How many used ARC or ARF type models at the Nats?   I used a pretty much stock Strega ARC/Rojett76, and Joe Gilbert used a T-Rex dressed up as a P-47.  There were several of the ready to fly sharks that had different levels of paint on them.    Any others?

Hi Mike,

Do you know if the Sharks were the RTF in ALL white, then painted by the flyer? Or were they the very rare "kit" Sharks that need a lot of work to complete?

I wanted to order one of the ALL white RTF ones and paint it myself, but I was concerned that the extremely conservative CL world here in the SW would say NO, H@%& NO to that for APs. ;-)

    Orestes and Josias get the kits and assemble them. And no, you can't buy an RTF, paint it, and get appearance points, or fly for a national championship.

    Brett

Hi Doc,

Good point. If it comes to that I will shut down this thread.

I think Mike's heart is in the right place and he meant no harm. His is a very good question for this ARF/ARC section of the forum.

My post was out of line and I should have worded it more carefully. I will change it and apologize to the moderator. 

Mike,

I assume you meant to ask: how many pilots used "ARC" type models at the Nats.? ;-) That is an excellent question, I would like to know this too. It would be interesting to see how many store bought ARCs (Brodak, UHP, Sig, TF) were used and how many cottage industry ARC wings etc. were used. As Brett pointed out, the NATs is the only contest in the USA that does not allow ARFs to enter, in the Open class. I am sure all the Sharks you saw were the kit version.

Brett,

Thank you for the clarification. I am sorry I worded my post as I did, I did not mean any disrespect. I was only hopeful that they had relaxed the ruling a little. (I knew they did't, just wishful thinking on my part ;-) The reason for this hope is that Will Moore is working with the Yatsenko's to make electric powered Sharks and I have been helping them with the E system setup. Will flys a beautiful RTF wet Shark now and he loves it, but of course he wants one in electric. The combination of their beautiful  RTF and E power will be very popular in the rest of the world. We are realistic enough to know that they won't sell many in the USA.

Others,

I hope we can keep this thread on Mike's topic. Mike has a good question. I hope those that flew ARCs at the Nat's will give us more info. :-)

Thank you for the clarification. I am sorry I worded my post as I did, I did not mean any disrespect. I was only hopeful that they had relaxed the ruling a little. (I knew they did't, just wishful thinking on my part ;-) The reason for this hope is that Will Moore is working with the Yatsenko's to make electric powered Sharks and I have been helping them with the E system setup. Will flys a beautiful RTF wet Shark now and he loves it, but of course he wants one in electric. The combination of their beautiful  RTF and E power will be very popular in the rest of the world. We are realistic enough to know that they won't sell many in the USA.

     They should be able to sell all they want. The vast, vast majority of contest flights in the US occur were there is negligible impact on the score for flying an ARF/RTF for bordering on 40 years.

    People have been (intentionally and not) distorting the story on the "legality" of ARF/RTFs for years in an attempt to get rid of BOM so that a tiny few people can get a cheap and easy path to a National Championship, or more commonly, and easy way to make huge profits selling obscenely expensive models to people unwilling to meet the high standards that winning a National Championship places on an *individual*. The PAMPA survey on that topic was overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining the standards for the event.

     I am not personally offended, and you shouldn't need to apologize for your opinion.  And respect is not required, it's up to you. But the suggestion that we would allow RTFs or ARFs to fly in the Nats is, to me, intrinstically disrespectful. It means that the standards established and met by all the previous competitors/contenders/champions are pointless, meaningless, or otherwise not important (otherwise, why would we change them). I can think of nothing more disrespectful to the event than that. Once again, you are perfectly well entitled to your opinion and to express it in any way you want, and to try to convince others to agree. But as far as I am concerned (and I know I speak for many others) the entire idea is a slap in the face to the people who have managed to meet the current standards, and not just the winners, everybody.

    That's why this topic always causes a controversy - nearly all the long-time competitors want  the standards maintained, and people who don't participate or are only marginally involved, want to change all the rules on the speculation that it will be, somehow, "better".

     I think it's a sad thing that the so-called "rest of the world" (i.e. a few small (compared to the US) factions who manage to play the FAI rules process like a fiddle -and wait to you get a load of the way they ran the WC this time...) has chosen to lose a huge part of point of the event. It's not something I think we should emulate. I emphasized the word "individual" above on purpose. This seems to be the root of the issue. Non-BOM models, particularly RTFs, turn the event in a "team" activity instead of an individual activity. Even in the various groups (West Coast Conspiracy, Randy's group, Teh various Texas groups) who nominally share data and coaching, the pilot has to *build the airplane*, *paint the airplane*, *trim the airplane*, *power the airplane*, and *fly the airplane* themselves. Unless you do that, you don't (and in my opinion, shouldn't) claim that you are a "National Champion". It's the most challenging event there is, near as I can tell. Compare to the various "team approaches" in RC Pattern, for example. I like it to be the most challenging event, and that's the way ALL modeling events should be.  I won't nor do I feel any need to apologize for that, and apparently the vast majority agrees with me.

     Brett

     

Hi Mike,

I just heard today that an ARC plane placed 11th at the Nat's. I don't know if it was in Open or Advanced. I will try to get more details.

I'm glad you asked your question. It will be interesting to see how many were there this year. My guess is that with the four new hi quality, easily obtainable, modestly priced ARCs of very good competitive designs that  just came out, we will see more of them at next years Nat's, and at the hundreds of other enjoyable contests throughout the USA.

Joe Gilbert finished 17th, flying a modified T-Rex ARC. Hard to argue against the BOM legitimacy of an ARC, once the kitted prefabbed (label them what you will) Sharks were ruled compliant. The ULTRA Hobby Impact ARCs, as well as the Randy Smith SV11s are either currently available or will be available soon. Couldn't build these planes for the cost of the ARC. With all due respect competitors IMHO were nipping at the edge of BOM in years past by using prefabbed wings and other parts. That is an open secret. Having heard how so and so made a wing for so and so (even on the West Coast, shocking, shocking, shocking) from the manufacturer/supplier. Outlaw the molded fuses/wings/and so forth from the Sharks and you will have an argument against ARCs. Otherwise. Most of us have a passionate and subjective idea about justice that may or may not match up to rules and the interpretation of rules. In any case, events do evolve, building conventions change, available new technologies and manufacturing techniques can effect even our hidebound anachronism of a sport that flies a pattern of 14 maneuvers standardized and set in stone by George's chisel in the mid 1950s. Let's be clear. (As if it matters.) I am a fan of built up wings and a strict BOM interpretation. I'd rather see planes like that winning. I prefer to fly planes like that I've built as well as I can. But that is a SUBJECTIVE preference. The interpretation of the rules allow a different approach. I ALSO hate electric.

Brett's insistence that appearance points don't matter at the NATs is, of course, ridiculous. 1st to 4th place was separated by 9 points equivalent to 4.5 appearance points. The 6th finisher was .2 points behind the 5th finisher, equivalent to .1 appearance points. 5th, of course, flies for the championship whereas 6th tunes up the judges. I happened to pay attention to these results because a friend was in the horse race this year, finishing 8th. Dan Banjok was awarded 13 appearance points for his original design Vista, a design original in appearance, using his own aerodynamic (original to him) concepts. No borrowed (proven by someone else) moments, wing, airfoil etc. The Vista in it's present state was fairly judged. It had suffered a severe crash and cosmetic flaws are obvious. If Dan had received 17 or (perish the thought) 18 appearance points he would have been in a hairs breath of top 5.

As for my subjective take, I'd like to see a lot more originality in this sport, originality in design as well as appearance. Also, it seems to me, building efforts like our host the redoubtable Sparky who does it from the bottom up in wood and silkspan should be lauded and appreciated, instead of mocked. Seems pretty inconsistent to me that some who decry the deterioration of building standards in our sport found their way clear to deride a fellow modeler who did it the old fashioned way with skill and dedication.

I'd go along with Dennis's first and third paragraphs, even though I didn't build the whole wing that I'm flying. 

Alas, the gap between 5th and 6th this year was six points, none of which were for appearance.

Joe Gilbert finished 17th, flying a modified T-Rex ARC.

First try for both...

Eight points from bottom to top.  Not much to work with.   

Bump for the 2011 nats

I flew a Strega arc /Rojett65 that I had  built for '10 but it was quite horrible when I first flew it before the '10 nats.  Replaced the flaps,  took out a warp from the inboard wing, 1 degree downtrust, lighter engine and lead on the tailwheel produced a good flying airplane.  Placed seventh in advanced at the '11 nats.   My worst flight of  the contest was the first finals flight before some tight  judges.   Not the airplanes fault at all.  My Rojett65 that Dubb rebuilt after the '10 nats did not miss  beat, running on COOL POWER 10% nitro fuel.

Beg yoir pardon Brett, but concensus was not to turn this into a BOM issue, why in your comments do you insist turning it into one?

   I didn't. I was grotesquely misquoted and misrepresented, and I responded to correct it. That will continue.

    Brett

Do you add any oil to that Cool Power ? 
I understand it only has something like 17% lube, is that right ?

   12-14% according to my boildown tests.

    Brett

That was an older Strega,  I bought another plane and did not have enough space to take the old one back.  Bob Brookins has it now.

Hi Mike,

The Strega looks good with a black canopy. I replace the original one, after it melted in the sun,  with this one from G.P. and never had a problem in the heat.

http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&W=001093390&I=LXJ934&P=K

Martin

Appearance points loom large in top 20. Needless to say. Can be even more significant in top 5. My friend was knocked out of top 20 by his low score for appearance points. Received only 10, for his crashed, repaired and worn in appearance competition bird. (Originally a good looking plane and a unique take on competition stunt.) I didn't see any ARCs in the top 20 this year. Could have been one. Just didn't see it.

    It has been less of a factor in recent years. Of all the likely Top 5 guys, the range was about 3 points, and the margins were a lot more than 6 points at the end.

    Brett

Dan received 10 appearance points. The plane before it was crashed (spectacularly) and rebuilt was good for 17 plus points. Which would have meant 14 more points (appearance points get doubled) toward a top 20 finish. This isn't a complaint. The rules are clear. Dan needs to build a new plane. He's fine with that. Trouble is knowing Dan's proclivities and enthusiasms. Plane will be an original in most ways and will (might or probably) take three years to build.

Here are unofficial data for the 2011 Nats

   What has changed pretty dramatically (with regard to this issue) is that the flight score range for the finals and flyoff has gotten larger, the flyoff in particular. Used to be everybody would be within a few points, and when they posted my score with a 10-point error in 2000, it looked like that was more than enough to win almost no matter what happened. Now, that wouldn't necessarily change the final order. So the difference in the appearance points has a similar reduced effect.  Although I guess I would have won the 2008 NATs with 17 instead of 16. I also would have won if I could have done a recognizable overhead 8.

   Getting 14 or so points knocked me out of the flyoff at least three times in the early 2000's. I That's why I got my 16 this year and wanted to run out of the building quick so no one had a chance to take it back!

     Brett

I think the best way to express the difference between "Skill Class" stunt and "National Championship Jr/Sr/Open" stunt is that the former is a 15 trick event and the latter a 16 trick event...with one of the tricks demoted to a mere 50% of the others. 

The logic of saying a difference of three (six total) appearance points caused one to lose a National Championship is no more valid than saying a difference of three points on each of two square eights did so.  A contestant's placing is the based on the number at the bottom of the tabulation sheet--not a cherry picked individual choice of the components of the bottom line.

Ted

p.s. To forestall the predictable retort, in skill class stunt the ineligibility of the ARF flier to be "given" appearance points is not a handicap imposed by the competition.  It is the ARF flier's choice.  Sort of like saying I won't be flying the square eight today because I don't do it very well.