Author Topic: ARC Shark (Read 10152 times)

Mike Scholtes · « **on:** August 30, 2016, 01:35:25 PM »

Anyone know if Yatsenkos offer an unfinished Shark or any of the recent Shark variants? I have looked at their Discovery website but no mention of such a product though I am pretty sure I have seen them before. Also no info on the site (that I can find) on prices, availability, how to obtain one. Also no mention of electric-powered versions.

The idea is to finish a Shark that will garner appearance points, like an ARC from Brodak or others. Not concerned about BOM since the model will not be flown in Open at the Nats more likely than not.

Any info on price range for these models, minus motor and electronics (airframe only)?

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #1 on:** September 03, 2016, 06:21:47 PM »

Hi Mike,

1. I do not think they make an ARC model. They deal with the 95% of the enlightened population on our spaceship who allow all types of models to "compete" in contests. They make beautiful works of art that are flight tested at the factory in both IC and ECL versions. I see no reason for them to deviate from their very successful business model that serves 95% of the worlds population. Sadly, for your stated needs, ARC or no ARC is a moot point.

2. The new (in 2015) BOM rules are very clear, if you don't meet the BOM rules you do NOT get ANY appearance points at any contest (not just at the NATs Open class)! You are allowed to "enter" the contest, but you are not really allowed to be "competitive". BTW, I hear that there are some enlightened AMA regions in the SE U.S. that don't use AP so that ARFs and ARCs, etc. can enter and really be competitive without having a handicap. :-) Any contest can do this. The CD only has to make this variance to the rules known to the entrants in advance, usually on the event flyer or AMA Mag. contest section.

3. Before anyone goes off on a rant about my comments in #2 above, , Please read my BOM article in this ARF section from a few years ago. I showed the impact of not having ANY APs has on your placing at a sample of several real contests. Due to the common problem of score "bracketing" at most club contests, and some larger ones as well, even a 10 AP gap can have a large impact on placing.

4. As you can tell, this is a subject that I care about. On the interesting "Jimmy Walker" web site, the great father of CL, for whom the famous Walker cup at the Nats is named after, he says ".... the best, and only way CL can grow and remain popular is through the use of ARF CL airplanes ....". Yet, here we are 60 years later going backwards. Mr. Walker would be very sad if he were here today. To see the amazing CL ARFs available today, and find out that the rules have been written to keep them out of competitive contests. Sad, very sad. If you read the new BOM rules carefully, you will see that they are aimed at destroying the ARF/ARC market in the U.S., and especially preventing the Yatsenkos from being competitive here.

5. CL is a dying activity, both literally and figuratively. In the long run, there is nothing we can do to save it. In the short/med. run (our lifetime), ARF/ARCs have the potential to delay the death for awhile. At last count there were over 12,000 CL ARF/ARCs sold. This is thousands more than the total amount of kits sold. I know that many CL flyers don't want, or need to go to contests and they just like to fly. But there are many in that 12,000 number that would like to "compete" in club contests in their region.

6. Over the years I have proposed that we compromise on this issue. I have good friends at the very top of the CL heap who are passionate about the BOM at the Nats "Open" class. I understand their reasons at this event in this top class. I do not understand why they are so unwilling to agree to a compromise that would keep the BOM rule for the Open class, but not require it for the other classes. It varies, but at most contests in the US the Open class is around 20%, and all the other classes account for around 80%. I would think that there is a middle ground for both sides to find a solution?

Sorry for getting a little off the topic, but still close? ..... I will have a word with our moderator and beg his forgiveness for my transgression! ;-)

Warm Regards,
Rudy

B Norton · « **Reply #2 on:** September 03, 2016, 11:12:31 PM »

Our hobby is dying and people in high place don't seem to care ! A flying contest should be a flying contest not a beauty contest .I have a high respect for people that can build these works of art But we need to find a happy medium to help get knew blood in the hobby. If you don't have time to build and can throw together a ARF and can be competitive what's the harm! JMO

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #3 on:** September 04, 2016, 09:18:08 PM »

Hi Rudy - Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I just read Rule 2.1, latest version, and if I read it right it appears the BOM rule has been extended to all AMA sanctioned contests. As I read the rule unless the flyer has self-built either the wing or the fuselage, he/she would not be allowed to compete at all. Applying the finish and garnering appearance points is a separate issue. If I read it right, I would be prohibited from flying my ARF Legacy at all. I know I don't get appearance points even though I stripped and re-covered it, which I knew beforehand was the rule, so no gripes there. But if all ARF/ARC models are banned from competition at all contests, not just Open at the Nats, I think this is a bad direction for our sport to be going. There are relatively few ARF/ARC models flown in competition here in NorCal but there are some, particularly in Intermediate. My expectation is that this is a rule that will be honored more in the breach than in the observation.

So, am I reading new Rule 2.1 to exclude ARF/ARC models entirely from competition?

Brett Buck · « **Reply #4 on:** September 04, 2016, 11:16:59 PM »

Quote from: Mike Scholtes on September 04, 2016, 09:18:08 PM

Hi Rudy - Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I just read Rule 2.1, latest version, and if I read it right it appears the BOM rule has been extended to all AMA sanctioned contests. As I read the rule unless the flyer has self-built either the wing or the fuselage, he/she would not be allowed to compete at all. Applying the finish and garnering appearance points is a separate issue. If I read it right, I would be prohibited from flying my ARF Legacy at all. I know I don't get appearance points even though I stripped and re-covered it, which I knew beforehand was the rule, so no gripes there. But if all ARF/ARC models are banned from competition at all contests, not just Open at the Nats, I think this is a bad direction for our sport to be going. There are relatively few ARF/ARC models flown in competition here in NorCal but there are some, particularly in Intermediate. My expectation is that this is a rule that will be honored more in the breach than in the observation.

So, am I reading new Rule 2.1 to exclude ARF/ARC models entirely from competition?

   No. Eligibility is unchanged from before. If you meet the standards of BOM, you can fly in any Skill Class Aerobatics contest you want, and get appearance points. If you don't, then you can still fly in any Skill Class Aerobatics contest, and not get appearance points. The only contest that you cannot compete in is the National Championship for Junior, Senior, or Open.

I think the part you are missing is in the Skill Class Aerobatics section, paragraphs 6.2, 7.2, and 8.2:

8.2. BOM Rule and Appearance Points. The
contestant need not be the builder of the model to compete; however, no appearance points will be awarded to the contestant who does not build and finish his/her own model. For contestants who do build and finish their own models, appearance points will be awarded per the Appearance section of the CL Precision Aerobatics event.

These are the rules used for almost every local contest since about 1975. The way the Skill Classes were implemented in the rule book is arguably sub-optimal, and makes it easy to miss. You don't actually enter event 322 at a local contest, you enter 323-326, but 323--326 refer back to 322.

   Repeat - anyone can fly anything of any origin in all but 3 categories in 1 contest a year. Any information to the contrary is not accurate.

   The only thing that has changed is that the criteria for what defines the builder of the model has been changed to better define it.

   Note that this change IS NOT the one that made ARCs ineligible for appearance points. ARCs were originally allowed by the loathsome "2005 Interpretation" that was implemented to try to prevent threatened "protest after protest" of the 2005 NATs, It was never passed by any contest board. It was retracted in 2011 by AMA Technical Director Greg Hahn and were not eligible for appearance points since about then (May 2011 or thereabouts). We had argued the same point about contest board action from the start, but it took until 2011 for anyone to agree, or in fact, understand the argument.

   Brett

Brett Buck · « **Reply #5 on:** September 04, 2016, 11:29:10 PM »

Quote from: B Norton on September 03, 2016, 11:12:31 PM

Our hobby is dying and people in high place don't seem to care ! A flying contest should be a flying contest not a beauty contest .I have a high respect for people that can build these works of art But we need to find a happy medium to help get knew blood in the hobby. If you don't have time to build and can throw together a ARF and can be competitive what's the harm! JMO

As noted, you can do exactly that and compete in any contest outside JSO at the NATs. Nothing about that has changed in any way. You can enter NATS Beginner, Intermediate, or Advanced at the NATs with any airplane you want. You just won't get appearance points if you didn't build it yourself.

The only new thing about this is that there is a better definition of what constitutes the allowable degree of pre-fabrication. The "rule" that permitted ARC (which is itself a proprietary marketing term) to receive appearance points was inproperly instituted under duress at the 2005 NATs and later removed as having never been passed by any contest board. You can still fly them, you just don't get appearance points.

You are incorrect on three points - the hobby is not dying, people in "high places" (whatever that means) do care about the health of the event, and the contest has always (since 1950 or so) been about both flying and building. It even says thats in the rule book.

Every time this comes up, someone does a survey or something along those lines, and the answer always comes out about 80:20 about keeping the BOM and appearance points. The only places the "hobby is dying" is in areas where the local contests eliminated the BOM rule. There is no evidence whatsoever that eliminating the BOM increases participation, in fact, every event that did so is indeed in dire shape, particularly in CL.

There is no one in "high places", and I have no idea what that might mean. Everybody, including you, has exactly the same input. People with more experience in stunt might make better arguments, but that's the only advantage to having a "name".

Brett

Brett Buck · « **Reply #6 on:** September 04, 2016, 11:52:28 PM »

Quote from: Rudy Taube on September 03, 2016, 06:21:47 PM

6. Over the years I have proposed that we compromise on this issue. I have good friends at the very top of the CL heap who are passionate about the BOM at the Nats "Open" class. I understand their reasons at this event in this top class. I do not understand why they are so unwilling to agree to a compromise that would keep the BOM rule for the Open class, but not require it for the other classes. It varies, but at most contests in the US the Open class is around 20%, and all the other classes account for around 80%. I would think that there is a middle ground for both sides to find a solution?
Rudy

I can answer that one. The reason there is no "compromise" is because the people who actually fly stunt *do not want to change the rules*. It's really as simple as that. A few people are super-passionate about getting rid of BOM, a few are sucked into the false narrative of "participation" when there is no evidence whatsoever that it alters participation, and abundant evidence that it actually reduces participation.

BTW I do appreciate the fact that you did not misstate the point about BOM preventing participation. Most anti-modeling types intentionally and falsely state that you must build the model to enter contests, and you did not.

I would note that in the supposedly "enlightened" areas, stunt is indeed dying. We had something like 60 entrants at Golden State last year, and it didn't seem to inhibit anyone. All the anguished cries of "where are all the fliers" comes from those "enlightened" areas. It's pretty obvious why - when you turn this into a casual activity, you get casual participants, and drive out the dedicated who just get sick of it all. Of course the casual participants drift away when they realize even with a pre-fabricated airplane already trimmed for them in the box, they are still going to lose miserably to people who are willing to put in the extensive work necessary to learn how to compete, and by a lot more than 20 points.

Anyone who didn't have to spend 6 months building a competitive airplane should have plenty of time to practice more and make up any appearance point deficit, unless you are going up against The Usual Suspects. The fact that almost all of the "consumer" ARFs are uncompetitive is the problem there, not the fact that they didn't get appearance points.

Of course, you may not be aware of it, but this entire thing was started in the late 80's by a few individuals who wanted to (and perhaps actually did) custom-build hyper-expensive models for sale to casual competitors, and make them legal to fly in Open at the NATs. Of course, no one is going to give a flying tinkers damn about the plight of guys trying to build 4 models a winter and sell them for $5000 to rich people. So instead, they spin up a story about how the supposed "masses" (which they don't care one whit about) are being suppressed and participation is being damaged by the lack of cheap ARFs at every WAL-Mart. And plenty of people have been sucked into the argument since particular starting in the early 2000's as widespread internet use became possible, and TF and Brodak decided to sell cheap ARFs. But still, a very tiny minority agree with NATs rule changes to allow it.

These topics *almost never* come up in real life at contests, and the notion that this is a really hot topic, or there are people going around asking for "proof", or whatever stuff usually comes up in these discussions is quite overstated. I think I have seen maybe 2-3 minor conflicts at local contests over the last 40 years.

Brett

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #7 on:** September 05, 2016, 12:03:42 AM »

Hi Mike,

Thankfully, it is not as bad as you thought.

You MAY fly your ARF/ARC, or borrowed plane in any AMA/PAMPA CLPA contest. (Except the Nats)

BUT you will NOT receive ANY beauty points.

As my research shows, this means that you will start your flight with a -8 to 14 points. At the average contest this means a loss of 1 to 3+ places, depending on class, bracket judging, etc.

The CL gods at least had the good sense to allow them in the entry level class, this was a very good idea. I can not see any reason for not allowing them in Intermediate. This would, as you alluded to, cover the majority of ARF/ARC users. It may also go a long way in providing a path for more CL retreads, like me, to enter contests again. It seems to me that the vast majority of Pro BOM die hard fans are from the Open class. I do not understand why they insist that Int. has to have their same narrow BOM rule.

There are very few people who aspire to fly in Open, those already there can have their BOM rule. It would be nice if the other 90+% of us U.S. CL flyers could be allowed to join the 95% of our spaceships inhabitants and be allowed to compete with our ARF/ARC planes. You would think that people in a dying sport that has one foot in the grave,
would at least consider putting their shovels down and stop digging!

On a brighter note, I am going out flying my 35% scale Extra 300L ARC, that is as beautiful, and well built as 99% of all the BOM CLPA planes, tomorrow. And yes, I can compete, without any handicap, at any contest on our spaceship with it.

Warm Regards,
Rudy

Howard Rush · « **Reply #8 on:** September 05, 2016, 12:12:54 AM »

Quote from: Mike Scholtes on August 30, 2016, 01:35:25 PM

Anyone know if Yatsenkos offer an unfinished Shark or any of the recent Shark variants? I have looked at their Discovery website but no mention of such a product though I am pretty sure I have seen them before. Also no info on the site (that I can find) on prices, availability, how to obtain one. Also no mention of electric-powered versions.

The idea is to finish a Shark that will garner appearance points, like an ARC from Brodak or others. Not concerned about BOM since the model will not be flown in Open at the Nats more likely than not.

Any info on price range for these models, minus motor and electronics (airframe only)?

You could ask Orestes Hernandez, the World Champion. He flies an ARF Shark at US team trials and world championships and a BOM-compliant Shark at AMA contests.

As I recall, a Shark runs you about $4,000 euros.

Lauri Malila · « **Reply #9 on:** September 05, 2016, 12:03:15 PM »

I get my Sharks as a kit. Because I use my own engine, I design and build the engine mounting / nose structure and send it to Andrey for final assembly. He makes just the most important assembly as he has a good jig to get things straight. I do all the rest.
The molded parts come in white primer which is ok but not perfect. I sand it away. But the primer is necessary to avoid the release wax from going to the million pinholes in the glassfiber skin when surfaces are prepared for painting. (The primer is sprayed in mold)
I also reinforce all the seams with additional fiber and use more stable primer. That makes my Sharks stand the test of time much better than the ready-to-fly Sharks.
At some point they developed a system to make the main components with bare balsa skin, in order to suit your BOM thing. I don't know if it still is an option, you'd better write to Yuriy and ask. L

Brett Buck · « **Reply #10 on:** September 05, 2016, 01:44:03 PM »

Quote from: Rudy Taube on September 05, 2016, 12:03:42 AM

\

There are very few people who aspire to fly in Open, those already there can have their BOM rule. It would be nice if the other 90+% of us U.S. CL flyers could be allowed to join the 95% of our spaceships inhabitants and be allowed to compete with our ARF/ARC planes. You would think that people in a dying sport that has one foot in the grave,
would at least consider putting their shovels down and stop digging!

Well, of course the last bit is wrong, and completely unsupported by any evidence. But, the same 90% of US fliers you are supposedly representing ALSO vote for, express desire for, or otherwise indicate their support continued BOM by a 4 to 1 margin, a ratio about unchanged over many decades.

To ignore those people, who we already know want to fly stunt - in order to test your speculation about an alternate event that you might think is better - is going to take a lot more than endless snarky internet posts from the same 10 people over and over and over. Get out and convince people you are right. You guys need a new approach, because to date, almost all of these efforts have backfired on you and galvanized people to protect the hobby they currently enjoy. *YOU* need to convince people that your ideas for radical change are correct, don't expect to harass people into changing the rules against the will of the vast majority.

Brett

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #11 on:** September 05, 2016, 06:10:44 PM »

Thanks everyone, for clarifying a few points. The answer to my initial question is in Rule 15, which takes back the skill class events from the BOM rule and allows anything to be flown in any non-Nats event, as Brett observes. I was thrown by reading Rule 2.1 too narrowly as it appears to cover the skill classes and I did not read the Rules all the way to the end. The refinement to the BOM rule that does apply is that no appearance points are available for the typical ARC now. I personally have no problem with the BOM rule at any level and am only flying an ARC due to lack of building time, which really means "applying the finish time" in my case. I hope to remedy this by having my Oriental Plus in the air shortly.

I did get some info from the Yatsenkos. Their models are available as unfinished versions for about $1000 euros less than the ready-to-fly version, which is about $2600-2800 euros (about $2900-3100) including engine and in a carrying box. They have a Classic 2 that resembles American-style PA airplanes, and Igor's GeeBee too. All models are available as electric or IC. The fly in the ointment is that delivery of one ordered now is Sept 2017. But, unless one builds the wing or fuselage, or the whole thing like Orestes, no appearance points. That fact indicates the fully ready to fly version is the better bet, and use the 300 hours normally spent on painting it, practicing flying it instead.

Lauri's situation is unique, with him building his own engines (!!) and sending it to Yatsenko to be built into the model, if I understand it right.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #12 on:** September 05, 2016, 09:15:24 PM »

Quote from: Mike Scholtes on September 05, 2016, 06:10:44 PM

Thanks everyone, for clarifying a few points. The answer to my initial question is in Rule 15, which takes back the skill class events from the BOM rule and allows anything to be flown in any non-Nats event, as Brett observes. I was thrown by reading Rule 2.1 too narrowly as it appears to cover the skill classes and I did not read the Rules all the way to the end. The refinement to the BOM rule that does apply is that no appearance points are available for the typical ARC now.

   As noted above, that's not a function of the new, more specific, BOM definition from the 2014 cycle. ARCs stopped getting appearance points (or at least should have) when the "2005 Interpretation" was rescinded by Greg Hahn, which happened in 2011.

   At the time, I disagreed with it, not because he was wrong (he was definitely right, no such rule was ever passed, which we had argued from the start), but because it happened in late April or May, which was too close to the NATs, and might result in people having to scramble to get a replacement for their suddenly illegal airplanes. This was also the year of one new "interpretation" after another on a wide variety of topics. It would have been a lot better, in my opinion, to have waited until december and the normal rules cycle. But as it turned out, it wasn't an issue and everybody pretty much did what they had always done with no problems.

  I think you are going to like your Shark. Getting an airplane that is very close to trimmed and reasonably light and straight is worth far more than you could get with appearance points, compared to those you are competing against. Not that it might not be in ideal trim if you don't use the Yatsenko lines, which I think are undersized (.013 VS .015 for that weight range). So you might actually have to do some trimming to get it right. But straight and light with decent power, you can be really aggressive with it compared to what most people are flying, and you don't have to baby it around.

   Brett

B Norton · « **Reply #13 on:** September 06, 2016, 09:38:42 PM »

That much money!!!!!! I'M going to baby it.So if I under stand Brett, people can not claim BOM points for Tom Dixson foam wings am I correct in my understanding?I'm not trying to be confrontational I just want to get people enjoying the hobby as much as I do. And if ARFs aren't the answer lets get together and find a answer .We are seeing numbers decrease and no changes, any change is better than no change!Are people willing to just let the hobby go because that's the way we have always done things. And I do truely enjoy a beautifully designed and finished plane and those people should be rewarded !

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #14 on:** September 06, 2016, 10:25:30 PM »

I'm not Brett, but I have had a bit of an epiphany after actually reading the current rules on the AMA's public web site. It now appears that any model, built by anyone, fully prefab like a Shark or from components by folks like Bob Hunt or Tom Dixon can be flown in any skill-class event, which is pretty much everything except Open at the Nats. However, that model will not get any appearance points to add to the flying points. To get those appearance points, and not start every event 10 or 15 points in the hole, as Rudy notes above, the flyer must have personally built EITHER the wing OR the fuselage and then applied the finish to the completed model. For example, I have a wing and stab/elevator fully prebuilt from Bob Hunt. Since I have to build the fuselage from scratch, even though a major component, the wing, was prebuilt by someone else, I will be the "builder of the model" as defined in the rules. That finished model would get appearance points.

Stab/elevator and flaps are not considered "major structures" and can be fully prefabbed and painted by others, in theory, and are not counted for "builder of model" purposes. I can't think of anyone actually doing that but that is the state of the rules.

The typical ARC model has a prebuilt fuselage and wing, so would never be eligible for appearance points because the finished model, no matter how gorgeous, would not comply with the BOM part of the rules, even in skill classes Intermediate and up. This is my Legacy situation, but again, I have no gripe about that.

So the long and short is (and I am sure someone will set me straight if this is still not accurate) that the hobby can grow since flyers can compete with typical ARFs and ARCs, or borrowed/purchased models, and hopefully will be intrigued enough to go on to build from a kit or components from Hunt or others, and get those extra appearance points.

On that subject, I sure don't see any evidence that Stunt is dying off, at least not on the West Coast. Events are well attended, many beautiful self-built models are in attendance, and some beginners and intermediates graduate from ARFs or borrowed models to the real thing.

Lauri Malila · « **Reply #15 on:** September 07, 2016, 12:00:15 AM »

Just a question;
If I wanted to participate your nats, just for curiosity, do the rules allow me to fly with my Godless Communist plane in open class? If I don't care of loosing the appearance points. L

john e. holliday · « **Reply #16 on:** September 07, 2016, 09:07:59 AM »

BOM at USA NATS is for Junior-Senior-Open contestants. They have PAMPA Class Advanced and Expert which allow non BOM entries.

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #17 on:** September 07, 2016, 11:34:01 AM »

Hi Lauri - I think anyone who builds his own engines should be allowed to fly ANYTHING in Open at the USA Nats, on a waiver from the competition committee or something!

Certainly, you can fly your godless communist model in Expert (Event 326) at the Nats, but may or may not get appearance points depending on how "prefabricated" the components you get from Yatsenko are. From your description above it sounds like you build much of the fuselage yourself, and if so, you are free to use a fully-built wing from Yatsenko and the finished model would meet the "builder of the model" rules. It also sounds like you apply the entire finish yourself, which sounds like it meets the "finish application" part of the BOM rule. It comes down to how "prefabricated " the fuselage is deemed to be by whoever interprets Rule 2.1. Others, such as Brett, are vastly better informed than me on how the Rule would be interpreted today after the 2015 clarifications to the definition of "BOM." He may wish to comment further.

Then, if we assume your fuselage passes the "self built" test, your finished model should also be eligible to compete in, and receive appearance points in, Open at the Nats. Again, other persons are better equipped than me to expound on current interpretation of the rule.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #18 on:** September 07, 2016, 12:24:53 PM »

Quote from: Lauri Malila on September 07, 2016, 12:00:15 AM

Just a question;
If I wanted to participate your nats, just for curiosity, do the rules allow me to fly with my Godless Communist plane in open class? If I don't care of loosing the appearance points. L

Michael was right that when there was an "Expert" class at the NATs, you could have entered that. That no longer exists. But in Open, you are competing for the US Open National Championship, and that means you have to meet the same standards everyone else did since 1950 or so.

If your model meets the definition in the AMA rule book as it stands now and you built it, you can enter (and get appearance points), otherwise, no. The level of prefabrication of the "kit" Yatsenko airplane that Orestes flies at the NATs (which is not the same airplane he used at the WC) is about the limit and it generally agreed to meet the current AMA definition.

If you can build your own engine, you should be able to build your own airplane at least as good as the pre-fab models.

Brett

Lauri Malila · « **Reply #19 on:** September 07, 2016, 12:30:41 PM »

Thank you, Mike. That's more or less how I thought it would be.
I have no right to critisize your rules, but the spirit of them is somehow distorted if you ask me. The biggest fear seems to be that things pop out of mold ready to go, which is true if we talk about plastic buckets or rubber boots. But with toy airplanes, it quite effectively eliminates the development by using new technology.
To me the beauty lies in both the optimal structure and building presicion. Presicion especially because this technology usually goes hand in hand with CAD/CAM technology. For that reason I think it's completely ridiculous to demand the builder to assemble the half skins together after demoulding. For sure it's possible but quite stupid. It's like sheeting a foam wing without the foam craddles.
But the artisan part of me understands and has a high respect for the same rules

Lauri Malila · « **Reply #20 on:** September 07, 2016, 12:35:48 PM »

[quote author=Brett Buck l

If you can build your own engine, you should be able to build your own airplane at least as good as the pre-fab models.

Brett
[/quote]

Sure, but sometimes there is no time for both. L

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #21 on:** September 07, 2016, 01:29:02 PM »

How about this for a solution? Join us in California next month for the Golden State Stunt Championships, in essence a West Coast Nationals with multiple World and National champions participating. Not much farther for you than Muncie, Indiana. Warm, dry weather. Almost no humidity. No snow. Great food. And your model will get appearance points at the event. Plus, you and Brett can discuss the BOM rule and the philosophy behind the USA rule in person at the Saturday Night banquet.

Lauri Malila · « **Reply #22 on:** September 07, 2016, 01:53:49 PM »

Quote from: Mike Scholtes on September 07, 2016, 01:29:02 PM

How about this for a solution? Join us in California next month for the Golden State Stunt Championships, in essence a West Coast Nationals with multiple World and National champions participating. Not much farther for you than Muncie, Indiana. Warm, dry weather. Almost no humidity. No snow. Great food. And your model will get appearance points at the event. Plus, you and Brett can discuss the BOM rule and the philosophy behind the USA rule in person at the Saturday Night banquet.

Haha, good idea but a bit too soon. Free flight season is about to start. But I certainly keep that in mind in future.
Anyway I'll be in Lost Hills CA in February. L

Brett Buck · « **Reply #23 on:** September 08, 2016, 12:22:41 AM »

Quote from: Lauri Malila on September 07, 2016, 12:30:41 PM

Thank you, Mike. That's more or less how I thought it would be.
I have no right to critisize your rules, but the spirit of them is somehow distorted if you ask me. The biggest fear seems to be that things pop out of mold ready to go, which is true if we talk about plastic buckets or rubber boots. But with toy airplanes, it quite effectively eliminates the development by using new technology.

  No it doesn't. If you were to come to Golden State, you would see several airplanes that are built with far more sophisticated methods than the Yatesenko airplanes and to a higher standard. But, they were *built by the pilot*. There's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from doing the same. The necessary technology was described in the early 80's in the AMA house magazine 'Model Aviation'. Plenty of people are more than capable of utilizing ANY technical means you know about to build model airplanes. Heck, whatever success I have had can probably be attributed to mastering some of the more difficult technical aspects of the event.

   What we are preventing is a degeneration of the event into pure flying event, because the vast majority thing it should be an event where you build a model and then compete with it. Because doing otherwise makes it a completely different, and one-dimensional event.

   And, if they want, they can also make them for others and sell them. PAMPA rules permitted this since 1975 or so- possibly predating the FAI dropping the BOM, although I don't know for sure. Getting a prefabricated airplane that is in very good trim with no knowledge whatsoever instead of spending 6 months building it and another year trimming should provide you plenty of time to overcome a 18 point appearance score.

   But if you want to fly for a US National Championship - the highest award possible in the event - then you have to do it the way everyone else did. Sorry, we aren't changing that.

   Brett

p.s. BTW, in regard to the now-defunct Expert at the NATs. The reason that was done was to give people who wouldn't otherwise want to go up against the Paul Walker and David Fitzgeralds of the world either because of BOM or just not wanting to get embarrased an event. The idea was that there were a bunch of people who wanted to go but didn't have a class to fly in. Well, after two of those, nearly NO ONE new showed up. Then, when it was dropped, about half of those people didn't show up again.

That's why we don't want to dabble with experiments at the Nationals. The theory was that if we changed something, a whole bunch of new people would show up, when what in fact happened was, ultimately, we seem to have LOST people. That's exactly the same argument used for BOM - if only you change that, a whole new bunch of people that don't currently participate would suddenly be interested. That's entirely speculative and every other event that has dropped the BOM has not only not grown, they have dropped dramatically.

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #24 on:** September 08, 2016, 03:30:14 PM »

Hi Lauri - What FF classes will you be flying at Lost Hills? I fly F1J, F1G, NFFS Nostalgia gas, and am building an F1S/E36. Lots of FF'ers in Northern California will be heading down to Lost Hills in February for the FAI event, may see you there.

Lauri Malila · « **Reply #25 on:** September 08, 2016, 04:07:42 PM »

Mike,
F1A. Please come to say hi.

Michael Palm · « **Reply #26 on:** September 08, 2016, 04:40:00 PM »

I will hold my thumb for You then, Lauri! (as we swedes do)

Brett Buck · « **Reply #27 on:** September 08, 2016, 09:09:10 PM »

Quote from: Mike Scholtes on September 08, 2016, 03:30:14 PM

Hi Lauri - What FF classes will you be flying at Lost Hills? I fly F1J, F1G, NFFS Nostalgia gas, and am building an F1S/E36. Lots of FF'ers in Northern California will be heading down to Lost Hills in February for the FAI event, may see you there.

That sounds good, I might join you!

Brett

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #28 on:** September 08, 2016, 10:24:40 PM »

First, what the heck does "hold my thumb" imply in Swedish? Is that a good thing?

Second, Brett a FF'er? I know about the HLG but is there more to this story? Walt Ghio and I have discussed holding an E-20 event at Davis-Woodland in conjunction with a CL contest so this could be the start of a beautiful friendship, as Bogart said.

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #29 on:** September 09, 2016, 07:22:02 AM »

Quote from: Lauri Malila on September 05, 2016, 12:03:15 PM

I get my Sharks as a kit. Because I use my own engine, I design and build the engine mounting / nose structure and send it to Andrey for final assembly. He makes just the most important assembly as he has a good jig to get things straight. I do all the rest.
The molded parts come in white primer which is ok but not perfect. I sand it away. But the primer is necessary to avoid the release wax from going to the million pinholes in the glassfiber skin when surfaces are prepared for painting. (The primer is sprayed in mold)
I also reinforce all the seams with additional fiber and use more stable primer. That makes my Sharks stand the test of time much better than the ready-to-fly Sharks.
At some point they developed a system to make the main components with bare balsa skin, in order to suit your BOM thing. I don't know if it still is an option, you'd better write to Yuriy and ask. L

Are those plans to your commie plane? Where did you get them?

Lauri Malila · « **Reply #30 on:** September 09, 2016, 09:34:43 AM »

Steve,

My contact gave them to me in a secret meeting place, during a top-secret mission in Kiev. Microfilm would have been easier to hide in my body cavities.

Лаури

Brett Buck · « **Reply #31 on:** September 09, 2016, 10:21:43 AM »

Quote from: Lauri Malila on September 09, 2016, 09:34:43 AM

My contact gave them to me in a secret meeting place, during a top-secret mission in Kiev. Microfilm would have been easier to hide in my body cavities.

We Americans have a colloquialism that applies here - TMI (Too Much Information)!

Brett

Eric Viglione · « **Reply #32 on:** September 09, 2016, 10:24:57 AM »

Sparky should start an RTF sub forum just for the pre-fab take apart planes like the Sharks and the like... They are not nearly as difficult to build as the ARF's that at least take 8 to 10hrs to assemble (going by the blurb on the Arf Nobler box). These Sharks and the like are RTF (ready to fly), hyper accurately built on jigs, pre-assembled, precolored in the mold, pre-expertly trimmed, take apart planes that take about 10 minutes to bolt on the wing and tail and go fly.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #33 on:** September 09, 2016, 09:13:06 PM »

Quote from: Mike Scholtes on September 08, 2016, 10:24:40 PM

Second, Brett a FF'er? I know about the HLG but is there more to this story? Walt Ghio and I have discussed holding an E-20 event at Davis-Woodland in conjunction with a CL contest so this could be the start of a beautiful friendship, as Bogart said.

There's not a lot more. I dabble, but I have many modeling interests beyond CL stunt, I just don't have much time to do any of it.

I expect I will be involved in E20 contests.

Brett

PerttiMe · « **Reply #34 on:** September 10, 2016, 03:28:31 AM »

Quote from: Mike Scholtes on September 08, 2016, 10:24:40 PM

First, what the heck does "hold my thumb" imply in Swedish? Is that a good thing?

That would be thumbs up for good luck.
... which is totally different from the Middle Eastern usage, for example

Lauri Malila · « **Reply #35 on:** September 10, 2016, 04:29:18 AM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on September 09, 2016, 09:13:06 PM

I expect I will be involved in E20 contests.

Brett

Just remember that Stunt and F1B is not a good combination. Those guys leave traces of silicone oil every place they touch. L

Michael Palm · « **Reply #36 on:** September 10, 2016, 12:40:55 PM »

Quote from: Mike Scholtes on September 08, 2016, 10:24:40 PM

First, what the heck does "hold my thumb" imply in Swedish? Is that a good thing?

Yes its a good thing

Like Pertime said. In Sweden you hold your thumb to wich good luck.

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #37 on:** September 10, 2016, 09:24:52 PM »

Okay, if a Swede and a Finlander say it is "good luck," I will have to believe it. Something to add to the Journal of Cultural Anthropology.

Lauri, don't the castor and silicon oils cancel each other? I am still using the original container of lube oil I got maybe 10 years ago. P30 and F1G don't use up a lot of oil, especially if you fly them as little as I do. Hard to find time to build anything. My most recent non-CL model was an A1 Nordic about 5 years ago. My F1G and F1J are both 10 years old, but still work fine. The E36 and E20 should go together quickly. Thinking of converting a bunch of classic old FF to electric, like the Starduster, maybe add RC assist.

Author Topic: ARC Shark (Read 10152 times)

Eric Viglione