesn't it? 
-Clint-

AMA 559593
Finding new and innovated ways to screw up the pattern since 1993

Offline Target

  • C/L Addict
  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1692
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2016, 09:46:41 PM »
What would be a reason for NOT having every part built by the pilot that will be flying the plane?
I cannot think of a good one, really, and that would eliminate the ambiguity, wouldn't it??
Regards,
Chris
AMA 5956

Offline Mike Griffin

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2755
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2016, 09:51:33 PM »
It does to me Clint but obviously it isn't .  All my planes are built by me with my construction.  Well, I didn't grow and harvest the balsa but other than that..... **)

Offline Clint Ormosen

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2628
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2016, 10:11:17 PM »
It does to me Clint but obviously it isn't .  All my planes are built by me with my construction.  Well, I didn't grow and harvest the balsa but other than that..... **)

...and that's where it starts.
"You didn't grow your own balsa or machine your own engine, so technically you didn't build the whole thing. So I should be able to use this completed airframe."

Good grief.
-Clint-

AMA 559593
Finding new and innovated ways to screw up the pattern since 1993

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2016, 10:27:00 PM »
Ehh. Clint. I'm in favor of BOM. Have always stated that. Apparently you misread or misinterpret my pov. Or perhaps you're satisfied to affiliate and not read and understand for yourself.

I'm in favor of the following. Build what you fly. Give credit to original designs. No ARFS, ARCS, or major components built by someone else. If you do otherwise: 1. No appearance points in Advanced. 2. Disqualified from competing in Open or Expert. Originally, something like the previous understanding was the rule. Complexity happened later.

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
ARF ???
« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2016, 10:57:55 PM »
Perhaps Clint your are misled by folks who protest great support for BOM while overlooking the compromised approaches of some as they excoriate and demonize similar approaches of others.

Offline B Norton

  • B-NO
  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 111
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2016, 11:07:18 PM »
From what i'm hearing if you build one of the major components than your the builder? Oh but have to place the bell crank in yourself(gees how confusing!)when you go to a flying contest why don't you just fly for a score and not worry about BOM. Then have different comp.for appearance.Just because your a great builder doesn't mean you can fly and vice -verse some of the rules we deal with are from a great tradition but could be changed to help continue a great hobby by bringing in new competitor. JMO and we are making way to tough. HB~>

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
ARF ???
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2016, 11:16:40 PM »
One real issue is building skills. It's truly difficult to scratch build a straight, aligned, light, all out competition stunter that looks good enough to earn 17 appearance points. It's hard for everybody. I believe this is even true for many who compete at the highest levels. I imagine this is why we often see top 20 fliers compete year after year, flying the same plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Clint Ormosen

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2628
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2016, 11:22:42 PM »
Ehh. Clint. I'm in favor of BOM. Have always stated that. Apparently you misread or misinterpret my pov. Or perhaps you're satisfied to affiliate and not read and understand for yourself.

I'm in favor of the following. Build what you fly. Give credit to original designs. No ARFS, ARCS, or major components built by someone else. If you do otherwise: 1. No appearance points in Advanced. 2. Disqualified from competing in Open or Expert. Originally, something like the previous understanding was the rule. Complexity happened later.

Then we generally agree on things to do with BOM. My apologies.
-Clint-

AMA 559593
Finding new and innovated ways to screw up the pattern since 1993

Offline Dennis Moritz

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2464
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2016, 11:37:25 PM »
No problem, Clint. Thanks for the apology. It's appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2016, 07:29:30 AM »
I'd bet that the reason you see Top 20 guys fly the same plane for years and years is that sometimes they want to save their take-apart version for a WC trip. Locally, we call them "come-apart", because we've seen various failures from multiple builders. Sometimes you need to use the come-apart and sometimes you play it safe with the 1-piece plane. If you don't need the come-apart features for airline travel, why put the wear & tear on it? There are also those who just don't believe a come-apart flies as well, especially when the weather gets bad. There are also some advantages to come-apart planes (being able to replace a few damaged parts or salvage good parts). It's also possible that we don't see their plane and realize that it is actually a come-apart model. Those pesky panel lines can camoflage a lot.   

Those guys build their plane expecting it to withstand 4,000 flights, and seldom crash due to equipment failures or pilot error, so they have the opportunity to just do a bit of hangar rash fixing and fly the same old dog...the one they have the most confidence in.  y1 Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline john e. holliday

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22752
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2016, 11:13:15 AM »
At one time ARF meant,  ALMOST READY TO FLY.  Supposedly a couple of hours or less to assemble the parts as you hook up the controls.   No finishing.   Install engine and tank, then go fly.    Some people their drawers or undies in a wad because some one has enough money to buy a plane that just needs assembling, then hook up lines, fill the fuel tank, start engine or motor and fly.   A few companies came out with plane kits that met the criteria of an ARF.  Then a few people complained that did not warrant appearance points in which I agree.  So then came the ARC(almost ready to cover).   Just saved the people that made the kits the job of covering them.  The BOM(build own model) has been abused since competition started with model planes.   I guess I am one of those that did not make my son build all the planes we competed with.  Even with prebuilt planes it takes practice and trimming to get competitive.  My son can build planes and set them up.  But, like me he hates finishing worse than I do. 

So, I have yet to see some one take an ARF/ARC and assemble and win with it without a lot of practice and trimming if the plane lasted long enough.  A lot of work goes into an ARF/ARC to make it so it will last long enough to be competitive.    VD~
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline B Norton

  • B-NO
  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 111
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2016, 01:56:10 PM »
Ok I agree that ARFs do not warrant appearance points, but but because someone has time or a talent to build they get extra points for flying.So people that don't have the time or a talent to build are going to be penalized @ "flying" contest. Shouldn't a" flying" contest be about flying and getting people flying?The more confusing you make it the less people are interested.

Offline Mark Scarborough

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5918
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2016, 02:44:22 PM »
Ok I agree that ARFs do not warrant appearance points, but but because someone has time or a talent to build they get extra points for flying.So people that don't have the time or a talent to build are going to be penalized @ "flying" contest. Shouldn't a" flying" contest be about flying and getting people flying?The more confusing you make it the less people are interested.

the problem is, it is not a flying contest, it is a building and flying contest .
Your perspective has been brought up in other classes as well, they eliminated BOM from them and the "expected " increase in participation did not happen.

the ONLY place that BOM matters is at the NATS and for appearance points. the few points difference I get by building my model compared to "you" with your ARF can easily be overcome by flying a little tiny bit better, so if you truly feel its a flying contest, then fly better,, and beat me,,

( personal references are just used for illustration, no finger pointing intended)
For years the rat race had me going around in circles, Now I do it for fun!
EXILED IN PULLMAN WA
AMA 842137

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9920
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2016, 05:55:47 PM »
Look at it as 1 point per (15) maneuver(s) and you'll see how (un)important appearance points are for the average Joe, flying in the average contest in his state. Shoowee, just not stepping on the judge's lines could make more difference than that!  ;) Steve 
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline Steve Thompson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 163
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2016, 05:58:35 PM »
ARFs to me are fine for sport flying or for use when learning and not wanting the discouragement of crashing and destroying all your work.  But building is the other half of the hobby.

I feel pride in what I built, even if it is a POS by other's standards.  It is my current best effort.  Hopefully you learn new tricks along the way and get better at building.  Every building "master" probably has previous planes that were not perfect.  But they continue to build better in search of the ultimate compliment, a 20 pointer! 

I am no master and mine are not perfect or even close.  But, they are MY work.  I just do not feel "connected" to something I did not build.  By the time you complete an airplane, you have really formed a relationship with your ship.  I like that.

An ARF is soulless and expendable, while my build is part of me.

My opinion:  There is a price for admission into the world of stunt.  That is learning to build.  To be a true Master, you have to be able to fly AND build.  The Masters I respect have learned to build, incorporated their ideas into their planes, and then laid down a solid performance with it.  That is the full experience to strive for.


Offline Mike Haverly

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
Re: ARF ???
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2016, 06:03:34 PM »
Mark is right, it isn't confusing and it is supposed to be hard, or everyone could do it.  Unless you plan on competing at the highest level take your ARF to a contest that will accept it and fly.  As far as I know, all of the contests here on the west coast will allow ARF's or OPA's, you just don't get appearance points.  Or, just build an airplane the best you can and get the points allowed.  ARF'S are allowed in profile events with no penalty at all.

The original post asked what an ARF is.  By the simplest definition, if you didn't build it and it is almost complete, it is "Almost Ready to Fly."  Simple.

This horse is so dead it hurts to kick it.
Mike


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here