It appears to me that this just passed.

CLA-09-10- The proposed change is to revise and simplify the Builder of the Model (BOM) requirements of the Control Line Precision Aerobatics event.




Sorry, I think I misinterpreted the AMA web site. Some rule they called CLA-09-0 did pass, I thought that was this rule proposal, but it must have been CLA-09-9--- then line thickness proposal. I wish AMA would fix their web site .

Sorry again. So maybe I'm not wasting my time recovering the Vector!
 

I probably will regret responding anymore than I have already done, but this particular BOM proposal did seem to be darn near un-enforceable--whether you would agree with it or not.

For example, what exactly is 51% of the effort? Is it a general measure of building a plane, or is it the actual work that goes into the plane. For example, I have no clue how much effort those poor Chinese girls have in making one of these ARFS. Maybe they put one together in a day. I can screw around for days agonizing over linkages or hinges!

On the other hand, who sits on top of the PA world and sets how much work it takes to make a wing or a fuse? And some guys can put out a plastic covering in a couple of days while others may take weeks (or more) to put paint. If painting is worth all the building, how does that fix the guys who get their planes painted in outside shops??

This just sounded like a proposal that would actually make things worse.

Fortunately it didn't get past the first stage.

But it is scary that these things are proposed by reasonable people (IMHO).

I don't really intend to start a BOM war, but if there is going to be a BOM rule change, make it at least enforceable with clear (if that is even possible) guidelines.

Hi Alan,

Not to worry, you did not strip your vector in vain. The rule proposal you mentioned did NOT pass. None of the BOM proposal's passed. The rule we have in our rule book will be with us for another 3 years. So making an ARC out of an ARF is still legal for FULL BOM, and FULL appearance points. 

As the new "FULL STUNT" planes, like the SV11 etc., become available next year in ARF form it is going to make it increasingly difficult on modelers who want to fly these wonderful modern stunt planes at contests. Removing professionally applied, quality covering and then having us armatures doing it all over again lacks any kind of intelligent logic. 

When I striped my 1st beautifully covered Vector to make it into an ARC my wife thought I was absolutely CRAZY. When I tried to explain the rules to her she said that was the most absurd explanation she ever heard, and she walked away shaking her head saying I was still crazy! 

Regards, 

IMAC crybaby! Build it from the plans, big boy. Then you will be a real Stunt flyer. Retired captains, Jees...

It's all up to the specific ED or CD now, Doc.
I asked paul Walker about the precovered UHP Nobler and he said it was legal if I stripped the covering off before I gave it to Michael to finish.
Chris...

Hi Rudy,
It'll interest you to know he is full R/C now. C/L models are "trapped on the lines".

I will be there in spirit through Sergiy and Igor, I am helping them a bit before they go to Clovis. We had fun today at Sepulveda.

Original Stunter!!! i knew you could do it. Electric I presume?

Hope to see you soon at the field.

Chris...