I know this topic has been beaten to death, but I was wondering if any really solid guidelines have fallen out and been accepted?

Which rules for what events?  I am trying to find out what DEFINES an ARF vs ARC vs modeler built plane in current usage.  Use a purchased, pre-made foam or lost foam wing?  ARC or ARF or modeler built?  The sectional Cavalier certainly looks to me like an ARC, but as I recall it is reputed to be a modeler built model.  Also the carbon planes from Europe?  What about them?  If you have someone completely frame up and assemble a model ready to cover and you do the finish is that an ARC?

Its stupid.

Its the covering.  If the model was purchased covered, it cannot be used in competition.  Even if you remove all of the covering and re-cover it, if someone wanted to be a wank they could protest it.

So, by definition the Top Flite Nobler can never be legal.  It is not offered in an ARC.  Same with the Score or Tutor.  All of Brodak's ARF/ARC's are legal if you cover them.

I think mostly if you are really good or popular, people just look the other way.

After seeing the posts on the T-Rex ARF/ARC it seems like a couple of individuals has done a lot of reengineering to make the plane the way they want it.  Now to settle the problem, PAMPA skill classes allow any plane to fly/compete.  Even if it is a borrowed plane.  AMA has age classes in which the competitor is supposed to do the building and finishing.  There are several individuals that have gotten around it because of the statement, "A normal kit as it is produced".  Yes several designs come almost put together as they are already molded or assembled in sections.  That is the way that/those particular kits come.  

Now how many contests have you been to that run ages classes(AMA)?  What is really interesting is an article in "Control Line World" about a top notch builder/finisher/designer that did just that for an individual.  Then the individual in the article states he won a Concours Award with the plane.  Go figure.  So why worry about such stuff if people are okay with it and it doesn't bother their conscience.

I too have a problem with kits that are ARC and ARF.  If you remove the covering from an ARF, so it be can redone in a few areas to make a better plane, shouldn't it also be considered in the same realm of an ARC.

Dennis, I went ahead and posted this so I wouldn't lose any of it.  If you had been on the forums back in that period of time you would have seen it was getting a little hot under the collar for some people.  Our tech director at the time sent out questionars to people in the know for their opinion.  Our catagory NATS director was also approached as an individual threatened to protest each and every plane flying in aerobatics that year.  I did not get to see the final wording until I got to the NATS.  For appeaearance judging a lot of planes would have been illegal as I was against allowing any of the ARF/ARC to take part in appearance jusging like VSC.  Needless to say that person all of a sudden had family problems that kept them away.  So now no appearance points in the pattern finally.  Enough said as I can't see what I am typing.

I'm sure Dan Banjok amd Mike Palko couldn't care less about this issue, and they build and design from the ground up. When something's a joke, it makes me laugh. Have a laugh. Stunt is, at it's best, a gentleman's sport, which means self-policed. Personally, I'd rather build a sub thirteen point stunt war wagon and take my lumps. I would ALWAYS rather build. Far as I'm concerned it's part of the pleasure in the sport. At times I do it with an ARF due to time restraints, other obligations and MALAISE. Contemplating my malaise, also makes me laugh. Besides storing those wood plank trophies can be a pain. Mine usually wind up under a work table or in a cardboard box.

Bradly, you have done enough that people know who you are, why do you constantly cheapen your reputation with these kind of comments, please, for the sake of what you have contributed, think about how you present yourself.

Locally, there is NO resistance to ARC, ARF or OPA (other peoples airplanes) we all know pretty much who is building what, and even if you get a few points for a wing you didnt actually build, I can still overcome it with good flying.

Its Bradley...

I just speak what I see brutha...  I guess if that makes me cheap...  I am cheap.  Fine with me.  Call me what you want.  "Judge" me how you want...  It seems it is what we do best.

The reason the "emergency rule interpretation" at the Nats was enacted in the first place is that there were *several* top fliers at the Nats that were in violation of the BOM *as it was written at the time*, and if protested they might have been very embarrassed.  The reason for the panic to get an "interpretation" that basically side stepped the CLACB rules change process was that the protest could have *succeeded* at the AMA.  Many people knew that the rule was basically ignored, and the people who ran the Nats knew that.  Who do you think Bob Hunt sold all those wings too?  Intermediates?

PS:  I have done the whole BOM thing...  It is black hole.  It is a bad rule.  I have said thousands and thousands of words on the subject and I am tired.  Are there double standards?  Oh, you bet there are...  Is that so bloody controversial to say?  Are we really in that deep of denial?  I think so...

Heck, even my dogs do it... someone has to be the top.

alas, no good dead goes unpunished.

I think I might know that one all too well...

In a political environment like ours, it is not what you say, it is how you say it...

You do not need the "nats memo".  What you need is the bom rule from the AMA rule book.  The interpretation was made permanent the year after it was written.

Baby is just keeping her butt warm...

"From the AMA Rulebook:
Competition Regulations
2007-2008
Rules Governing Model Aviation
Competition in the United States
General Information


Builder of Model. The CD shall make every
reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has
completely “constructed’ the model(s) he uses in
competition, including the covering where used, with
“constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to
complete a model starting with no more prefabrication than
the amount used in the average kit (“average kit” is
interpreted by Control Line Aerobatics as a model that may
consist of precut, unassembled parts or assembled
(uncovered) subcomponents such as wings, horizontal and
vertical stab, fuselage; requiring a few hours of assembly
time and covering). Models which are completely
prefabricated (“completely prefabricated” is interpreted as
the model is ready to fly out of the box or in a few minutes
(less than an hour) of assembly time.) and require only a
few minutes (less than an hour) of unskilled effort for their
completion shall be excluded from competition. (Control
Aerobatics additionally interprets that any model, that is
pre-covered in the box is excluded from competition)."

That is why why UHP stopped offering SLC covered planes, there were several prominent members of the CLACB that said they would not allow UHP "component kits" in competition, since they came covered (no matter if they were re-covered or over covered).  We argued that we were advocating that they be finished in the traditional manner over the film, but the members in question would not budge (not to mention a lot of other outspoken flyers).

Heck, I invented the term "component kit" for UHP...  It was to get away from the term ARF (which is a misnomer).

That is why the rule is sooooo bad.  Many people can get the wrong idea about whether their plane is legal, show up to a contest, and be told they cannot fly.  It is a horrible rule.

How does Orestes Shark manage to qualify? Wings, fues, etc are received covered. Are they not?

How does Orestes Shark manage to qualify? Wings, fues, etc are received covered. Are they not?

I have seen the kit and I dare anyone to assemble that in less than one or two days and have it fly right.

Bradley, are the parenthetic comments in the BOM rule quote in the rule book version or are they your asides (interpretations). If that is in fact the rule, I repeat, how would Orestes' Shark qualify in Open at the NATS. I believe the components are received covered.

How does Orestes Shark manage to qualify? Wings, fues, etc are received covered. Are they not?

Yes.  It is a molded plane.

Like I said, it is a bad rule....

To everybody, how many times does it have to be repeated.  The rule only applies to the age catagories of the AMA.  

That is wrong.

The rule applies to PAMPA skill classes, and to JSO.  The difference is that in PAMPA classes you lose appearance points, in JSO, you are not allowed to fly.  The rule is still used for both, the penalty is different.

Almost sounds like a PLOT to get Brad and the Moonies.

HA HA!!!

Its a stupid rule.  A really bad, poorly thought out stupid rule, that is about as clear cut as a pine forest.

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.

Hi Larry,

I like the way you asked your question, focusing on the "what" of the rule not the "why" of the rule. Just what I would expect from a gentleman engineer with a PhD from MIT. :-) .... I hope more people follow your excellent lead on this topic.

I promised myself that I would never write a post on this very strange topic again, but I just can't find the will power to stop. So far this thread has mostly focused on your "What" and stayed away from the forest fire level heat that comes from the why (or why not issues ;-)

I won't even go into the fact that 99.99% of the modeling world does NOT have this strange BOM rule, or that the entire planet earth, outside the USA, does not have this strange BOM rule .... this is for another time on another thread (or maybe another forum? ;-)

I have tried to find out all I could about this rule, as an active CD I have talked to the AMA tech/rule people, and many active CDs at length on this topic, below are the results.

LARRY,  ..... SHORT ANSWER:

    #1,2,3 below covers 99% of our models and 99% of our CLPA flying.

1. Build and paint it yourself .......  Enter and get full AP everywhere (no-brainer ;-)

2. ARC or UNCOVERED "component kit", including wood covered foam, ...... same as #1

3. ARF or RTF ...... NO AP (almost everywhere), and possible entry problems at some contests.

99% of all the discussion (problems?) of the "implementation" of the current rule is due to the models covered in #4 below. These represent < 1% of all the CL models being flown in the USA.

4. If you buy a MOULDED fiberglass/CF component plane, or you "DEVOLVE" an ARF into an ARC then YOU make it back into an ARF then YOU make it into a RTF, ..... then you better check with each CD that you plan to fly under (?) before you enter his/her contest.


LONGER ANSWER:


As mentioned on this thread by others, there does seem to be a better understanding of this AMA CLPA BOM rule now and most people understand it well enough to address 99% of CLPA flying in the USA. If we remove just a few events from the discussion then the rule is very clear and easily applied.

    If we set aside the North East Regional contest (AKA the Nats), AND the VSC, then the rule is very easy to use for the remaining 99% of all flying in the USA.  Like Brad said, the NERC/Nats punishment for breaking the rule is BANISHMENT from the contest. ....... (turn around and drive the 2,000 miles back home without a single flight and try to explain the "BOM rule" to your 15 year old son who tried to get into CLPA with his arf Nobler .... sorry I couldn't resist!  )

     RE: the VSC, they have their OWN rules, their rules have "nothing" to do with the AMA or the PAMPA Classic or Old time rules. The VSC should never even come up in any dissicusion of rules, you must read and OBEY their very particular/unique rules, nothing else applies.

     Now, with the above contests set aside, the current rule is very clear and easy to use:

1. If you built it and covered/painted it then your GOLDEN in all AMA/PAMPA contests. (no-brainer here)

2. If it is an ARC, then same as #1. ...... An ARC is an all encomposing term. It includes all the obvious ARC units from Brodak. It also includes ALL "component kits" (thanks for the great marketing term Brad ;-) from cottage industry producers and builders, this also includes foam wings sheeted with balsa (or plywood), ex: the excellent balsa covered foam wings that Bob Hunt has been providing for decades, ..... as long as none of these componet kit parts are "not" covered with any film or tissue/silk, paint, etc.

3. The only area that poses a potential problem is if we start molding fiberglass or CF parts with a built-in gelcoat of colored paint. So far this is almost nonexistant in a "component kit" format. It seems, so far, that the economics of this type of effort lends itself to a true RTF unit that costs several thousand US$, these RTF units clearly do not meet the current USA BOM rule . The few people making this expensive effort have stopped making it available in a "Component kit" format for several good reasons. For 99% of CLPA contests in the USA I don't think this issue will become a problem anytime soon.

4. RE: the FILM COVERED ARF (really a "component kit", ARC, that is covered with film at the factory), that is STRIPED of it's fatory film covering then RECOVERED (and/or recovered then painted) .... If this is done by the pilot, > 90% of those surveyed said it would meet the current BOM rule. So if you do this, check with your local CD before the contest. ..... Like an ARF, you can fly it but you may get zero AP with <10% of the CDs
      The AMA officials that I talked to stated that the above (re-recovered ARF) DOES meet their intent of the rule and they will make a clairification on this when/if needed. FWIW: they thought it was "unbelievable" that anyone would think that going through all the WORK of devolveing the ARF back to an ARC then recovering and/or painting it again would somehow NOT meet the intent of the current rule, I had a hard time convincing them that some CL people really thought that. (I will keep the forum posted on the progress of this official clairification). As stated above, this problem (#3,#4) covers only a very small % of planes flying in contests today.

DOC:

You said: " ... why do we discuss this anymore?, there are no more AP in pattern ......."

There is a very important reason why we discuss this. The APs are CRITICAL at any contest you want to COMPETE in. Look at the results of all the =/> med size contests and you will see that the average APs are larger than the point spread between the trophy places 1st to 3rd, and many times to 5th place. This means that the BOM APs have a huge impact on how you finish. Doc, at your next contest, go up to the 1st place winner during the awards presentation, tell him that you just lowered his score by 16 points and take his trophy out of his FIRM grip and tell him he now only placed 4th! Then tell me that the AP points don't matter.

You may be lucky in the SE and not use AP, but the norm in most of the USA is to still use them. I know that here in the very conservative (reactionary?) SW they are universally used. Please try to understand why they are important to us, even if your local area does not use them. TIA :-)

Regards, 

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, 

reply to Dennis
Sharks are all balsa and plywood only carbon is the stab joiner
Orestes brought the shell component kit to the 2005 nats and presented the kit to Warren and anyone else who came by his room to view the kit Wing top and bottom 1/4 shells with integral wingtips installed, foam ribs, Fuse left and right balsa shells with plu wd and balsa formers Note the shels are laminated with fiberglass cloth inside and out Stab balsa top and bottom shells same as wing
I have 3 sharks so i spek from actual facts
Brad great work on the T-rex  i have one and it will be electric
my wish is for guys to be imformed on this subject and stop the inference of rules violation.
The first model with a foam wing cut by others were all in violation of the rules but as Brad stated it all depends on who not what.
BOM died in 1968
Jose Modesto

my reply was to Dennis about Orestes,Josias, and the nats. Dennis only mentioned Orestes and i wanted to imform about his model and the facts about how its constructed. Dennis inference about his plane not being current BOM legal and i wanted to address this and put this to rest
Brad the current rules allow a complete component kit as long as you apply the paint and final assembly its legal
The issue now is to define covering.
Jose Modesto

Dennis the Shark kits that were presented in 2005 were prior to the BOM rules clarification, the current kits can be shipped as are the Tom Morris quick built component kits with all major parts ie:wings,fuse with fin and tail preconstructed by the manufcturer.Dennis at the 2007 team trials the kit was presented to Warren and Paul walker for their approval as BOM compliant and approved by them.
The current kits to comply with the BOM the wing takeapart system is not glued into the wing or the stab wich requires the builder to assemble and align the model wich is dificult since we dont have access to the molds and the plane is devoid of any center lines to be used for alignment.
Tom Morris has a CD showing various take apart systems and it shows the 2005 Shark kits.
Dennis the last sticking point is the definition of the "covering" are we talking 1950 tecnology or current state of the art composite structures. With composite structures the outer surface can be very smooth and may not require any additional traditional covering.  Dennis with the Sharks you can see the weave of the fiberglass cloth  specialy if you order the kits with out paint or primer,for top level nats competition this is not acceptable and addition finish is required wich has been interpreted as adding covering.
is this 1950 or 2010 wich is it for you
I spoke with Hunt about you and he said you were a good guy as youand him had some spirited discussions at the filly flyers meeting

To bad Dennis as i have just completed the molds for an all composite Impact and SV22 for electric power
I have in the past 10 years developed a severe alergic reaction to balsa wood and CA that has made it difficult to build the old traditional way. There is nothing like a true dope finish
since the BOM rules have changed it has opened the way for component builders that have greatly helped me in my stunt journy thanks for progress.
As far as traditional dope finishes Windy U. is the best that i have seen since 1980 to present and light to.
Remember that all thats required to meet the BOM rules are 1 hour of skilled labor and part paint they might as well eliminate it and stop the myth of BOM as its used today.
Im with Warren f2B and 8 minutes
PA stunt is an art form and the beautifull models that u see at the nats and the worlds will not be effected  wether there is a BOM or not, but i'm indebt to the pioneers that made the artform that we so enjoy today under the original BOM.
Jose modesto

<Bad enough I bought a Honda>

The days are lone gone when you had to apologize for buying a HONDA......Grins

On the East Coast, for the most part, in local contests anyway, there are no appearance points awarded. A kind of pocket veto on BOM. Far as I can tell everyone flies what they brought. No one even thinks twice about flying a model someone else built. At Brodak in the PAMPA classes, however, appearance points are awarded. It is assumed that the flier is the builder of the model.

At a contest three years ago, a contestant had an ARF which he had recovered.  We gave him no appearance points and he protested.  We all looked at the rule and agreed that a recovered ARF got no appearance points.  I don't really think that is the way it should be.  Taking the covering off an ARF and putting new covering on is going to be more work than covering an ARC.