The categories are an attempt to give the judges some leverage. As it stands, and as Brett points out, our BOM is based solely on the honor system.  If someone says they built their plane, we must accept it, and the judges are to judge fairly.  As with everything in life, there will always be those who try to bend, or flat out break the rules. The categories wouldn't have to be those listed, but after reading the post from Doug, Steve, and Brett, I can see that new problems may arise, and it might not be fair for everyone.  Or they could just do cockpit detail... 🤣

The idea about requiring documentation, especially for know production models has merit.  I document my own builds, as I know many people do. This is mainly so I can remind myself what to do, when I build the next one, a few years later. I generally have 200-300 photos of the construction and finishing process. 

Of course, with technology today, just about anything can be faked....

Derek

I know that you know the reason this is being discussed.....

   Of course. The issue is not how the judging works, because any system we have yet considered still depends on the honor system to enforce. As long as we are unable/unwilling to state the obvious - and thus single people out and create an an ugly incident involving people we generally like - I don't see any good way to get past it.

    If going to 40 points (with any allocation) was going to fix the situation, I would be for it, despite the fact that I have been disproportionately affected by appearance points over the years. Of course, that is my own fault, not the fault of the rules, I make compromises to accommodate my specific situation and this is the result. But I don't think this fixes the underlying problem - in fact based on everything we have seen to date, it just makes the situation worse. Where did the airplane(s) in question wind up in appearance judging?

    For myself - I know whose accomplishments I respect and whose I question and have clouds over them. This, again, despite the fact that I would have personally benefitted and  would probably have 2 wins and maybe 3 otherwise.

    A potential solution is to require documentation if the airplane "closely resembles a known commercial product (ARF, ARC, RTF or something like that). You previously called me naive, which is probably fair, I have at best a vague idea what commercial products are available. I could spot the 80s-90s custom-built one-off models from a mile away, but not the iron curtain types, mostly because I have no interest in them

   We have long been tiptoeing around the "pre-built components" like pre-sheeted foam wings and pre-built wings, maybe we have to give up on that. I think that would quickly devolve in to a continuously-changing laundry list, which is highly undesirable and bad rule-making.

     Getting rid of BOM is a non-starter, that is not fixing the problem, it is destroying the event and we will lose 50% of the competitors the first year, probably including me.

     Brett

I have to disagree my friend.  This is not just a flying event, its a building, finishing and flying event. 

I add an extra ounce or two to all of my planes, because I refuse to build a plane without cockpit detail. This is a personal choice, and sacrifice that I make. Should I not be rewarded for my extra effort? I also put wheel pants on all my planes, yet guys with plain wire gear end up in front of me occasionally at appearance judging. 

As far as the categories.  Realism is out. Its not relevant to our event. Something like cockpit detail could, and should take its place.

I know that you know the reason this is being discussed.....

Derek

Of course it is a building finishing and flying event. Never said it wasn't but it is a stunt event over all.

You are rewarded for your cockpit detail when it adds positively to your presentation of your plane. Execution of the attempt. If you did it poorly it would take away. But if you're saying you should get extra more points because you installed a cockpit detail vs planes that don't now your opening a new discussion.  And you know with the established builders we have in this event a head on a balsa floor will not compete with what some of these guys are capable of, sliding bubble canopies with pilots turning their heads and all the dials and doodads you can think of. 

Yes I do know........

This discussion pops up from time to time and it makes no sense to add categories to our appearance judging.

I absolutely disagree with this approach 100%! This is a control line aerobatics event that requires us to build our own models. We need to be able to build our models to best perform the prescribed maneuvers.  We do not need to be hamstrung into building something or adding something to the model that doesn't help it perform the maneuvers. Adding a cockpit detail or drawing lines on my plane does not make it fly better.  If you want to do that and you can do it in a way that helps present your model positively for appearance judging and does not take away from its ability to perform please do so. I love a cool cockpit detail as much as the next guy. But in no way shape or form does it add to the ability of the plane to fly the maneuvers properly.

Realism? There is nothing realistic about control line stunt planes. They are so far out of scale its funny. I am not talking about war birds only either. If you want to build scale planes that can stunt go right ahead and do it. But I can guarantee you it wont fly nearly as well as your purpose built stunt plane. It simply cant. Don't impose a rule that would hamper flying in any way in order to get max static points.

Originality. Not only do I have to build some kind of a semi-scale plane to get max points now I have to come up with some original design that hasn't been done....good luck on that one. I have heard alot over the years about the Ron Burns planes and seen many pics and they are cool for sure his work was second to none. I have never heard that they flew superior. Remember what we are doing here, flying stunt.

Bob Hunt explained it to me back in the late 90s and it's the best I have heard to date. He touched on exactly what Robert talked about when a more complex model is placed for appearance vs a profile or a simple straight forward stunt plane. He said appearance judging in stunt is simply "the execution of the attempt" The judge doesn't care what color it is, how many engines it has on it, cockpit/no cockpit, what design it is, where it came from, how many times it's been done before, who's it is and so on. NONE of that matters. It is simply the execution of the attempt. This years concourse winner is a perfect example. It is an elegant stunt plane design with flawless execution on the attempt.

This is a contest to determine the over CLPA Champion, keep it that way.

I have to disagree my friend.  This is not just a flying event, its a building, finishing and flying event. 

I add an extra ounce or two to all of my planes, because I refuse to build a plane without cockpit detail. This is a personal choice, and sacrifice that I make. Should I not be rewarded for my extra effort? I also put wheel pants on all my planes, yet guys with plain wire gear end up in front of me occasionally at appearance judging. 

As far as the categories.  Realism is out. Its not relevant to our event. Something like cockpit detail could, and should take its place.

I know that you know the reason this is being discussed.....

Derek

OK, here's what's left.

Ringmaster S-1 - foam wing.  $3.00
Plans for Stuntin' Ringmaster 35 Pro wing.  $3.00

All remaining plans $6.00:
Green Box Nobler
Shark 45
Palmer Thunderbird
Cobra
Time Machine 60 II for rear exhaust engine
Time Machine 60
Time machine 50
Zlin 60 size by Dixon
Cardinal 40
Praxis
Legacy sheet 2 (FREE)
Vector 40
Crusader by Charles Mackey