I'm posting this because I get the feeling that many CLPA people live in some strange time warp and seem to be completely oblivious of any similar activity outside their CL world. I hope this post gives CLPA people a broader perspective on the subject of ARFs. I'm tired of all the ARF bashing, and the constant quest to punish those who want or need to use ARFs in CLPA. I am also tired of being told that ONLY CLPA planes are beautiful, and without the BOM/AP rules the whole world would be less beautiful because then all the planes will be ugly, and the great art of building and finishing will be lost to the world. As if training our kids to glue wood together and paint something is an education that has real career value, maybe back in 1958, but NOT in "their" future. The only job it trains you for is working in a factory in China at low wages. Is that what we really want for our kids? ... wait, I should have said "the IMAGINARY kids we have coming into CL".

I do understand that there is some artisan value to building and painting for arts sake alone. But to say, or even imply, that this is a skill that will in any way help someone in their future (outside the arts and crafts world) is inaccurate and dated at best.

The photo below shows some beautiful ARFs. I wanted to show that we have been using ARFs in IMAC for 30 years, and they do not all look alike as some anti-ARF CLPA people have claimed they would if we got rid of the "sacred" BOM/AP rule. Over 30 years ago we debated having a BOM/AP rule in IMAC. The same argument was used: It will ruin the event if we allow ARFs without penalty, they will all look alike, etc. ....... I think this photo clearly shows that the nay sayers were dead wrong. Every one of these planes is unique and distinctly different from the others. Many of these have scale paint or covering schemes, with scale markings. THEY LOOK LIKE REAL AIRPLANES, NOT THE TARGET DRONE LOOKING PLANES IN CLPA. So please stop trying to tell us ARF users how ONLY BOM/AP planes can be beautiful and that they are always better than any other planes in the other areas of modeling. Not only is this NOT true, but it is insulting and just shows that the person saying this is not very well informed.

The anti ARF group in CLPA would have us believe that CLPA would be destroyed and all the planes would be ugly, etc. if we allowed ARFs to compete without the no AP penalty. We don't have to speculate and believe their unfounded predictions, we have living proof that this is NOT the case in the other AMA aerobatic events. The pattern aerobatic planes are also of very high quality and are as beautiful and as well built as the very best CLPA planes.

This photo was taken at one of the IMAC regional championships where I was the CD. We had 65 entries in 5 classes. The photo is taken from the middle taxiway, the other 1/2+ of the planes are on the other side. The WORST looking plane at these contests is as good or better than all but the top 10% of planes at any CLPA contest. The average plane here is as good as "any" CLPA plane and better than 90% of them.  And yes, I have seen the very best 20 point CLPA planes in person.

This constant bashing of ARFs and molded ARFs is totally unfounded. We have had molded CF planes in IMAC for more than 10 years. They are nice, but they do not win any more than any of the other types of ARFs or kit built planes. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY "NO" EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT MOLDED COMPOSITE PLANES WILL TAKE OVER CLPA AND OUT FLY ALL OTHER CLPA PLANES. In fact the World results (without the sacred BOM/AP rules) shows that there is no dominance of one type over another over many years of having both types available. In IMAC We have over 10 years of experience with this NON issue! If there are NO other examples to use for comparison on an issue, then we must speculate as to the impact of a change. BUT when we have a perfect example of this change, over a long period of time, then we have proof, and speculation is NOT necessary! WE HAVE THE FACTS AND THE PHOTOS!!

Five of these are kits built for the pilot/owner by a professional builder. One is a kit built by the pilot/owner, .... "All the rest are ARFs". Eight of these ARFs are molded CF then painted (some painted by professionals, some by the owners, it is very hard to tell which is which), 13 have foam wings with balsa sheeting, the rest are traditional wood structure covered with film covering. These planes take a lot more stress than any CL plane. They are very well built, light and strong.

Anyone that says our flight lines in CLPA will not be as beautiful if we allow ARFs to compete without penalty don't know what they are talking about! I have been to some of the best CLPA contests in the nation, and yes there were some very nice looking planes, but more than 1/2 of them are marginal at best when compared to the average plane in the photo below. So the next time some so called "expert" drones on and on about how ARFs will destroy the so called beauty of CLPA, please show him this photo. BTW, I have hundreds of others from decades of contests, this one is not cherry picked, it is a normal contest. I did not include the even more beautiful ARF planes from the TOC contest because this is a very unique event and not really a fair comparison to CLPA.

I hope this helps blunt the lies from some of the backward thinking guys who always bash ARFs and insist on punishing anyone who tries to compete with one. As you can tell, I am getting very tired of the constant, relentless BASHING of ARFs and the punishment of those of us who use them. To those who have been bashing all ARFs based on the old information from the original CL ARFs from many years ago. PLEASE stop doing this. It is very unfair, and spreads misinformation in a part of the model hobby (CL) that already has more misinformation than anywhere else in the modeling world. The excellent ARF/ARCs that came out last year are better than any plane that 90% of CL modelers build today. These AFR/ARCs are now good enough to be competitive at the very top competitions in the nation.

The top 10% of CL builders, the master builders, will always create beautiful models that are always = to, or better than, any manufactured model. As long as these master modelers are still with us we will continue to enjoy their work. Dave Fitz. won the Gold Medal at the World Championships with his own beautiful, very well built plane. He beat ALL the CF molded factory built planes because his "home built" plane was just as good as ALL the other planes there, AND "much" more importantly, he was the best PILOT during that contest.

YIKES! I hope the forum moderator of this ARF section lets me post this rant? I may have to edit it a little to make it sound more PC for him?

Regards,

"As if training our kids to glue wood together and paint something is an education that has real value,etc." Well, yes as a matter of fact , it does have value, whether it is ever used in ones vocation or not. And as far as all of the CLPA planes looking alike. that is not entirely true. Ask Al Rabe if he thinks any of his creations look like all other planes. The pics posted seem to reinforce the perception that these ARFS pretty much look the same.  Ed

Hi Ed,

You are correct, it very well may have value beyond ones vocation. Artistic skills are lacking in our modern world, even more so in our country.  I apologize for sounding overly harsh on my training comment. .... I have "foolishly" read almost everything written on the BOM/AP issue over the past several years and my comment was really trying to address one of the common reasons given for forcing everyone to build their own planes if they want to be competitive. It usually goes like "..... kids need to learn these important skills that will help them when they grow up, etc. ......". This is the kind of misinformation I was trying to counter.

If someone suggests/admits that it teaches some form of art just for arts sake, like you implied, then that is a point with merit ..... not good enough to force everyone to build their own, but still a good point. :-) ..... It would be an important point "IF" we had kids coming into CLPA, but we don't and never will. This is one reason why I am so heated over this. The other side falsely uses these "Imaginary" kids to back their view. I feel this is either dishonest, or delusional.   

RE: Planes looking alike. .... I think you misunderstood me. One of the major reasons given for forcing us all to build our own planes if we want to be competitive is that: "... If we allow ARFs to compete without penalty then CLPA will be just filled with look-alike ARF Blue Nobler's, and we will lose the differences we now have in CLPA planes. ....." My photo was trying to show CLPA people that this will NOT be the case. That we will still have great diversity, just like we do now.   

I hope this clarifies my prior post.

Regards,

Relax, Rudy.  If you are trying to push everyone to your train of thought, then good luck.  Not everyone will ever think the way you do about ARFs.  I have them, and they do serve a purpose in CLPA.  I cannot understand your level of aggravation, though.  It remains to be proven that they, alone, will bring about 10's of thousands of new pilots into CLPA.  And I haven't noticed a "rise" in ARF bashing..........

And if the level of CLPA ARFs ever reaches the level of the models you pictured, ACROSS THE BOARD, then things will be a lot better.  Those models are not really germane to the level of CLPA ARFs available right now, in all cases.  Face it, some ARFs are not much more than a poorly built model.  They ARE "built and covered", but there are so many problems with so many of them.  The newest ones are getting much better, though.  They are what they are, and outside of Kaz and the Yatsenkos, mainly, they are not of a caliber that would get on the podium at the World Championships.  So some of the top level pilots do not feel a need for them.  I don't understand why you have a problem understanding that.

Just because the majority of CLPA guys at the top of the ladder do not particularly care for them doesn't mean you, or anyone else, can't enjoy them.  Plenty of fliers have them, use them, enjoy them, and fly them in competition.  What else is to be asked for?  It's basically like choosing between a PA, RO-Jett, ST, Retro Discovery, or Plattenberg, etc., etc., for a power system.  To each their own.

Bill

Those IMAC models are big, and that has a price.

HI Brett,

I agree with you in those areas.

I didn't "mean" for it to sound like any of the top guys have been anti ARF for others.  Just that you, and the others at the top, wouldn't care for flying an ARF Vector at the NATS.  There are other "needs" for those who compete for the top prize.  Having your own program and doing things the way which feels best "for you" are exceedingly necessary for anyone who is gunning for the top of our little universe.   I don't want to personally sound like I am flaming any of the friends I have who are "at the top", nor do I mean those phrases in any negative way.  It is a term of endearment, not in any way derogatory.. I don't believe there is an "elitist" (in the negative sense) in the CLPA world that I have met.

Bill

Hmmmmm... BOM proponents and a "commercial end"?  Wrong Universe!

Big Bear

You design your own planes and grow the balsa trees too? No need for plans or kits?

On the other hand, someone could surely make millions producing molded stunt planes? Right...

Man,  you should see my balsa forest........ stuff grows pretty quick.

Big Bear

Brett

I have to disagree with you. Any contest that awards appearance points puts arf's at a noncompetative disadvantage. The arf does not get appearance points and as you know that many points per flight will sway the result at most contests. The Signal Seekers Contest in Michigan is our only local contest. It awards appearance points. End of being able to compete with an arf. You can fly. But you cannot compete.That is a "consequential effect" Last time I mentioned this someone said just fly better. Fine. Let them try to "compete" by giving up the points. I have no problem with the NATS having BOM if that is what those who compete there want. I have no desire to compete there.... in part because of the BOM deal, but other reasons as well. But at local contests that awards appearance points penalizes arfs and keeps them from being competative. As a contest they are supposed to be competitions. With appearance points they are just fly-ins for anyone who flies an arf.

bob branch

So what you are saying is that if the last few years worth of fliers in the Top Ten at the Nats went to a contest that awards appearance points, and all flew the same ARF, and got 0 appearance points- the best flier with a BOM plane that got the appearance points would win? 

I find that hard to believe - more likely scenario - the top 1% of the competition fliers could all fly an ARF Nobler that was assembled straight / true, had good controls, and a steady engine run, and they would still be at the top of the rankings in just about any constest- because they are extremely skilled and practiced pilots.

The scores may be a bit lower than what they would earn with their own planes, but the best fliers would still be that - the best fliers.

Hi Bob,

I guess it is a matter of how each of us defines "compete".  Flying to get a score and see how you match up or flying to get a trophy.  I can do the math in my head and see what my score would have been if I had AP added (or subtracted) which gives me my indication of where I flew compared to the other guys.  If getting a trophy was my only goal of competing, I would never enter OTS around here (or anywhere else).  I wouldn't even enter my PAMPA Class anymore.  Much less Classic or Nos. 30.  My level of flying right now has deteriorated so much that I stand no chance of a podium finish unless there are only three fliers entered.  For a chance at the gold, I will have to get out and fly more.  Personally, in your case, "I" would simply fly and see how good I could do.  Then I would add the AP of the winner to my score and I would get a picture of where I stood. 

Not flaming "your" personal desires for competition, just stating how I feel.  We all do this for different personal reasons.  You see, I am in your place regardless of AP, and whether or not I fly an ARF in competition or roll my own.  I stand no real chance of a "trophy" right now, either way.  And I must admit that I, personally, got my fill of "competition" when it was my livelihood, so my outlook might be different.

I am not against ARFs or ARCs in any way, but the rules are what they are for now, at least.  It is a barrier I am sure for many, but there are other "barriers", too.  Hopefully your situation will change.  Our local contests have all dropped AP, and I would not be against all local contests doing so.  While I was adamantly opposed to it years ago when it happened, I no longer feel that way. So it is a moot point if you ever take a vacation and come down here to fly with us!  The Huntersville meets are among the best in the nation.  And you will certainly be welcomed to do so at anytime. (plus, this is truly "God's Country", since God HAS to be a Tar Heel, our skies are "Carolina Blue"! LOL!!)

Best wishes,
Bill

HI Bob,

Yeah, Maize and Blue, I know, I know.....  at least the Tar heel basketball program hits it big every now and then, plus if the football program can stay away from the NCAA it might really come on before too long!

Like I said, I think ALL local meets should probably drop AP.  And statement that could get me lynched in some areas.   Why? for reasons you describe, to a large extent.  Local meets should be about drawing in participation.  The more numbers, the better it is for all of us, regardless where we live.  Those that are trying to make it more than a hobby (and that isn't a bad thing if that is what they desire), and want to do well in Open at the NATS, etc., are not in the least way affected by the local rules of no AP.  Like I also said, I wasn't pleased when AP were dropped around here because I wanted to get something for building my own.  Now I really am for getting more participation, and whatever that takes (to a degree) I am all for.  Doesn't matter though when NO ONE gets AP.  Then it is just who is flying the best at that time.  And that point is one I do agree with on the local level.  As for the NATS, well that is just a different arena.  At one point I had the desire to try and be a Top 20 (or better) contestant there.  Lots of water under the bridge since then.  Maybe some surgery (or three! LOL!!) in the future will help change the situation here! LOL!!

Best wishes!
Bill

HI Rudy,

Those are very pretty planes, no doubt about that! 

Either way, I am not against ARFs at all, you should know that.    We have three at least.  But I can't afford any of the ones you show in one lump sum.  I had a SV11, great flying plane, but the most expensive part was the $75 rework on the ST G.51 that Tom Lay did. 

If I could scrape together $250 to put out at one time, on anything model related, my wife would not only kill me, she would display my rotting corpse on a pole outside the house!  
(seriously, she would)

Bill

wooopsss, one of the R/C aerobatic guys in my area has just planted some Ochroma pyramidale seeds... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochroma_pyramidale

Don't know what he'll do when the plants reach the ceiling: the climate is not exactly tropical.

All in fun

Big Bear

Hi Jim,

I agree with you. Over that period of time I can imagine that modeling did teach you some problem solving. I only have 50 years of modeling, but I can remember the early CL kits were poorly made, with minimal plans and instructions. The same held for early RC. There were many "problems" to be solved, especially in the more distant past. My guess is that you were like me and many others who designed and made our own planes, or at least did extensive modifications on existing designs. This was a good lesson in problem solving too. I'm glad you made your statement.

My point was more directed at the present time where we have excellent laser cut CL kits with perfect full size plans and very detailed and clear plans with photos and detailed instructions on all the equipment installations. Assembling one of these is not a learning experience for the youth of today that will be of much help in their future professions. They would learn more problem solving in one hour of a modern video game activity than in many hours of sanding balsa wood. In their future ALL assembly will be done by robotic machines (as we are seeing already), or by labor in third world countries. When we were kids, modeling and aviation in general were "high tech" and it was one of the few technical activities that young people could get into. The kids of today would look at CL as museum pieces and very "low tech", they have MANY better Hi Tech activities to learn from today to prepare them for THEIR future. Their time would not be well spent building today's CL models to try and learn something from it. 

My main point on this "training" issue was: that forcing all of us adults to have to build our own planes, just to compete in CLPA, because it is a valuable learning experience for young people to learn important skills for their future is a false argument because: Even if there is a valuable lesson, the point is made MOOT by the fact that there is not now, nor will there ever be, any flow of young people coming into CL. 99% of all CL flyer's are middle age or older. Almost all of us are people who have been doing it for decades, or guys like me who are "retreads" to CL and have built many planes over the years. ..... Learning to sand more balsa is not going to help us much. ;-)

Again, thank you for your input. I'm glad that your modeling experience helped your career. I think the FLYING of models helped me in my aviation career, but tomorrows pilots will be sitting in a chair on the ground watching a screen so I guess the thousands of hours spent on Video games by the youth of today won't be wasted. 

PS: Are you any relation to Phil Kraft? I used his radios for many years, they were great in their time.

Regards, 

Apparently, there are contests that keep the beauty contest separate from the flying contest.

Hi Rudy,

Me, again.  I have been reading your original post over and over.  You are actually stating some things I have not personally heard.  Maybe I missed them somewhere......  but just WHO (name a name) has said that only BOM CLPA models are beautiful?  If you're going to "rant" so much (and your original post is a rant), then name names, and quotes would be nice.

No matter how you want it to be, CLPA ain't IMAC, and probably never will be.  I don't personally know guys who are serious CLPA pilots who are involved in IMAC.  There might be, I just don't know about it.  Two very different aspects of model aviation at their cores, IMHO.

ARFs are basically a non issue for most people I know and talk to.  They have their place, and can be a good thing.  They are flown at our meets, but honestly, not a lot of new faces have shown up at any of our local meets with an ARF.  I was talking about that on the phone today and was asked just how many "new faces" I have seen at Huntersville in the past 10 years who showed up with an ARF for their first contest.  After a lot of hard thought, I couldn't say that anyone had.  BUT! a lot of guys HAVE flown ARFs at Huntersville, and they were also some of the "longest running participants" in CLPA.  Papa Dave Hemstraught has flown an ARF Nobler in Classic.  Tom Dixon and Bob Dixon, the same.  Dave was doing well at the NATS in the late '50s.  Tom and Bob have been around since the late '60s at least!  Not, "new faces".  Most of those I know who have  ARFs are not "newbies" rather long time regular participants or retreads.

Time to bring and end to the "preaching to the choir".  No one, anymore, has anything "bad" to say about ARFs that I know of, and I know a whole lot of CLPA pilots.  They are here, most of us have at least one, and there is no REAL problem.  Really, there isn't.   So you can't fly one in J/S/O at the NATS.  OK, you can't.  Until the rule changes that the rule.  They can be flown anywhere else!  There are no restrictions on that.  They are legal to be flown at all the local meets in the USA.  Nothing more can be done than that until the AMA decides it doesn't want a BOM anymore in CLPA.  CLPA isn't one where it will be dropped, probably, in our life time.  And the NATS affect only a small percentage of pilots, that's a fact.  Concessions have been made (and were actually made long before there were widespread ARFs), better ARFs are being made every day it seems.  More and more people fly them.  Where's the real problem?  Don't say that they aren't competitive because of AP.  Too few local contests still use AP.  And if enough competitors rant about it, they ones that do, just might have to drop them.  it isn't a NATIONAL problem though on the local level.  If the NATS are your goal, if you are really serious, then you play by the NATS rules.  And you CAN FLY an ARF in Beginner, Intermediate AND Advanced at the NATS.  NO RULE AGAINST IT.  Those events aer run under PAMPA guidelines which ALLOW ARFS to be flown.

I respect your opinions, and I will defend your right to them, but it seems a stretch to keep coming up with comparisons to IMAC.  It ain't "apples to apples".  Spell out the names of the offenders who, in your eyes, are causing all the problem.  Everyone is a "Big Boy" and can take it.  You seem to be wanting to start an "argument" for some strange reason.  Why?

Remember "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", it is one's own personal opinion.  Just because you declare a model as "pretty" doesn't mean I would think so, and we both have a right to our own "beliefs".  IMHO, I have yet to see an ARF that was as pretty as Windy's 20 point Cardinal.  A hand rubbed Candy Apple Red stunter which he built, and probably on video, no less! Or Ski Dombrowski's 20 point "Lacemaker", or Gene Martine's 20 point "Mariner".  That is "my" personal opinion.  Have you seen those planes in person?  An ARF can be "pretty" but there are varying degrees,and all subject to personal taste.  I have seen some pretty "Giant Scale" ARFs, and other large and small ARFs in R/C, but none "IMHO" were as pretty as the 20 pointers I list.

Respectfully,
Bill Little

Having been identified as a liar above, probably I don't have much credibility, but I'll tell a couple of stories.

Dirty Dan awhile back suggested that we control line fliers visit the RC field sometime.  He said that we could learn something from technology they have developed.  I stopped by the Boeing Hawks field in Kent.  Most of the planes there I-- um-- decided I couldn't learn anything from.  One plane looked pretty good, maybe 12 appearance points worth. I had been fussing over trim lines.  This plane had some trim lines on it, and although they weren't any better than I could mask or ink, I decided to ask the plane's owner about them.  He was a little hard to engage in conversation.  He must have been an elitist.  "What are these lines?" I asked.  After a couple of repeats of the question, he responded that the black lines separated the red area from the green area.  I clarified my question by asking how he made the black lines.  Annoyed, he explained that they were part of the sticker that covered the wing.  That was quite a time saver.  I was in and out in a couple of minutes.  Had he been a CL stunt flier, he would have droned on about surface preparation, what ink to use, what pens, how to space the reference edge above the wing so the ink wouldn't run under it, airbrushing a sealing coat, and a bunch of other tedious stuff.

On my way to Muncie, I stopped by Bozeman, MT, where I saw a car show.  One guy had a Mustang.  He was calling people over to see the "Phantom Mustang", a horse shadow on the hood which appeared at a certain lighting angle. I saw the Phantom Mustang, which was pretty cool, and asked him how he did it.  He was rather proud of not having done it and not knowing how it was done.  He paid a paint shop to do it.  All in all, I'd rather hang out with stunt fliers and don't mind paying them a few appearance points to show up. 

I hope this helps blunt the lies from some of the backward thinking guys who always bash ARFs and insist on punishing anyone who tries to compete with one. As you can tell, I am getting very tired of the constant, relentless BASHING of ARFs and the punishment of those of us who use them. To those who have been bashing all ARFs based on the old information from the original CL ARFs from many years ago. PLEASE stop doing this. It is very unfair, and spreads misinformation in a part of the model hobby (CL) that already has more misinformation than anywhere else in the modeling world. The excellent ARF/ARCs that came out last year are better than any plane that 90% of CL modelers build today. These AFR/ARCs are now good enough to be competitive at the very top competitions in the nation.

Here you go.  The first sentence pretty much describes me.  From the vantage point of a person around whom circles are being thought, the sign would appear to be negative half of the cycle. 

I would, not to miss an ARF-bashing chance, take issue with the last sentence.  I haven't seen Kaz's ARFs, but other than the Yatsenko's, none I have seen are, in my opinion, at all competitive without major rework. 

Seen the Moon's ARF Impact?  I haven't. ??

Yes, but only one. 

FWIW I fly with four guys who started in RC.  One was in the TOC and all flew pattern or IMAC.  They currently have no RC equipment to my knowledge and fly stunt exclusively.  They all fly better then I and as of yet, ( this is my second winter in S. Fl.) I have not seen an ARF other than mine.  I'm currently trimming a Pathfinder, rebuilding a plane that I bought that had a warped fuse, among other problems and fixed my scratched Firecat.  All I can say is that I'm glad I brought the ARF down or I wouldn't have anything close to a well flying plane at the moment.  I may even fly it at Brodak.

Don't know where this post came from or where it's going but I'm going to post it anyway.

Bob