3D stunt plane in your future?

[frank mccune]

        Today I saw a 3D printed P-38 RC airplane in action.  It was covered in a clear iron on covering permitting one to view the construction.  It was made in about 4” modules that were assembled with a medium thickness CA.  The beauty was that one may purchase the program for your printer!  The plane was very light and flew very well via two electric motors. 

         Perhaps Stunt Planes may be built this way in the future.  If so, hold on to your hat!

          Frank McCune

[FLOYD CARTER]

Will the BOM controversy rear its ugly head once again?

[Brett Buck]

        Today I saw a 3D printed P-38 RC airplane in action.  It was covered in a clear iron on covering permitting one to view the construction.  It was made in about 4” modules that were assembled with a medium thickness CA.  The beauty was that one may purchase the program for your printer!  The plane was very light and flew very well via two electric motors. 

         Perhaps Stunt Planes may be built this way in the future.  If so, hold on to your hat!

   Several people have done that, and it works pretty well. Richard Oliver even flew one at a Team Trials, I think converted from an RC ARF. He didn't make the team but, most people don't. Including me, that's the TT that Derek beat me by 0.04 points out of about 2200 on the last flight of the day.

     Brett

[Brett Buck]

Will the BOM controversy rear its ugly head once again?

   I presume that most people will not attempt to cheat at the Nationals, so no. And "controversy" is a bit overblown, it's the same 10- people over and over again...

    Brett

[Howard Rush]

Will the BOM controversy rear its ugly head once again?

Good idea.  I printed my own spinner; other guys buy them.  They shouldn't get appearance points. 

[Mike Haverly]

Colton doesn't know it yet but he's going to print some ribs for me.

[Jim Mynes]

Will the BOM controversy rear its ugly head once again?

If a guy sits down in front of his 3D printer and prints out a bunch of parts, glues them together and finishes the plane, he built it. No controversy.

If a guy opens a box full of parts purchased from somebody with a 3D printer, glues them together and finishes the airplane, he has built from a kit. No controversy.

Just as in many other industries, building materials and techniques are changing.

[FLOYD CARTER]

When the BOM controversy was at its peak,it involved many, not just an isolated cabal.  It isn't a fear of cheating, but 3D printing might require clarification of rules compliance.  If 3D models become a commercial product adopted by C/L flyers, then a rules resolution by the AMA rules Committee could and should follow.

[Brett Buck]

When the BOM controversy was at its peak,it involved many, not just an isolated cabal.  It isn't a fear of cheating, but 3D printing might require clarification of rules compliance.  If 3D models become a commercial product adopted by C/L flyers, then a rules resolution by the AMA rules Committee could and should follow.

    It did not, it was/is a small group of people trying to manipulate the Nationals so they could sell custom-built models for thousands of dollars. I think I have seen a grand total of about 3 minutes of discussion of the BOM over the years in real life at contests (over the last 40+ years) and the people they sucked in with various "Joe Bellcrank VS elitist" arguments. Most people figured out they were being manipulated pretty quickly, but apparently not all.

    3D printing of parts is no different from die-cutting them from balsa, no action required.

     Brett

   

[Steve Fitton]

    It did not, it was/is a small group of people trying to manipulate the Nationals so they could sell custom-built models for thousands of dollars. I think I have seen a grand total of about 3 minutes of discussion of the BOM over the years in real life at contests (over the last 40+ years) and the people they sucked in with various "Joe Bellcrank VS elitist" arguments. Most people figured out they were being manipulated pretty quickly, but apparently not all.

    3D printing of parts is no different from die-cutting them from balsa, no action required.

     Brett

And the proliferation of Yatsenko models being presented at the Nats in the 2010 timeframe was no nevermind? That wasn't about somebody trying to manipulate the Nats to make money, it was about certain persons (with the exception of Orestes who got approval from Tihart) trying to gain a competitive advantage by *any means*.  It was more than a few people.  I'd have to look at my pictures again but there was one Nats in that timeframe where about 10% of the planes on the floor of the 180 building were Sharks or vismodded sharks made to look like something else.  This was the same timeframe in which future Nats ED Bill Rich was flatly told at the worlds that the Shark kits-with very limited (Orestes) exceptions, did not exist-all were RTF airframes.

 

[Brett Buck]

Same as always - I expect my competitors to be no less honest and honorable than I am.

     Everybody knows the rules, they sign a form saying they are compliant. That is the end of the story as far as I am concerned.

    Brett

[Tom Vieira]

As the old racing saying goes, if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying hard enough....

What's the difference between a die cut or laser cut kit, or a 3d printer?  Excepting it's "new and scary" technology, you still paid (presumably) for someone to do the programming/engineering time for the kit.  Same with 3d printed components.

Did people freak out about BOM when laser cut kits came out that jig themselves together during construction?  Doubtful...

[Brett Buck]

As the old racing saying goes, if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying hard enough....

    Right, that's why they had 200+ entries in Rat and Slow Rat this year....

What's the difference between a die cut or laser cut kit, or a 3d printer?  Excepting it's "new and scary" technology, you still paid (presumably) for someone to do the programming/engineering time for the kit.  Same with 3d printed components.

Did people freak out about BOM when laser cut kits came out that jig themselves together during construction?  Doubtful...

   No, of course not, this is another "turd in the punchbowl" thrown in only to spin people up again. As if the previous 1000 inconclusive threads on it were not enough.

   BOM is not a real controversy, the modern incarnation of it started in the late 80's with a few people trying to rationalize cheating for profit, and a lot of the unwitting subsequently got sucked in. It would have been a lot easier on everyone had we gotten rid of those few people instead of turning ourselves upside down trying to patiently explain it a million or so times, but here we are. Proving again that appeasement is never a good strategy.

       Brett

[Tom Vieira]

Didn't see 200 people up at the L-pad either....  and if you believe everyone up there is 100% level with the rules, you're nuts....

Yes, rat and slow rat are dying... but we had a thick field in the Sport Goodyear class!

[Doug Moon]

>>>>Snip>>>>

Did people freak out about BOM when laser cut kits came out that jig themselves together during construction?  Doubtful...

Believe it or not there were discussions about it.  Not much but a little dust up here and there.

Other things have happened that are much bigger but the cats are out of their bags...Horses are out of their barns...

[Derek Barry]

Believe it or not there were discussions about it.  Not much but a little dust up here and there.

Other things have happened that are much bigger but the cats are out of their bags...Horses are out of their barns...

...Sharks are already in the cage.

[Doug Moon]

...Sharks are already in the cage.

Sure are!!

[Steve Fitton]

Isn't this Shark Week?

[Doug Moon]

Isn't this Shark Week?

No, that was the 3rd week in July...

[Derek Barry]

Brett is not wrong on this topic. Our BOM is based solely on the honor system.  The AMA is not going to rule in favor of any protest that can't be proven by the protestor.  Only events like the Kiefer situation, where it can be proven through photographs and the admission of the participant in question,  will they rule to disqualify someone. 

The only punishment for cheating to win, is the lifelong guilt of robbing someone else of a well deserved title. There is no honor in it, and it will never feel like a real win to that person. It may go down in history as a win, but it will always be fraudulent. 

Derek

[Doug Moon]

Brett is not wrong on this topic. Our BOM is based solely on the honor system.  The AMA is not going to rule in favor of any protest that can't be proven by the protestor.  Only events like the Kiefer situation, where it can be proven through photographs and the admission of the participant in question,  will they rule to disqualify someone. 

The only punishment for cheating to win, is the lifelong guilt of robbing someone else of a well deserved title. There is no honor in it, and it will never feel like a real win to that person. It may go down in history as a win, but it will always be fraudulent. 

Derek

You are correct about the BOM honors system and how the AMA puts in on the protestor to prove the cheating happened which is damn near impossible to do because we dont watch each other build our planes. The Keiffer protest was only won because someone happen to have pics of said plane in a history book at the nats.  Other than that it would be impossible to prove it.

What I dont agree with is those who do "go the extra mile" so speak have some sort of guilt.  I dont think they do and they dont give a Sh**.  They feel they are within the rule so they are good to go. Sign the paper and it's all good. While the rest have to tell themselves that all the way home. And for some that trip home is 2500 miles....

I have had a devil of time with my latest plane and getting close to some sort of contest trim.  You can attest to my constant complaining about said pile of s***.  Yeah it's a good 400 hours of work and money spent over more than a couple of years time to build and get on the circle for flight trim.  Only then do I want to just throw the handle at it after every flight or hell even during the flight.  Working on a old piece of crap corvette isn't even this frustrating at times, and I am going on the 3rd motor build.  I cant even imagine the nightmare you have gone through with the black Cutlass. I would have lit it on fire long ago.

I don't buy that guilt they feel stuff, I just don't. And one who plays by the rules and the intent of the rules shouldn't have to worry about that aspect. It pisses me off more to know my friends and fellow competitors have gone through hell and back to get a model to the contest that they took the time to build fly and trim to the best of their very own abilities only to be bested by someone who hasn't.   

Now if I could only find where I put that Ukrainian country code....  I have seen some good deal on the FB page...

[FLOYD CARTER]

  ..

. As if the previous 1000 inconclusive threads on it were not enough.

       Brett

That is exactly my definition of a "controversy".

[Howard Rush]

Colton doesn't know it yet but he's going to print some ribs for me.

Have him use ABS.  PLA will wilt on a hot day.

[mike londke]

Brett is not wrong on this topic. Our BOM is based solely on the honor system.  The AMA is not going to rule in favor of any protest that can't be proven by the protestor.  Only events like the Kiefer situation, where it can be proven through photographs and the admission of the participant in question,  will they rule to disqualify someone. 

The only punishment for cheating to win, is the lifelong guilt of robbing someone else of a well deserved title. There is no honor in it, and it will never feel like a real win to that person. It may go down in history as a win, but it will always be fraudulent. 

Derek

  Honor in the BOM...a funny thing. Take a look at some of the models being presented by a few of the younger entrants these days and you have to wonder. We'll keep taking the 12's and 13's for appearance points on Samuel's model's knowing he did the work. They look like hell but he built them. He'll just have to make up those points by flying better.....and not crashing on the LPad. Not that we mind wrecking planes, we are scary combat guys after all.

[Steve Berry]

For the record, I've been looking into the possibility of designing a plane to be 3D-printed. Lots of neat features that can be included for full take-apart functionality & trimming purposes. The main issue is the weight. PLA may hold up, and is a good starting point, but it's weight is 1.24g/cm3, which translates to around 87lb/ft3, 10x the weight of "heavy" balsa! We would have to either radically change the way the plane is designed & built (truly engineer it to use as little material as possible while maintaining strength) or go with a different print material altogether, which is probably not going to save much weight (not 90%).  For now, I think the best use of it would be individual parts (electric motor mounts, control horns, bellcranks, maybe cowls) or as assembly jigs & maybe molds for composite parts.

I'm really hoping someone can prove me wrong on this, especially since at 3dlabprint.com// they are offering 3D-printed RC planes, and theoretically it should be possible to modify them to control line.

[Howard Rush]

You're limited only by your imagination, which in my case is pretty limiting.  So far, I've done spinners, vortex generators, handles, line reels, odd B-36 parts, and some 5" bellcranks (picture), which I've tested to 150 lb. Carbon-filled filament is now available, which will make stiffer parts. I have only messed with ABS and some Igus slippery stuff for leadout guides. 

[Randy Powell]

Howard,

Uh, shouldn't there be a pushrod connector?

[Howard Rush]

These are just test parts.  I'd place a pushrod thing wherever it would need to go for a given airplane. 

[Derek Barry]

You're limited only by your imagination, which in my case is pretty limiting.  So far, I've done spinners, vortex generators, handles, line reels, odd B-36 parts, and some 5" bellcranks (picture), which I've tested to 150 lb. Carbon-filled filament is now available, which will make stiffer parts. I have only messed with ABS and some Igus slippery stuff for leadout guides.

Its good to see you have retired from making clown noses.

Derek

[Mark wood]

BOM is an archaic hold over from years gone by and a detriment to the sport. I recognize the fun and fanfair of the judging and for the NATS is a grand thing. However all of the bickering is a piece of what is pushing potential participants away.

A few years ago I was “inquired” about my FF models I was flying when I moved to a new area. The F1C models and technology derived versions fly, I spent hundreds of hours to become extremely competitive with and could compete on a global level with. When I moved to an area where the locals weren’t aware of the years of development I did, they assumed I had purchased the models from the Russians including the larger class models which the Russians don’t do. That act put me off and I elected to not participate with them any longer. A few years later, the FF crowd realized that their numbers were decaying and the BOM was a huge impediment to maintaining their ranks.

Aerobatic’s is a pilots event. To be able to build is not and should not be an entry key. Oh yeah, it is of particularly high satisfaction to be able to compete with a model you designed, built and fly. This will always be part of what I do. Some of my best 4/4 IAC competition moments are the before contest discussion with the competitor flying the $400k Extra ego while flying my sad little 7KCAB Citabria and the after discussion when taking home the flight awards and trophy.  It ain’t all the airplane. You can’t buy the win. Some of us don’t have the time to build. Some of us don’t have the money to buy the grandest planes.

The message from an outsider here is that all yer bickering about the rules hinders new participants from coming. Certainly there are some who will come but they are the minority. My opinion on the appearance award is that it should be a separate event. If I come to fly a NATS it will be to put my pilot chops up against the others. Not my building chops. That I am handicapped by the appearance score will always remove my motivation to participate and yes, I can build a very nice model if I choose but that isn’t my bag. 

[Tom Vieira]

BOM is an archaic hold over from years gone by and a detriment to the sport. I recognize the fun and fanfair of the judging and for the NATS is a grand thing. However all of the bickering is a piece of what is pushing potential participants away.

A few years ago I was “inquired” about my FF models I was flying when I moved to a new area. The F1C models and technology derived versions fly, I spent hundreds of hours to become extremely competitive with and could compete on a global level with. When I moved to an area where the locals weren’t aware of the years of development I did, they assumed I had purchased the models from the Russians including the larger class models which the Russians don’t do. That act put me off and I elected to not participate with them any longer. A few years later, the FF crowd realized that their numbers were decaying and the BOM was a huge impediment to maintaining their ranks.

Aerobatic’s is a pilots event. To be able to build is not and should not be an entry key. Oh yeah, it is of particularly high satisfaction to be able to compete with a model you designed, built and fly. This will always be part of what I do. Some of my best 4/4 IAC competition moments are the before contest discussion with the competitor flying the $400k Extra ego while flying my sad little 7KCAB Citabria and the after discussion when taking home the flight awards and trophy.  It ain’t all the airplane. You can’t buy the win. Some of us don’t have the time to build. Some of us don’t have the money to buy the grandest planes.

The message from an outsider here is that all yer bickering about the rules hinders new participants from coming. Certainly there are some who will come but they are the minority. My opinion on the appearance award is that it should be a separate event. If I come to fly a NATS it will be to put my pilot chops up against the others. Not my building chops. That I am handicapped by the appearance score will always remove my motivation to participate and yes, I can build a very nice model if I choose but that isn’t my bag.

Exactly what you are saying is starting down in the Sport Goodyear racing circles.  A separate "pretty points" event for bragging rights only (maybe pit choice as a bonus).  Some guys take a ton of time to make a beautiful model, but that's not (and should not be) the focus of the event.  And this at least gives you a chance win "while if you can't be fast, you might as well look good slow!"

[Trostle]

(Clip)

Aerobatic’s is a pilots event. To be able to build is not and should not be an entry key.

(Clip)

Where is it written that the CL Precision Aerobatics is a pilot's event?  There is no such language in the AMA General rule book, or the AMA Control Line General rule book or the AMA CL Precision Aerobatics rule book.  Nor is there any PAMPA publication that even suggests such a thing.  The builder of the model rule has been a part of the CL Precision Aerobatics rule book since before 1950.  That says that the event is a model airplane event where building the model as well as flying the model are elements that make the event what it is.

Anyone can still compete at contests, other than the age categories at the Nats, and not be required to build the model.  AT any non-Nats contestes, anyone who just wants to show their flying ability/skills can do so without building the model.  Some contests actually do not have appearance judging (as in they do not give appearance points) thereby allowing the pilots to show only their flying ability.

Now, if one wants to compete in the Jr, Sr, or Open event at the Nats, then it is required that the pilot also be the builder of the model.  That has been part of the event for the past 70 years.  To build a model that can adequately perform the stunt pattern is only a part of the effort required to be able to successfully compete at that level.  Such a model does not require hundreds of hours in construction and finish to be able to compete at that level.  Even with a basic finish, a model will still be able to get 10 to 15 points in appearance, only giving up 5 to 10 points to the top appearing models there.  If the pilot is that good, even with a 5 point deficit in appearance, a place in the vaunted "Top 5" in the model airplane event, not a pilot's event, is still possible.

Keith

[Derek Barry]

Where is it written that the CL Precision Aerobatics is a pilot's event?  There is no such language in the AMA General rule book, or the AMA Control Line General rule book or the AMA CL Precision Aerobatics rule book.  Nor is there any PAMPA publication that even suggests such a thing.  The builder of the model rule has been a part of the CL Precision Aerobatics rule book since before 1950.  That says that the event is a model airplane event where building the model as well as flying the model are elements that make the event what it is.

Anyone can still compete at contests, other than the age categories at the Nats, and not be required to build the model.  AT any non-Nats contestes, anyone who just wants to show their flying ability/skills can do so without building the model.  Some contests actually do not have appearance judging (as in they do not give appearance points) thereby allowing the pilots to show only their flying ability.

Now, if one wants to compete in the Jr, Sr, or Open event at the Nats, then it is required that the pilot also be the builder of the model.  That has been part of the event for the past 70 years.  To build a model that can adequately perform the stunt pattern is only a part of the effort required to be able to successfully compete at that level.  Such a model does not require hundreds of hours in construction and finish to be able to compete at that level.  Even with a basic finish, a model will still be able to get 10 to 15 points in appearance, only giving up 5 to 10 points to the top appearing models there.  If the pilot is that good, even with a 5 point deficit in appearance, a place in the vaunted "Top 5" in the model airplane event, not a pilot's event, is still possible.

Keith

Exactly correct!

I would also note, that there has been zero increase in participation at the east coast contest since we dropped appearance points (at least 15 years ago). The only thing that changed, was more people, flying crappy Chinese ARFs.

Derek

[Steve Fitton]

You're limited only by your imagination, which in my case is pretty limiting.  So far, I've done spinners, vortex generators, handles, line reels, odd B-36 parts, and some 5" bellcranks (picture), which I've tested to 150 lb. Carbon-filled filament is now available, which will make stiffer parts. I have only messed with ABS and some Igus slippery stuff for leadout guides.

B-36 parts???  who is running around with one of those?

[Howard Rush]

B-36 parts???  who is running around with one of those?

Some West Coast guy.  He “built” a Score, then an ARF SV-11,  and is now working on a B-36 stunter.

[Mark wood]

Exactly correct!

I would also note, that there has been zero increase in participation at the east coast contest since we dropped appearance points (at least 15 years ago). The only thing that changed, was more people, flying crappy Chinese ARFs.

Derek

Two things to ask. How many of the people flying those crappy Chinese ARF's would still be flying if they couldn't buy a crappy Chinese ARF and still be around participating today? If those people weren't here today would there be enough participation to support your local flying?

Where is it written that the CL Precision Aerobatics is a pilot's event?  There is no such language in the AMA General rule book, or the AMA Control Line General rule book or the AMA CL Precision Aerobatics rule book.  Nor is there any PAMPA publication that even suggests such a thing.  The builder of the model rule has been a part of the CL Precision Aerobatics rule book since before 1950.  That says that the event is a model airplane event where building the model as well as flying the model are elements that make the event what it is.

Anyone can still compete at contests, other than the age categories at the Nats, and not be required to build the model.  AT any non-Nats contestes, anyone who just wants to show their flying ability/skills can do so without building the model.  Some contests actually do not have appearance judging (as in they do not give appearance points) thereby allowing the pilots to show only their flying ability.

Now, if one wants to compete in the Jr, Sr, or Open event at the Nats, then it is required that the pilot also be the builder of the model.  That has been part of the event for the past 70 years.  To build a model that can adequately perform the stunt pattern is only a part of the effort required to be able to successfully compete at that level.  Such a model does not require hundreds of hours in construction and finish to be able to compete at that level.  Even with a basic finish, a model will still be able to get 10 to 15 points in appearance, only giving up 5 to 10 points to the top appearing models there.  If the pilot is that good, even with a 5 point deficit in appearance, a place in the vaunted "Top 5" in the model airplane event, not a pilot's event, is still possible.

Keith

I am well aware of these "facts" having been a continuous aeromodeler since the early 1960's. The point is that a pilot cannot even compete at the NATS unless he is a BOM and other areas of aeromodeling have left the BOM behind. The BOM is one of the elements that is inhibiting the life of our sport. It is declining and one of the reasons is the time demands on today's people. The BOM puts a serious handicap on participants and dissuades many from participating. It's okay with me if the old guard wishes to maintain the practice. I can build models but I'm also not inclined, as many are like me, to not engage in activities with handicaps against me such as appearance scores which is what they are.

You are right the rules have been builder / pilot for 70 years and more. A legacy from a very different era than today. With such a focus on "same as it ever was" there isn't room for innovation and improvement to the sport. Have you, for instance, thought about things which would make CLPA more interesting to new participants as opposed to preserving the legacy?

For instance, I find the idea of flying exactly the same pattern thousands of times to absolute perfection kind of awfully repetitious and while not totally boring but, boring. In the 4/4 IAC arena there are 3 scored flights and depending on the category, primary, sportsman, intermediate, advanced and unlimited the format of the flights and degree of difficulty increase.  These three flights consist of a compulsory flight, a free style flight and an unknown. Primary flies the same sequence for each flight and sportsman can fly a free style of their design for the second and third flights. Intermediate, advanced and unlimited get an unknown that they must fly raw and unpracticed. The unknown separates the men from the boys.

Maneuvers are selected from the Aresti catalog and each level is given the allowed maneuvers for that category. This might be a bit much for CL maybe not. However, you could envision some very interesting maneuver options such as an Ironman - square inside loop with an outside round loop on top. Enter with two square corners to inverted then push in to an outside loop followed by two inside corners, a Square / round V8. Or a lay-down IM Square / round horizontal eight, square first round second or round first square second. Or maybe an icecream cone. An inverted triangle with a loop on top. Pull to 60 degrees, pull to inverted, push to outside loop, inverted then corner down back to level.  Many inventive variations are possible and could be quite interesting.

Unknowns may not need to be as difficult or maybe they could be but each pilot would be on an even ground going in to the unknown flight. Of course, I am an outsider and as such am not permitted to inject an opinion which I have often received that message here. I am, however, a provocateur and like to spark conversation outside of the norm. Keep it the same and it will die.

[Dave Harmon]

What Mark said....

[Brent Williams]

I have found it interesting to read about and talk to people about the past stunt wars and factions that have developed in this hobby. 

I have also found it quite entertaining to have spoken with so many people in this hobby due to selling 100+ Fancher handles all over the world over the past couple years.  I would say that 75+% of the people I have spoken with are very much against keeping the BOM rule.  Many of these folks have notable names that you all would recognize and some of these guys fly in the open event at the Nats.  If it is discussed in the course of our conversation, the BOM topic has always been brought up by them, not me.  Also interesting, is that they are tired of being shouted down online about maintaining the purity of the event.  Some of these same folks vehemently advocate for the BOM rule here on Stunthanger while online, and in a private conversations rail against the BOM and wish it would go away.  I thought some might find this tale to be amusing/telling/enlightening.

I do have my own thoughts on the BOM topic, and I am not advocating completely for, or adamantly against it.  Just expressing some thoughts, as I feel the top tier modelers are always going to build their own planes so they can innovate for their performance needs and to scratch that creative itch.  The guys that are time stressed from work or family obligations or building skill challenged and/or folks that prefer to just fly instead of build are always going to find ways to buy products that serve to shorten the pathway to achieving their own version of happiness in this hobby.  There is room for both, but in reality, the rising generation of modelers, save for a few notable standouts, are not building throughout their formative years layering building skill upon flying skills.  The support networks of reasonably located mentor builders and flying coaches are succumbing to age and dying off too rapidly to effectively spread the needed skills to new recruits.  The old age attrition facts, the high cost of quality building and finishing materials and the accompanying steep building/flying learning curve put some serious obstacles in the road for this hobby in its current state.   

[Brett Buck]

That is exactly my definition of a "controversy".

   If I come on here and post 1000 threads about how we are unfairly excluding the Venusians from stunt because our atmosphere is too thin and too cold, does that make it a controversy? And claiming that everyone is discriminating against me because they don't go along with my plan to replace water with sulfuric acid, and demand that people pay attention to my groundbreaking idea?

    It's classic browbeating.  No one thinks they have to actually convince anyone anymore (since they know that can't win on the merits...), they figure they can just needle the rest of us long enough that we get sick and tired of it and give up. Just like several other pseudo-controversies. And I point out that these other pseudo-controversies ended up going nowhere, or blowing up in the instigators faces - because people *don't* give up, they finally get sick of it and put an end to it. That was my argument above, some of this stuff is allowed to go on *far too long*, and many times we indulge people to a fault.

   I have and have made my points on the topic, other people with legitimate differing points, and that is fine. If I don't want the BOM to go away and I don't want commercial builders selling cheater models to people with the $4000 to buy them. I can live with it if that's what the competitors want (see below...).

      But, I particularly don't want BOM to go away just because *people are browbeat into giving up*, because I don't want to reward the browbeating and claims of persecution, and then wind up with those people running the show.

   And I again note- that the vast majority of the people getting on the internet, claiming how great it would be, are *completely unaffected* by the BOM, and don't compete in the one contest that requires it - NATS Open Stunt. Outside of the Nationals, I am not aware of *any* BOM contests in the *last 50 years*.   For the vast majority of competitors, the BOM went away in 1974. Why is it that those same people cannot tolerate one contest a year, that they don't enter, thousands of miles from their house? 

      Brett

[Howard Rush]

The point is that a pilot cannot even compete at the NATS unless he is a BOM and other areas of aeromodeling have left the BOM behind.

He is welcome to fly in the Nats Advanced class.

For instance, I find the idea of flying exactly the same pattern thousands of times to absolute perfection kind of awfully repetitious and while not totally boring but, boring.

However, since you have reached absolute perfection, you probably won't be satisfied with Advanced.

[Howard Rush]

...excluding the Venusians from stunt because our atmosphere is too thin and too cold...

Changing to a completely different harangue, I suggest that this is yet another advantage of expressing density as density altitude: Venusians could come and operate at the same density altitude as home. 

[Mark wood]

He is welcome to fly in the Nats Advanced class.

However, since you have reached absolute perfection, you probably won't be satisfied with Advanced.

Good point Howard. It is a metaphor not a statement. I am definitely not an Advanced pilot by any means. My point is more on the repetition and that by adding a free an unknown to the line up would make things more interesting. This comes from flying in the IAC where it is always quite entertaining to both fly and watch the free and the unknown flights.

[Wayne Collier]

I really don’t have a dog in the fight in that my building skills and flying skills will probably never be competitive on any scale that matters.

I always thought of the nats as a modeling event. The flying proves the quality of the building. Appearance judging says how good it looks. Flying shows it’s the real thing - not just a static display. Drop either part and you’ve fundamentally changed the event. 

Drop the BOM. If that’s what everyone wants, cool. But let’s not call it the same thing or pretend it’s the same thing as a completion based on building and flying.

I personally don’t see the merit in fundamentally changing the event because someone can’t or doesn’t want to build.

You wouldn’t give me a break because my flying skills aren’t so hot.

[john e. holliday]

The BOM has been argued ever since I got into competition.  Back then there were no competition ARF/ARC planes for any thing.   If you wanted to compete you had to build/construct your own plane.  I advocated the dropping of BOM in several events I competed in for the Juniors and Seniors.   My son and a fiend were the reason as they did not have the time or money.   But I see now that it didn't help any as most events have lost competition flyers in those age classes as well as the Open class.   A couple of events have grown lately because ready built planes can be bought, but it still takes some trimming of the planes to get them right.  In reality it is the cost that has detered most people even though percentage wise it is not that expensive.  Yes the sources are out there if you do searches and ask questions.   My main problem now is physical even though I think I could still pit a racing plane.  My sport carrier is pushing my limits now a days.

We already have an award for the pilots choice for best appearing plane at the NATS for stunt.   There are events for stunt in which guys and gals can compete with ready built planes.  But as I stated earlier it still takes flying and trimming of such planes.  Those that like BOM we still have the AMA age classes that nobody gets a sanction for.   But for me I will let any body compete that did not build/finish their plane.   Years ago I tried to talk an individual into entering a contest using one of my planes that would out fly me with and he looked good enough to win with out appearance points back before we had the Beg, Int, Adv and Open classes. 

Maybe it is time we realize not every one wants to compete and just want to have fun flying.

[FLOYD CARTER]

"Not having the time to build" is a weak argument.

There are 24 hours in each day.  Certainly, unless your "job" requires constant attention and effort, leisure time can be spent either watching TV or building a nice model. Your choice.

[Brett Buck]

Maybe it is time we realize not every one wants to compete and just want to have fun flying.

   I think almost everyone recognizes that. Which makes it hard to understand why so many sport fliers and "fly for fun" types are so desperate to get rid of rule that affects maybe 40 people at one contest a year. If someone is not competing in Open CL Stunt at the NATs, what difference does it make to them what the competition rules might be? Why is it so desperately important to them that they are willing to bad-mouth and run roughshod over those who *do* care about it?

   The answer is also quite obvious - a few people have been stoking something like "class warfare" over the topic so they can get what they want (selling $4000+ models to a few people to fly at the NATs) by claiming that there is some sort of war between the "elite" and "Joe Bellcrank", and that this obscure competition rule is somehow preventing 1000 people from flying ARF Ringmasters in the park every weekend.

    It's a lie, it's absolutely nonsensical, and the people stoking this argument know it's false and intend to mislead people. They do it because they know that can never get their way by telling the truth, because the truth is blatantly self-serving. So they have to enlist completely innocent people to do the work for them, and try to harass the rest of us to death. hoping we give up.

  There is absolutely no rule or anything else (other than economic sanity) that prevents anyone from manufacturing ARF or RTF CL Sport planes, as many as they want, and for them to sell any of them they can. There's very little preventing someone from manufacturing ARF or RTF competition stunt planes for people to fly in any contest outside the NATS - the 6 months you didn't spend building and trimming it, you can spend practicing, easily making up any possible appearance point deficit you might get, all the way through being competitive in NATs Advanced -which is *much further* than almost everyone will ever manage. So, it is solely and entirely about getting RTFs into the NATS Open Championship, which only makes sense if they are competitive models, which means we are talking many thousands of dollars - which has exactly ZERO relationship to Joe Bellcrank sport-flying.

    There are few very well-respected people with legitimate arguments against the BOM and no personal agenda to service, there are plenty of other people who naively believe that this is some sort of a struggle between the "regular fliers" and the "big-shots". Legitimate arguments from actual participants are fine, no one begrudges anyone for that. People who take the tack that this is about taking down the elitists, or "change stunt, then I might like it", no, why should anyone listen to that? They aren't going to enter the contests anyway and they aren't going to be affected.

     Brett

[Mark wood]

Response to Brett.

I see your point and there is the faction of those whom wish to sell expensive planes. I, for one, would build and fly in open class but I see the BOM as a points handicap which is my personal objection specifically. I haven't any objection to those whom would sell "high end" airplanes as my experience in other aviation competitions is that those people may be competitive although generally not so much. It is very hard to buy the skill sufficient to win aerobatics. The reality check for me is that my ability to actually be competitive is behind and not in front of me but I'm not inclined to participate in events where I start off with a 1% - 5% deficit in score before even flying. I have and will travel many miles to fly competitions and I have flown many NATs. My kids live in Indianapolis so traveling to Muncie for me is a given. 

I recognize that there are the old hands whom wish to maintain the build / fly aspect. This is what I can say about other modeling events which have abandoned the BOM. There are a lot of airplanes in the world built by people whom have passed. Those people would be and are honored to have their planes participating in events at the hands of new pilots. This is happening quite a bit in the FF arena. Hand me down airplanes are more likely to be flown than the spensive ones.

[phil c]

Mark, I agree that some kind of "not stuck in stone" Stunt/Precision aerobatics would be more fun.
For instance, I find the idea of flying exactly the same pattern thousands of times to absolute perfection kind of awfully repetitious and while not totally boring but, boring.
Picking new composite maneuvers is simple enough.  There are only a few basic maneuvers that can be successfully flown and judged in CL- round loops, loops with some tight radii, straight paths inbetween.
You might even have a solo pattern- one you draw up and put down for the judges- which consists of a continuous flow of maneuvers- everytime the judges see something they can recognize they put down a score.
Have you ever tried a Keyhole?  Square corner to a vertical climb, 90 square corner at 45° into a round loop of at least 45° diameter, back down to to 45° and a sharp turn straight down and then another to level flight.

cheers!

[Mark wood]

Mark, I agree that some kind of "not stuck in stone" Stunt/Precision aerobatics would be more fun.
For instance, I find the idea of flying exactly the same pattern thousands of times to absolute perfection kind of awfully repetitious and while not totally boring but, boring.
Picking new composite maneuvers is simple enough.  There are only a few basic maneuvers that can be successfully flown and judged in CL- round loops, loops with some tight radii, straight paths inbetween.
You might even have a solo pattern- one you draw up and put down for the judges- which consists of a continuous flow of maneuvers- everytime the judges see something they can recognize they put down a score.
Have you ever tried a Keyhole?  Square corner to a vertical climb, 90 square corner at 45° into a round loop of at least 45° diameter, back down to to 45° and a sharp turn straight down and then another to level flight.

cheers!

That sound kind of what I called an ironman, but yes I have. Not easy but doable. It isn't that difficult to judge a free style aerobatic sequence if you can read Aresti. The Aresti catalog could quite easily be adapted to CL flying as what CL can do is a small set of the full available maneuvers. Aeresti is the written language of aerobatics and the history of how it came to be is quite interesting. When a pilot designs a flight he draws the sequence on a card and presents it to the contest director and judges. The judges then are able to judge the figures and give them scores. It's not random at all and the judges can follow along with the pilot flying. The

The unknown is the opposite. The contest director selects from a given set of this years unknowns and presents them at the contest. Each level of competition has it's allowed family of maneuvers which can be used from the Aresti Catalog thus limiting the difficulty for each category. The tough part for the contest committee is the verification of the sequences both free and unknown but there is methods to do that easily. In the unknown, each pilot will be flying the same sequence "blind" never having flown it before and must "read" the card during the flight. If you have ever seen a video of pilots "doing the dance" they are walking through the unknown before the flight. It is quite the challenge to do. Do a maneuver out of sequence and get turned around, it can be the end. It's also where bragging right can really be made. And every one who comes back has a lot to talk about.

[Trostle]

Have you ever tried a Keyhole?  Square corner to a vertical climb, 90 square corner at 45° into a round loop of at least 45° diameter, back down to to 45° and a sharp turn straight down and then another to level flight.

cheers!

I call that a mushroom, but "keyhole" may be a better title for it.  A full size stunt ship will have a difficult time doing that.  A combat ship will have less of a problem with it.  A good 1/2A stunt ship (with a very light wing loading and plenty of power) can do it.

Over the years on these forums, people have talked about a free style event or coming up with different maneuvers.  No matter what "new" maneuvers can be defined, the result will still be some series of corners and loops which we are doing now.  The only thing different is the series of loops and corners and their sequence in different parts of the hemisphere.  Now, degrees of difficulty can be added by using smaller dimensions, like everything now is defined in essentially 45^o segments of the hemisphere (42^o for the four leaf).  Impose the requirement for 30^o loops, horizontal eights be performed in 60^o segment of the circle rather than the now required 90^o segment which few people can do anyway and so on.  It will take a different type of model to do this, maybe something that starts to look like a derivative of combat designs, old and new. 
Try starting an outside loop less than a 30^o elevation.  A combat ship can do that with room to spare.  Not a current CLPA ship.

Your keyhole maneuver will certainly stress the capability of current stunt design.

There was a two-page article in the Air Trails Hobbies for Young Men, April 1954, where the top name fliers from that time submitted their ideas for new maneuvers in the flight pattern.  The names included Hi Johnson, Don Still, Lloyd Curtis, Jim Saftig and George Aldrich.  Some of those ideas are now in the current pattern.  Many of the others are, again, are just a series of loops in different parts of the circle.  They looked different, yes, but were still a series of maneuvers in different sequences similar to what is now part of the pattern.

It would be interesting if someone has the pattern description for what was used at the New Your Mirror contests from the 50's.  Some of the maneuvers in the Air Trails article were used in the Mirror meets.

Keith