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. 

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, 

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.

 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

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 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

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, 

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, 

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.

  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.

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).

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.

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.