Author Topic: What is it, really ARF, ARC, BOM (Read 8327 times)

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #50 on:** January 19, 2010, 01:21:36 AM »

Hi Serge,

You said: " ..... In addition to our ARF/ARC class, these planes can fly in PAMPA classes without appearance points. .... "

I am confused, and I hope I just misread the above sentence. ...... Are you saying that you do not give ARC planes full APs? If this is true, what rule do you base this on? I have never heard of anyone doing this. Even here in the extremely conservative SW where they hate Electric Power, hate Monokote, hate ARFs, hate anything new, etc, .... even they allow APs for ARCs.

Regards,

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #51 on:** January 19, 2010, 02:18:23 AM »

Seems to me, that once folks started flying made to order planked foam wings, BOM was on the road to being compromised. Hard to build a straight contest weight wing. The fues and tail much easier. Tho, I must admit zooty cowls are difficult and eye catching. Painting and finishing an art. I've even heard rumors (horrors) that implicate a few that reside on the morally righteous left coast.

In most cases at our local contests it's obvious who built their own flying machine, who arfed it and who bought it. In fact, most airplane buys are out in the open and public. Nice moral touch there IMHO. Geeze, come to think of it, I'm flying a knock about Vector 40 I bought at the big B fly in. A kit built plane that flies nice. Everyone knows it, who cares. In profile I fly a mod Twister that looks pretty good. I built that one. Still, there are many lovely models flown, obviously BOM. What's the point of faking it in the present scheme of things. Of course the neurotic will be, still, neurotic. But for those of us blessed with a fairly stable mentality, what kind of satisfaction is there in breaking the rules in order to win a plank?

don Burke · « **Reply #52 on:** January 21, 2010, 11:17:41 AM »

IMO the BOM was ALWAYS a non-issue because of the lack of integrity of some "win-at-all-cost" competitors.

In my case the racing classes I choose to compete in don't have any AFS or ARCs although there is also no BOM so some just buy what they want. Those who think that you can buy success are mistaken. Even handed stuff on a silver platter it still takes practice and a certain bit of talent to be successful in any endeavor.

jose modesto · « **Reply #53 on:** January 21, 2010, 07:36:42 PM »

Im so tired of the BOM this overblown,selectively enforced,myth must die. if the real BOM was ever enforced many NATS champions would have to have their names removed from the Walker cup.
let me explain. One of my childhood heroes , NATS champ and a good friend who i visited a couple of days back won the nats and the walker cup with the first foam wing plane and then became the east coast rep for the wing manufacturer.
This model did not meet the BOM rules but the flyers accepted this with out ever changing the definition of the BOM and then many followed this trend building their models with wings prepared by others assembled and finished by the flyer. that to me was the first chip taken from the BOM.
You know why no one protested becouse building a straight wing is the Hart of a stunt plane and this new invention was available to everyone so everyone approved of the change to the BOM without it ever having to be voted on or officialy changed by the AMA
Second: Foam wings ,Stab,Elevator and Flaps, sheeted by others and assembled by the flyres this development are clearly in violation of the BOM as written but again they wer made availble to everyone. So the BOM is changed again by the flyers without imput by AMA
Third: Quick built kits these are fully built component kits.ie: wing,stab,elevator,fin and fuselage. These models are in clear violation of the BOM prior to 2004 NATS
I have attended Nats that the 51% rule was used for the BOM in the 1980s again with out any imput from the AMA
So here we are today with the overly critical west coast corus stating that they are the ones that realy follow the rules of the BOM and i say wich rule, the official AMA BOM prior to 2004 or all the un official changes since 1969.
BOM is dead long live the BOM
PS: I can name names of all the who did not adhere to the AMA BOM who have won the NATS prior to the 2004 NATS and the redefinition of BOM starting in 1968 to 2004 with their permision only as all these men followed the accepted rules as enforced at the time.
After 2004 all of the bove systems became legal
I did not use the word cheaters for anyone as i have been in this game since 1966 and have been part of the process without ever protesting anyone.
JOSE MODESTO

Marvin Denny · « **Reply #54 on:** January 22, 2010, 09:57:12 AM »

You know why no one protested becouse building a straight wing is the Hart of a stunt plane and this new invention was available to everyone so everyone approved of the change to the BOM without it ever having to be voted on or officialy changed by the AMA

I take axception to the term "everybody". A lot of us "less than perfect" performers of the aerobatic pattern and a few of the even top echelon group of fliers do and always have followed the BOM as it was originally intended. We build own models because we ---A: like to build our own creations, or B: we think the rule ought to be followed as originally intended, or C: We feel a moral integrity to do what is right.
Do we NOT care if we win? No, we DO like to win, and it pains us when we see others who "push the rules as far as they can" to gain a few points extra. Some of those do so because their friends and fellow competitors do and they want to remain competitive.
Do we protest and if not ---why not? NO most of the time we do not as we feel that it is (per the rule book) the contest/event directors' responcibility to enforce the rule book, not the average entrants' duty to challenge him into doing his job.
Even with all the "supposedly"violations, and the "reinterpitation" of the BOM rule, I still think the BOM should be kept but with the allowance of a "sliding appearance points system to reward those who DO build their entire craft with some points also being awarded to those who do somewhat less.. I do not think that there should be so many points awarded for appearance to make it "easy" for a competitor to win a "stunt" contest.
I suggested such a system some years back and it has been tried by three (that I know of) clubs around these parts. Tulsa OK mainly with good acceptance by the entrants.
Will I submit a rules change proposal?? Not no but heck no!! I am tired of the fight--- let some younger modeler try to fight the establishment.

Bigiron

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #55 on:** January 22, 2010, 01:09:06 PM »

I suggest an extremely simple and workable modification of ARC/ARF/BOM rules.:

As of ((Date)) the Builder of the Model rule is suspended for all control line stunt flight
competitions, and appearance points, if awarded and under any circumstance shall not
apply to flight competition scoring.

Any judgments and scoring of appearance points shall be mutually exclusive with flight
contests.

..or something to that effect.

Problems solved.

L.

"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." -Ovid

jose modesto · « **Reply #56 on:** January 22, 2010, 04:12:32 PM »

Marvin not looking for a fight with you BUT you are one of the responsible competitors that allowed the unofficial changes to the BOM. When i speak of everybody i'm only speaking of the NATS competition the only place were BOM maters what you do in your neck of the woods is up to you and your friends.
You must be one of the only known flyers to never have built a foam wing stunt plane with a foam wing cut by someone else. Marvin are you and I on the same page that foam wings were a violation of the original BOM if cut by others.
what i said in my previous post is correct,BOM has been under assault for a long time remember when there used to be 60 then 40 now 20 points for appearance and now even you want to reduce it further in a missguided attemp to save something thats been dead for a long time.
Its about time to stop the farce that the current BOM rule has become it has no relationship to what BOM was prior to 1968
Marvin I hope that you would not disparrage any NATS competitor that currently is following BOM as clarrified by the AMA.
Marvin with out this official change to the rule many current planes and all the way back to 1968 would have been disqualified from nats competition.
marvin do the competitors make the event or the AMA as a NATS participant and lover of this most AMERICAN ART FORM (that the world has now embraced even without appearance points)I say that the competitors are the ones that define this event and BOM IS DEAD LONG LIVE BOM
LETS NOT FORGET THAT PAMPA HAS RUN THE NATS SINCE 1973 so who is responsible for yor lost BOM tradition we are.

Marvin Denny · « **Reply #57 on:** January 22, 2010, 08:50:07 PM »

Quote from: jose modesto on January 22, 2010, 04:12:32 PM

Marvin not looking for a fight with you BUT you are one of the responsible competitors that allowed the unofficial changes to the BOM. When i speak of everybody i'm only speaking of the NATS competition the only place were BOM maters what you do in your neck of the woods is up to you and your friends.
You must be one of the only known flyers to never have built a foam wing stunt plane with a foam wing cut by someone else. Marvin are you and I on the same page that foam wings were a violation of the original BOM if cut by others.
what i said in my previous post is correct,BOM has been under assault for a long time remember when there used to be 60 then 40 now 20 points for appearance and now even you want to reduce it further in a missguided attemp to save something thats been dead for a long time.
Its about time to stop the farce that the current BOM rule has become it has no relationship to what BOM was prior to 1968
Marvin I hope that you would not disparrage any NATS competitor that currently is following BOM as clarrified by the AMA.
Marvin with out this official change to the rule many current planes and all the way back to 1968 would have been disqualified from nats competition.
marvin do the competitors make the event or the AMA as a NATS participant and lover of this most AMERICAN ART FORM (that the world has now embraced even without appearance points)I say that the competitors are the ones that define this event and BOM IS DEAD LONG LIVE BOM
LETS NOT FORGET THAT PAMPA HAS RUN THE NATS SINCE 1973 so who is responsible for yor lost BOM tradition we are.

We not only are not on the same page Jose, we are not even in the same book!!! Just HOW am I one of those responcible for the situation as it is today? As for "disparaging" ANY competitor, I never have, even when I saw a competitor AT THE NATS flying a ship that I sold him a couple of years earlier. All he had done was apply some new paint on the wings. The current "interpretation" of the BOM was done without an official vote in order to "possibly" avoid some mass protests rather than face the problem head on.
How am I in my suggested points awarding "further reducing" the BOM rewards? Would you rather have enough points for appearance be awarded that no matter HOW poorly you flew and no matter how well another (non builder of his model) flew that you would still win just because you had a "pretty plane"? I think not. My suggested system STILL awarded the true BOM modeler the most points, but it DID award those who did SOME extra work in preparing and finishing their ARFs and ARCs
I have a very good and sophisticated foam cutting system.
, but I still like building my stunt planes from balsa.
You say that the BOM is only in effect at the Nats. That is WRONG. The awarding of "pretty points" in the PAMPA classes while not awarding them to ANY extent to builders (assemblers) of ARFs IS in fact either rewarding for building or punishing modelers wsing the BOM as a tool.
I truely wish the BOM was enforced as it was intended "back in the old days".
As to foam wings qualifing for BOM--- if the modeler bought a foam core (pre cut by someone else) installed the LE, spar, TE, and skins onto the core, I would say he built the wing.
As a added little item, since you mentioned finish, did you know that the finish put on a model has NEVER been part of the BOM requirements. It states in part, "shall have built the model up to the covering where required". So I have absolutely NO problems with ANYONE getting a professional to paint his plane.

I think I have explained myself and my stance pretty well as I can---- book closed.

Bigiron

jose modesto · « **Reply #58 on:** January 22, 2010, 10:23:33 PM »

Marvin first let me thank you for building that really nice Novi 4 one of my favorite airplanes wich i got to photo at Brodak
My contention of you having a responsbility first to your self and the hobby is that by allowing a modeler that you sold a completed model to and then allowed the flyer to compete at the NATS you have been a willing participant in the destruction of the BOM.Cant you see thats wrong.
The great PAMPA has been in charge of the NATS since 1973 most of the violations and unwritten rules have accured during this time when i say we i mean all PAMPA members who allowed these unofficial changes and the continuation errosion of this great AMERICAN ART form. I think that what we have now is what we want PAMPA is the official SIG for this event and it sets the rules official or not.
Marvin we are at fault for this you,me and every other flyer who remained silent while the flyers who really want to fly FAI but manintain the charade of the BOM contunue to dominate this event. In your post you made mention of your dislike of a guy winning on pretty points even you are in some way against BOM and want to water it down.

in BOM there is only one absolute that is not modified in any way in the original BOM and Current BOM YOU MUST APPLY YOUR OWN COVERING I interpet this to be the finish what do you think this means the silkspan?
all other items mentioned in BOM have qulifiers attached to them so for me the paint is an item that must be done by the competitor.

I live in NYC and all contest in my area are flyer events. No BOM we either have a concours or a beauty award wich is voted on by the flyers but no points. We in the north east have figured out that BOM is dead and the only charade is at the NATS were you think one way and i another with no
Lets compare BOM is open to interpretation i think that a foam wing is in violation were you think as long as you sheeted and added leading edge and trailing edge then thats acceptable, there is no absolute to this rule no real consessus as to what it means.
Marvin note the AMA has defined it for us but its contunues to vague as you and i have different opinion on what covering means and it has been in the rules for over 60 years.
BOM is dying slowly let it DIE.
JOSE MODESTO

john e. holliday · « **Reply #59 on:** January 26, 2010, 09:39:38 AM »

Isn't the horse dead yet? There is only one contest that BOM really applies and only three catagories/classes of stunt. In PAMPA Int, Adv and Opn it only applies for appearance points. Those that get appearance points for a plane that does not apply have only their conscience to contend with. Now if someone strips an ARF Nobler and recovers it, then gets appearance points then I would protest it if it is flown in ADV as that is the class I fly. If all other ARF's are illegal for stripping and refinishing then the ARF Nobler should be also. Now I have the question, "I have an UHP Gieske Nobler already covered with SLC, is it illegal after I put a finish over the SLC"? If the answer is yes, I will leave it in the car during appearance judging. In reality why don't we go ahead and bury the poor horse so he can rest in peace before the vultures get to him.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #60 on:** January 26, 2010, 05:26:23 PM »

Dear John,

I don't understand why you are still confused about the Nobler example? It was only an EXAMPLE PLANE. Please see my prior post to you on this, it is located in this post below. As I stated before, "ALL" stripped and recovered ARFs will get APs in most parts of the country. Please read my prior posts on this thread for details.

This thread is about important "APPERANCE POINTS"!!!!! ... only a very very few care about the North East Regional contest (AKA nats) rules re: the BOM. ..... >99% of all contest flying is done under PAMPA rules which allows ALL planes to enter, the ONLY variable for discusion in the USA is APPERANCE POINTS.

Larry asked a very important question to start his thread. With only a few exceptions the answers have been a productive review of where we are in understanding the rules AS THEY ARE WRITTEN NOW. We have been operating under them for one full year now and it is a good time to review how they are being used in re: to APs.

PLEASE, I beg of you all, to put your HEAT aside and NOT get into the "why" and "who" of the past and start dealing with the reality of NOW (at least for two more years ;-). PLEASE keep this thread on the topic at hand: "how do CDs implement the PRESENT rules regarding APs at PAMPA contests" ...... We will be under these same rules for two more years so it is important that we ALL have a clear understanding of how the CDs NATIONWIDE will use them.

If I can use Larry's beautiful Bob Palmer Smoothie as an example. Larry did an outstanding job recovering it and Bob would have been proud of it as an excellent example of his design. One of the main reasons we have NATIONAL rules is so that we can travel to contests far and wide and know that the rule book in our hands applies EVERYWHERE within our countries borders. Here in the West it is common to drive many hundreds of miles to contests throughout a very large region. It is important that the rules are both UNDERSTOOD and UNIFORMILY implemented to make it fair, inclusive, and FUN for everyone. Larry's recovered Smoothie should receive APs in LA the same as it would receive them in Phoenix AZ or Portland OR, or Charleston SC.

This is a very important concept. It is why the FAI CLPA rules work so well for the rest of the world. They are universally understood and applied uniformally throughout the world. They allow CL flyer's from every country on the planet (except one) to be treated fairly and KNOW what to expect from one contest to the other no matter which country they travel to. They can build a plane that meets a universal rule knowing that they can fly it and receive full points in 195 out of the 196 countries on spaceship earth.

Please, let's deal with the rule we have NOW and try and find some "facts" so we can address Larry's original question: What is the status of the AP rules in our country TODAY and for the next two years?"

I think it would be productive to hear from competition pilots and CDs from different regions of the country on the status of our AMA rules implementation re: APs. This may help those that are planning on competing at contests over the next two years make their plane selections re: APs.

John, re: your ? about the excellent UHP Gieske Nobler. This was an outstanding idea, but for better, or for worse, it ends up on the very edge of the rule. Some think that applying tissue over the SLC then painting it in the traditional manner makes it eligible for APs, others think not. Being on the very edge of the rule I would contact all the CDs in YOUR contest area and get their opinion before going forward with this excellent plane and expecting APs.

If someone wants to get off topic and go on and on and on about the past, then please start another thread so we can have an intelligent (dispassionate?

) discussion of the present rules, as they are written. TIA.

Warm Regards,

Quote from: john e. holliday on January 26, 2010, 09:39:38 AM

Isn't the horse dead yet? There is only one contest that BOM really applies and only three catagories/classes of stunt. In PAMPA Int, Adv and Opn it only applies for appearance points. Those that get appearance points for a plane that does not apply have only their conscience to contend with. Now if someone strips an ARF Nobler and recovers it, then gets appearance points then I would protest it if it is flown in ADV as that is the class I fly. If all other ARF's are illegal for stripping and refinishing then the ARF Nobler should be also. Now I have the question, "I have an UHP Gieske Nobler already covered with SLC, is it illegal after I put a finish over the SLC"? If the answer is yes, I will leave it in the car during appearance judging. In reality why don't we go ahead and bury the poor horse so he can rest in peace before the vultures get to him.

Hi Doc,

"......But if you can strip an ARF Nobler, recover it and the fly it, why not any of the other ARF's?...." ?

I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that this applies to ALL ARFs. I only used the ARF Nobler as an example because it has been so popular. The few people that say this ARF to ARC to ARF to RTF procedure does not meet the rule must be using some form of logic that is from another planet? ...... Where is "Spock" when we need him?

Regards,

Warren Leadbeatter · « **Reply #61 on:** January 27, 2010, 05:09:25 AM »

I have watched you guys argue about this stuff for years now.

We don't have a BOM rule here in Australia, we allow anyone to fly anything they like. If we didn't do that the dismal numbers we have at some of our comps would be even less.

We fly F2B, you can build, buy or even borrow a model and fly and be judged and even WIN because your flying is judged and nothing else.

I do like the idea of an Appearance Points prize though, based on your BOM rule. This would those give those guys who take their hobby to the n'th degree (ie design, build and finish their own models) some credit and recognition for their good work.

I reckon you blokes should stop arguing, have a beer, and remove the appearance points thing for the flying part of your contests, and if you must have it, make it a separate contest or prize for the best looking model.

Thats just my 2 cents worth from the outside looking in.

Cheers!

john e. holliday · « **Reply #62 on:** January 27, 2010, 09:20:37 AM »

Thank you Warren, in a way I have been anti BOM for years. I guess since I started flying control line and when I was a Jr & Sr getting beat by daddy built planes. I tried my best to get my son to build as much as he could when he was my pilot and also competing. With school and all the other activities it was hard for him. By the way do you guys ever get snow down there in our summer time? We get snow in your summer time.

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #63 on:** January 27, 2010, 11:50:13 AM »

Quote from: Dennis Moritz on January 06, 2010, 11:11:17 PM

If you eliminate the offending phrase, "covered in the box," almost any model would qualify, outside of a Cox Cub. Besides I agree with Brad, the phrase is ambiguous and selectively applied. For instance it seems to me that a balsa'd-over foam wing is equally "covered in the box," same goes for a cast carbon iteration.

And I'd be in favor of a special waver for Cox Cub competitors!

Simply, we need to stop pretending we're trying to keep a rule while we're trying to get around the rule.

L.

"If you wait, it will go away." -Hellrung's Law

Warren Leadbeatter · « **Reply #64 on:** January 27, 2010, 02:45:44 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on January 27, 2010, 09:20:37 AM

By the way do you guys ever get snow down there in our summer time? We get snow in your summer time.

No snow here in populated areas. Sometimes it falls, but usually melts when it hits the ground. We have a few small mountains around the place that sometimes get snow on their tops. We have a couple of ski fields for snow skiing in winter but they are pretty average.

Robert Schroeder · « **Reply #65 on:** February 19, 2010, 10:40:19 AM »

BOM as it applies NOW! There is no BOM. There is, however FOM (finisher of the model). For that, I think there may be appearance points. ARF, BARF, Composite, ad nauseum have nothing to do with the original BUILDER OF THE MODEL rule! As has been stated, "As it applies today." Whatever the rule book says is what should be allowed, or not, in an official contest. Should you not agree with the current rule, feel free to attempt to change it. Yes, there are those who build their model from design to clear coat. That is to be applauded. There are those who build from traditional kits and finish them themselves. They should also be applauded. If there is any more prefabrication then cut ribs, tail and fuse, it's not BOM. It's assemble the model. I have ARFs, ARCs kits and plans and combinations of all of the above, depending upon the crash (yes, I still crash). There really should be no loud vocal "discussion" on the subject. The BOM has degraded into what we have today. It is the current law. Live with it or change it in any way you think is necessary. It's all totally irrelevant. Those that build will continue to build and those that assemble will continue to assemble. Think about it. From some of the above quotes, the wing is the most important part of the airplane and MUST be built straight. "But I can't build a straight wing so if I buy a premade straight wing I'll have an advantage over the other guys." It went from there into what we have today. Anyone can have whatever they want to fly. All it takes is talent or money, just like the rest of the world. Stunt has devolved into flying and paint, admit it. Drop the ego gratification, cheating or bending the rules and the controversy goes away.

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #66 on:** February 21, 2010, 08:45:11 AM »

I remember a time when that kind of rant would earn you a landslide of letters, emails, slanderous posts, and maybe even the entire thread being erased.

I would be willing to applaud (golf clap).

Robert Schroeder · « **Reply #67 on:** February 21, 2010, 01:20:41 PM »

Actually, it wasn't even a rant. It was what appeared to me to be an amalgamation of all the posts in the thread and how they, as a group, affected me. Some were nice, attempting to explain a point, some were a bit defensive. After reading all the posts, it hit me that the controversy will not go away, kinda like the North and South. It seems that it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. It just won't go away. That's just the way it appeared to me.

Bradley Walker · « **Reply #68 on:** February 22, 2010, 02:18:40 PM »

Quote from: Robert Schroeder on February 21, 2010, 01:20:41 PM

Actually, it wasn't even a rant. It was what appeared to me to be an amalgamation of all the posts in the thread and how they, as a group, affected me. Some were nice, attempting to explain a point, some were a bit defensive. After reading all the posts, it hit me that the controversy will not go away, kinda like the North and South. It seems that it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. It just won't go away. That's just the way it appeared to me.

I would be willing to applaud the best model builder.... and that be the end of it. Life is too short for bad BOM rules.

That is all I meant.

I think your post is exactly correct.

Robert Schroeder · « **Reply #69 on:** February 22, 2010, 05:45:57 PM »

I agree. Thanks for your answers to my questions

Bob

john e. holliday · « **Reply #70 on:** February 23, 2010, 10:42:35 AM »

How many have caught the article in Stunt News about a plane that was built for someone else. From idea to plans to construction then finish.