Appearance Points in Open

[John Leidle]

  Steven,  you need to stand on a taller stool to stand so when someone says something to you it doesn't go right over the top of your head.

[Chuck Feldman]

There are lots of things that are wrong, unfair, hard to understand in life and Stunt at the nats. First point is it is called OPEN. Hm-mm Open yet it is not really open? They do things that are curious too they have appearance points. These points sometimes are the deciding factor in the outcome. Then there is seeding. I am sure someone will explain how that works. But I will say it means if you are a newbie you have almost no chance of advancing while the established fliers have much better odds than you. So look if you just think of this Nat's as a convention for stunt fliers in the upper skill levels then it is all OK. They have there conventions. You must accept them or stay home. I think it is funny that I have just completed an ARC Bi-slob and I could enter and fly in the Nat's. It meets the rules. LOL

Closing; This is all in fun. We should not discuss things that we cannot agree on or change. Just like religion. The issue when it comes up should be ignored! Do not defend either side. It is crazy. Those who care can propose a rule change if they wish. So I say let there be peace in the Muncie Circles.

[steven yampolsky]

 Steven,  you need to stand on a taller stool to stand so when someone says something to you it doesn't go right over the top of your head.

Good one.

[Trostle]

There are lots of things that are wrong, unfair, hard to understand in life and Stunt at the nats. First point is it is called OPEN. Hm-mm Open yet it is not really open? They do things that are curious too they have appearance points. These points sometimes are the deciding factor in the outcome. Then there is seeding. I am sure someone will explain how that works. But I will say it means if you are a newbie you have almost no chance of advancing while the established fliers have much better odds than you. So look if you just think of this Nat's as a convention for stunt fliers in the upper skill levels then it is all OK. They have there conventions. You must accept them or stay home. I think it is funny that I have just completed an ARC Bi-slob and I could enter and fly in the Nat's. It meets the rules. LOL

Closing; This is all in fun. We should not discuss things that we cannot agree on or change. Just like religion. The issue when it comes up should be ignored! Do not defend either side. It is crazy. Those who care can propose a rule change if they wish. So I say let there be peace in the Muncie Circles.

Chuck,

Maybe your statements were made in jest, but they do not come across that way.  I will respond to several of them.

1.  "Open"  What is your issue with the "Open" term?  That only refers to an age classification that has been part of the AMA rulebook, as in Junior, Senior and Open age categories, since there has been AMA rulebooks.  These age categories apply to all AMA events unless otherwise stated in the rules and/or for specific contests.  I am sure you are aware of this, and your comment is probably only made with tongue in cheek.

2.  "Appearance Points"  It seems there has been some discussion about appearance points over the years.  Appearance points have been around almost as long as you have.  Some contests are run without the BOM requirement and therefor do not have appearance points.  What some people do not understand is that such an approach is perfectly acceptable.  So it is not necessary to eliminate them or the BOM from the rulebook just to satisfy that segment of CL stunt fliers - however large or small that segment is - which would otherwise unnecessarily and unfavorably alter the event for what seems to be a large majority of CL stunt fliers.

3  "Seeding"  Have you ever been to the Nats and witnessed the seeding process?  Have you ever tried to understand what the seeding process is?  Seeding has been explained on these forums on many occasions.  You made a statement that it seeding that  a "newbie" would "have almost no chance of advancing while the established fliers have much better odds than you."  Actually, the seeding process helps level the field of competition so that ALL competitors have a more equal chance placing at the Nats based on their skill of building/flying rather than based on the luck of the draw as to which circle they are are assigned to.  Without seeding, it is possible that all of the better fliers could be assigned to one circle.  Any "newbie" assigned to that circle would have a significantly reduced possibility of placing in accordance with his demonstrated performance in the competition while another "newbie" could place significantly higher even with a significantly poorer performance.  That would just not be fair to anyone in that competition regardless of skill level.  There is a myth, seemingly happily perpetuated by a handfull of malcontents (who should otherwise act to be better informed) that seeding guarantees that a seeded flier will automatically place higher than a "newbie".  That premise is absolutely false.  That seeded flier has previously demonstrated that he has competed well at the Nats/Team Trials.  But that does not guarantee that seeded flier a higher placing at the event that he was just seeded.  The flier must still perform well to place well.  If an unseeded flier (a "newbie") flies better, that unseeded flier will place higher.   The seeding process has no affect on how a judge scores as some of those malcontents have previously suggested.  To make that claim about the judges is to falsely accuse judges of altering their scores because some perceived seeding arrangements.  It also accuses judges of being able to calibrate their scores for each seeded and unseeded competitor prior to or during each flight.  Judges have enough to do without  modifying their scoring process before and during each flight based on a seeding process which they were not a party to, have little or no chance of realizing which pilot is seeded or not as they prepare for the flight, and which they have little time to even consider prior to each flight.  In fact, based on some experience at this judging thing, most judges just are not capable of doing so.  So your comment about seeding is just as inappropriate as that from other malcontents regarding this subject.

Keith

[John Lindberg]

The following events, as far as I know, have no BOM requirements, and here some of the costs of the airplanes, RTF:
F1C-$1500.00
F1A-$1000.00
F1B-$1500.00
Pattern R/C-$3500.00
IMAC R/C-$5000.00
Those are rough estimates, not sure what the cost is for Pylon, Helicopter (both R/C). Is this where we want Stunt at the Nats to go? If it does, I am sure we will hear all about the high costs of competeing with the guys that build with their wallets, probably the same people that are voicing their opposition to BOM now.Also, to compete, one usually needs at least one back up in all events.   

[John Miller]

I've come to the belief that the noise generated to get rid of BOM, or AP's, is not to be able to fly an ARF at the Nat's, but rather to remove the percieved difficulty of winning in the skill classes. I'm basing this on the reactions of the various posters, when it's brought up that they can fly an ARF in any of the other Stunt events. JR, SR, and Open only being flown at the Nat's.

Removing AP's, and BOM at the Nat's won't help the majority of people who seem to want it changed, since few of them actually compete at the Nat's. It will help them make up a 10 -20 point handicap in the skill classes, where it appears that many might actually participate.

My suggestion to those who would campaign for a change, is to be honest about it. Leave the Nat's alone, that is not going to change, at least for many years.

Many East Coast contests are being run with no BOM, and no AP's. Simply done by the sponsoring organisation, and posted as being run that way. It doesn't require a rule change to do that either.

It's likely that more of the local/regional,contests throughout the country, will follow suit as time goes on. Again, a rule change is not needed to accomplish thisif that's your desire.

[RC Storick]

Thanks for seeding! I would hate to be on the same circle with Paul W. Billy W., Orestes,Ted F., Brett B. Windy U., Randy S.,then comes me Bob S.

While the other 3 circles are fill with people who are mediocre fliers how fair would that be to me? I ain't going to make it am I? Not unless some miracle happens which is not likely.

[John Miller]

I've come to the belief that the noise generated to get rid of BOM, or AP's, is not to be able to fly an ARF at the Nat's, but rather to remove the percieved difficulty of winning in the skill classes. I'm basing this on the reactions of the various posters, when it's brought up that they can fly an ARF in any of the other Stunt events, without Appearance points. JR, SR, and Open only being flown at the Nat's.

Removing AP's, and BOM at the Nat's won't help the majority of people who seem to want it changed, since few of them actually compete at the Nat's. It will help them make up a 10 -20 point handicap in the skill classes, where it appears that many might actually participate.

My suggestion to those who would campaign for a change, is to be honest about it. Leave the Nat's alone, that is not going to change, at least for many years.

Many East Coast contests are being run with no BOM, and no AP's. Simply done by the sponsoring organisation, and posted as being run that way. It doesn't require a rule change to do that either.

It's likely that more of the local/regional,contests throughout the country, will follow suit as time goes on. Again, a rule change is not needed to accomplish thisif that's your desire.

[Steve Fitton]

Starting my next BOM compliant building project.  No molded shells here...

[Brett Buck]

Then there is seeding. I am sure someone will explain how that works.

  How they do it, Howard's program can show you. The why and the net effect of it is pretty clear. All the seeding does is decide who flies in what group for qualifying.

Overall, the NATs is a cut-down system with three stages. There's Qualifying, Finals, and Top 5

Qualifying at the NATs is for all intents and purposes 4 separate contests being held at the same time. Say you have 80 people entered in open - that means you have 4 contests of 20 entrants apiece. You are going to take the top 5 from each contest to move on to the finals.

You have to decide which of the 4 contests each entrant is going to fly in. If you do it at random, there's some chance that all the hot-shots will wind up in the same contest - meaning some of the better competitors will get knocked out in qualifying, and that some of the less-good competitors will get essentially a free ride to the finals. Seeding is simply a way to try to distribute the hot-shots between the contests. It doesn't matter for the eventual winner or the best guys since they are going to finish high no matter who they are up against, but it may matter a lot to the rest.

    The qualifying seeding is determined with an algorithm that takes the last 10 years of performance at the NATs/WC/TT and determines who has the best overall results. Sometimes you get funnies when someone who you know is a hot-shot but hasn't competed in a while but it is entirely objective and hands-off. Even if the seeding is off a little, it really makes no difference, all it does is change which of the contests you end up flying in.

    After qualifying contests are over, you take the top 5 from each, then have another contest among the remaining 20. You take the top 5 from that, and have another contest with them to find the winner. So for all intents and purposes, you have a total of *7* contests held over the space of 4 days, with progressively tougher competition.

   The logistics of it are formidable and it takes a *tremendous* amount of work to put it together, and it usually goes absolutely seamlessly from the pilot's standpoint. That's why many people are very sensitive about outside criticism of it - because they have it down to a science and a lot of the "helpful suggestions" or complaints don't make any sense.


    Brett

[Larry Fernandez]

I thought that the fact that there were over 14,000 CL ARFs sold in the past several years by USA distributors, said something about what the majority think about that issue.

Control line stunt is the greatest hobby in the world.
Join with me so that we can change it.

?? Now where have I heard that before???

Larry Buttafucco stunt Team

[steven yampolsky]

Starting my next BOM compliant building project.  No molded shells here...

According to my shop vacuum cleaner, molded shells are the greatest thing since invention electricity! 

[PerttiMe]

The following events, as far as I know, have no BOM requirements, and here some of the costs of the airplanes, RTF:
F1C-$1500.00
F1A-$1000.00
F1B-$1500.00
Pattern R/C-$3500.00
IMAC R/C-$5000.00
Those are rough estimates, not sure what the cost is for Pylon, Helicopter (both R/C).

There's no requirement in any of those that you have to buy a RTF aircraft. You can still build an F3A (Pattern) ship out of balsa but most seem to start from a molded fuselage and foam wing. In F3D pylon, molded wing and fuselage is probably the only way to be competitive but at least the aircraft is not huge like in F3A, so "kit" prices there too stay in hundreds, not thousands, of dollars.

[WhittleN]

Robert
You may be thankful that you don't have to qualify with the likes of "Paul W. Billy W., Orestes, Ted F., Brett B. Windy U., Randy S." in one circle. But conversely two or more of them would not make it - so it also protects them. 

Norm

[Howard Rush]

Before 2008, there was seeding, but it wasn't done by a formula.  I think it was done fairly, and I thought it didn't matter much.   Paul Walker came up with the current seeding method.  Bill Rich, this year's Nats stunt event director, wants to continue using Paul's method.   The seeding formula is based on Nats placing for the last 10 years. US team members are included, ranked the same as Nats winners. Here is how it works:

For the top 20 in Open for the last ten years, the spreadsheet assigns 20 points for first place, 19 for second, and so on. US Team members who were out of town for the WC get 20 points each. Scores get multiplied by 10 for 2010, 9 for 2009, and so on. Advanced scores are then multiplied by .5. Orestes's score includes both his Open and Advanced placings, for example. Top score is seeded #1. Guys who haven't placed in the top 20 in either Advanced or Open are unseeded. Their assignment to one of the four groups for qualifying rounds is done by random draw.

I'll put the current seeding into the Nats stunt tabulation program.  I'll forward copies of the seeding spreadsheet to anybody who wants it. Likewise, I'll send the tabulation program to anybody who wants it.

If you compare a guy's chance of qualifying for the top 20 (the only thing it can affect, because it's only used in qualification rounds) with and without seeding before rounds are drawn, you'll see it makes little difference.  Some say it does, but are unwilling to do any math to prove it.    The crude Monte Carlo simulation I did showed, as I remember, that seeding gave the 14th-best flyer a little better chance of making the top 20, but gave both the 20th- and 21st-best guys a little worse chance of making the top 20.  Although, the effect is small, it's in the right direction.  After the draw, a guy's chance of qualifying will have a greater variance without seeding than with seeding: the "tough circle/easy circle" effect.  Mind you, without seeding, your chance of getting assigned to a tough circle is about the same as your chance of getting assigned to an easy circle.  No, I don't think it's fair to introduce errors to let a substandard flyer place higher than somebody who didn't fly as well.

Seeding has no effect at all on the top five flyers.  It just separates them among the four groups to avoid bumping somebody out of the top 20 who should be in it.  

[Chuck Feldman]

Let no one mis-under stand me. I am not in favor of the BOM nor AP or seeding.  I am not proposing any changes in the Nat's rules and methods at all.  I flew in one Nat's in open once and I enjoyed it very much. Now I can say I flew in the Nat's. Not something for me to do again though.
All the top guys in CLPA are super fliers and builders. never will I approach there level. However I am entitled to express my opinions and perhaps I enjoy it.  You have to remember that the Nat's does not belong to the upper level guys it belongs to all who fly CLPA and belong to the AMA. I only wish that the constant bickering on the controversial subjects would stop appearing or at least they would stop defending the way it is.

[Jim Pollock]

So Bob,

You had rather be able to fly on the easy circle with the likes of Derek Barry, Doug Moon, Bob Gieseke, Rolland McDonald, Richard Oliver and the like right??

Jim Pollock      

[Chris McMillin]

Let no one mis-under stand me. I am not in favor of the BOM nor AP or seeding.  I am not proposing any changes in the Nat's rules and methods at all.  I flew in one Nat's in open once and I enjoyed it very much. Now I can say I flew in the Nat's. Not something for me to do again though.
All the top guys in CLPA are super fliers and builders. never will I approach there level. However I am entitled to express my opinions and perhaps I enjoy it.  You have to remember that the Nat's does not belong to the upper level guys it belongs to all who fly CLPA and belong to the AMA. I only wish that the constant bickering on the controversial subjects would stop appearing or at least they would stop defending the way it is.

So you want to be able to contest the status quo, but don't want the guys that like the status quo to defend it? Have I got that right?

There is no ownership of the event, there is a rules making process in which to be used to change rules. It is not a democracy and does not involve a popular vote. It is done through representatives and should anyone want to try to change it, that process must be adhered to.

Chris...

[Howard Rush]

I thought that Chuck's opposition to seeding was based on his inability to see the mathematical virtue in it.  Apparently it's not.  I misunderstood his point.  He favors throwing in some chance.  That is certainly one way to look at it.  A lot of effort has going into removing chance from the Nats procedure: seeding, minimizing the weather difference among fliers, minimizing judge ballooning, minimizing judge variation from average, averaging scores among many judges, etc.   Although I had assumed this is good, maybe it's worth discussing.  

[Brett Buck]

I only wish that the constant bickering on the controversial subjects would stop appearing or at least they would stop defending the way it is.

   So, you are free to express your opinion, and no one is allowed to defend the current system? How is that reasonable?

   And, did you fail to grasp the description of seeding I posted above? Or do you believe that the results should be more subject to random chance?

     Brett

[Larry Fernandez]

If all of you "anti BOM/ Appearance Points" types spent as much time building and finishing your planes as you do sniveling and posting on these message boards, there would be a ton of front row planes next year.

Come on guys, get a life.

Larry "Sick of hearing about BOM/Appearance Points" Fernandez

[Chuck Feldman]

Hey all I did was say how I feel about it. You all can do what ever you want. The BOM thing and rest would die out if you did not defend it so strongly. I see no point in using words like Sniveling. Seeding is done in many sports. I understand the logic behind it and the modern way they do it. I did not mean that I needed to know how it is done. Sorry. Of course this is informative so it did not go to waste. Again let me stress to you that what you do at the Nat's is your business and not mine. If I where to contest the event I may want some changes. So some of you will argue than why do I write about it. Now many of you feel that certain fliers should have better odds of advancing in the early rounds? Please I do not wish to argue this point. The Nat's being a subject that many care about. In the day we all cared who won and what did they use. It was always reported in the magizines. I do not think it is reasonable to say that only those who contest the event should speak about it.  If you find something in this that you want to respond to  please do so. How ever I will only be reading it and will respond in kind.

[Trostle]

(Clip)
Seeding is done in many sports. I understand the logic behind it and the modern way they do it. I did not mean that I needed to know how it is done.

(Clio)

Now many of you feel that certain fliers should have better odds of advancing in the early rounds? Please I do not wish to argue this point.

(Clip)

Chuck,

Now, let me see if I have this right.  Your wrote above that you "understood the logic behind" seeding but you did not mean that you "needed to know how it is done".  Previously, on Feb 25 you stated that "there is seeding. I am sure someone will explain how that works."  After your Feb 25 statement when you said you suggested that "someone will explain how" seeding works, the seeding practice was explained three times in terms of why it is done and how it is done.  Now you state you did not mean that you need to know how it is done.  So, I guess you previously needed to know, then when it was explained, you did not need to know.  Please explain, which is it?  Or is it that you can change your arguments against seeding to best suit whatever your argument is at any particular instant?

Evidently you still know nothing about seeding because of your statement above "Now many of you feel that certain fliers should have better odds of advancing in the early rounds?"  NOBOCY EVER SAID SUCH A THING OR IMPLIED ANY SUCH THING IN THEIR EXPLANATION OF THE SEEDING PROCESS! That is NOT what the seeding process does or represents in any manner.  Those are your words and serve only to show your absolute misunderstanding of the purpose and the process of seeding at the Nats as well as to perpetuate the myth of other malcontents that seeding is somehow unfair.  If you care about the event as you say you do, then read very carefully what has been explained above, but this time read it in a manner that you might try to understand what is being explained.  If you can think of a better way to help level the field of competition to make it as fair as possible for all competitors, the Nats organizers would be more than glad to hear about it.  PAMPA leadership and our Nats PA event officials have been working on this ever since PAMPA took over the management of the Nats in 1974.  And to do away with seeding would not be a step to make the competition more fair.  To the contrary, it would only serve to make it more unfair.  Please understand why there is a process, then come up with a better way to do it.

Keith

[Brett Buck]

Hey all I did was say how I feel about it. You all can do what ever you want. The BOM thing and rest would die out if you did not defend it so strongly.

   Of course it would, that's what the "anti" group is counting on, and we are trying to prevent. But I would note that *we* aren't the ones who bring it up and start new threads about it 3 times a day. It's a complete non-issue in real life, nobody at the field ever spends more than a second thinking about it.

   The controversy would also go away if the anti-group stopped trying to change it. No one is even asking you to stop having your opinion, or expressing it in a constructive way.

   The only part I object to is bringing out the same old argument simply for the purpose of annoying the crap out of the rest of us on the hopes that we will get so annoyed we will give up. It's not working - the mere fact that you guys keep stirring it up makes me even more entrenched because while I don't think the BOM should go away, I particularly don't want to make it go away just because we were browbeaten into it.

    Brett

[Howard Rush]

(Clip)
Seeding is done in many sports. I understand the logic behind it and the modern way they do it. I did not mean that I needed to know how it is done.

(Clio)

Now many of you feel that certain fliers should have better odds of advancing in the early rounds? Please I do not wish to argue this point.

(Clip)


Chuck,

Now, let me see if I have this right.  Your wrote above that you "understood the logic behind" seeding but you did not mean that you "needed to know how it is done".  Previously, on Feb 25 you stated that "there is seeding. I am sure someone will explain how that works."  After your Feb 25 statement when you said you suggested that "someone will explain how" seeding works, the seeding practice was explained three times in terms of why it is done and how it is done.  Now you state you did not mean that you need to know how it is done.  So, I guess you previously needed to know, then when it was explained, you did not need to know.  Please explain, which is it?  Or is it that you can change your arguments against seeding to best suit whatever your argument is at any particular instant?

Evidently you still know nothing about seeding because of your statement above "Now many of you feel that certain fliers should have better odds of advancing in the early rounds?"  NOBOCY EVER SAID SUCH A THING OR IMPLIED ANY SUCH THING IN THEIR EXPLANATION OF THE SEEDING PROCESS! That is NOT what the seeding process does or represents in any manner.  Those are your words and serve only to show your absolute misunderstanding of the purpose and the process of seeding at the Nats as well as to perpetuate the myth of other malcontents that seeding is somehow unfair.  If you care about the event as you say you do, then read very carefully what has been explained above, but this time read it in a manner that you might try to understand what is being explained.  If you can think of a better way to help level the field of competition to make it as fair as possible for all competitors, the Nats organizers would be more than glad to hear about it.  PAMPA leadership and our Nats PA event officials have been working on this ever since PAMPA took over the management of the Nats in 1974.  And to do away with seeding would not be a step to make the competition more fair.  To the contrary, it would only serve to make it more unfair.  Please understand why there is a process, then come up with a better way to do it.

Keith

Chuck and I have discussed seeding before. He understands it.  If I understand him correctly (and it took me awhile to do so), he opposes it because he recommends removing some of the certainty from the process, thereby making it more democratic.  This is a somewhat radical thought, at odds with how most of us have been thinking about it.  I prefer what we are doing, but Chuck's point of view is interesting.

[peabody]

The Paul/Howard seeding of fliers makes sense, and is certainly more acceptable than folks sitting in a smoke filled room saying "oh, is he here? well, he's better that the other guy".
The big problem that I have with seeding is that it tips the judges off as to who to watch for.
But then, the judges are seeded too....
I like lotto ball type drawing for flight order, circle and for judges....

[Howard Rush]

The big problem that I have with seeding is that it tips the judges off as to who to watch for.
But then, the judges are seeded too....
I like lotto ball type drawing for flight order, circle and for judges....

I guess seeding could tip off the judges, as could the JCT uniforms.  We were leaving appearance points off the Nats scoresheets that the judges saw so's not to influence them, but I think Bill wants them back on this year.  This reminds me of a story, as so many things do.  In St. Louis and nearby venues long ago, somebody decided to refer to combat contestants by contestant number, rather than by name, maybe for the same reason.  Stan and Stu Youngblood, identical twins, somehow got three contestant numbers between them at one contest.  It didn't help.  All three went out in the first round. 

Judge assignment, flight order, and circle have been randomly drawn for the last three Nats.  There is a formula for picking finals judges.  I suspect that it is statistically bogus, but I don't remember seeing any scientific rebuttal of it.

[Brett Buck]

I like lotto ball type drawing for flight order, circle and for judges....

   Until the first time it didn't work out the way you wanted, then it would be back to the poison pen letters.

    Brett

[Chuck Feldman]

About seeding; The only contest that I know of in CLPA that is seeded is the NATS. The only contest I know of that is BOM is the NATS. Both apply in my class as OPEN.  About the name OPEN, I know it was always called Open from when ever.  How ever the definition of the name or term "open" hardly applies to the existing contest held in Muncie every July. I think that is ironic.

Will you guys lighten up. I am not attacking you. There is no organized effort that I am aware of to change your event. No Anti group. The most likable thing about CLPA events that I go to is that there is no BOM, No AP, and no seeding. To me that means that everyone has the same chance to compete fairly with no outside interference from the contest itsself. Surely you all can understand that.

Now about this general discussion that just goes on and on try to understand that if NONE of you defend the contest, procedures rules etc than all this ranting and raving would cease. Can you understand that? All this noise is not good for the sport. All that was asked is why can't a non qualified Model fly in the event and just get 0 ap's. Answer is so easy. "It is against the rules"

[john e. holliday]

If I remember right, the four circles are seeded.  But, at flying time I think the order for flying is drawn.   So I don't think they fly by order of seeding.  Correct me if I am wrong.  This is only at the NATS.

[Bill Little]

About seeding; The only contest that I know of in CLPA that is seeded is the NATS. The only contest I know of that is BOM is the NATS. Both apply in my class as OPEN.  About the name OPEN, I know it was always called Open from when ever.  How ever the definition of the name or term "open" hardly applies to the existing contest held in Muncie every July. I think that is ironic.

Will you guys lighten up. I am not attacking you. There is no organized effort that I am aware of to change your event. No Anti group. The most likable thing about CLPA events that I go to is that there is no BOM, No AP, and no seeding. To me that means that everyone has the same chance to compete fairly with no outside interference from the contest itsself. Surely you all can understand that.

Now about this general discussion that just goes on and on try to understand that if NONE of you defend the contest, procedures rules etc than all this ranting and raving would cease. Can you understand that? All this noise is not good for the sport. All that was asked is why can't a non qualified Model fly in the event and just get 0 ap's. Answer is so easy. "It is against the rules"

HI Chuck,

I an sense, you are correct about the term "OPEN".  In lots of competitive events the term is used to suggest it is "open to all".  Which is true every now and then.  I think of the US Open in golf.  It isn't "open to all" in any true sense.  First, you have to have a registered handicap of below a certain level before you are even allowed to enter the qualifiers.  (and strangely enough, if you go back far enough, the players actually made their own clubs and golf balls!)  Same with some other "Open Events" in sports.  They are not "truly" open. 

In a lot of ways that is what the Open category is like at the NATS, in the case that there are "rules" you must follow to get in.  But, if you want to fly Open at the NATS, all you have to do is pay the entry fee and have a BOM legal plane to fly.  There are absolutely no restrictions based on anyone's "talent level".  Of course, you (collective, not personally "you")) may not be "good" enough to win, but no one is stopping anyone. 

Believe me, it's a LOT easy to fly for the US National Championship in CLPA than it is to play for the US National Championship in golf.  I have been lucky enough to know quite a few that participated in either of those, even winners for each.  All you have to do for the CLPA Champs is like I said.  Pay the entry fee and have a legal model airplane, so in truth is a LOT more "OPEN" than most National Championships.

Bill

[RC Storick]

Kinda like Unlimited Hydro? It has its limits (rules)

[Howard Rush]

About seeding; The only contest that I know of in CLPA that is seeded is the NATS. The only contest I know of that is BOM is the NATS. Both apply in my class as OPEN.  About the name OPEN, I know it was always called Open from when ever.  How ever the definition of the name or term "open" hardly applies to the existing contest held in Muncie every July. I think that is ironic.

Will you guys lighten up. I am not attacking you. There is no organized effort that I am aware of to change your event. No Anti group. The most likable thing about CLPA events that I go to is that there is no BOM, No AP, and no seeding. To me that means that everyone has the same chance to compete fairly with no outside interference from the contest itsself. Surely you all can understand that.

Now about this general discussion that just goes on and on try to understand that if NONE of you defend the contest, procedures rules etc than all this ranting and raving would cease. Can you understand that? All this noise is not good for the sport. All that was asked is why can't a non qualified Model fly in the event and just get 0 ap's. Answer is so easy. "It is against the rules"

Now I'm not sure that you do understand seeding.  Had you read any of the explanations of seeding, you would know why it is used in Nats qualifications rounds.  You would also know why seeding is not needed, and therefore why it's not used, anywhere else.  

The Open event at the Nats is indeed open to anybody who is over 18 and pays the requisite fees.  You only need to sign a statement that you built your airplane. Placing high at the Nats requires your operating that airplane really well.  Lots of effort goes into making the Nats fair and ensuring that the best modeler wins.

There is certainly effort to change it.  Some of that effort has been organized.  Some, I think, is well-intentioned.  The most common well-intentioned idea I've seen is that by dumbing down the event, you increase participation.  This idea has been around control line model aviation for at least 50 years. I think it killed off racing and combat.  The fallacy is that, in dumbing down an event, you make it less worth doing or watching.   Another argument we've seen here is that we should make it more like RC: lots of folks fly IMAC; that's how you should do stunt. No, thanks.  I'd rather hang out with modelers.  

I recently participated in changing stunt at the Nats myself.  What we did had essentially zero opposition.  Had we proposed something nonsensical, the changes would have met with significant objection.

Hey, I've worked in a big company, and I read Dilbert.  I've seen this loop before:
1. Present an unpopular or erroneous idea.
2. Receive explanations of things deemed silly, unfair, or elitist by number 1.
3. Depict yourself as the good guy trying to save us from the deleterious effect of #2, the intense defense of which proves that its proponents are hiding something nasty.
4. Go to 1.

[Howard Rush]

If I remember right, the four circles are seeded.  But, at flying time I think the order for flying is drawn.   So I don't think they fly by order of seeding.  Correct me if I am wrong.  This is only at the NATS.

That is correct, except that the random draw is done at the pilots' meeting during appearance judging.  Everybody leaves that meeting with a list of flight orders for all the qualification flights.

[Howard Rush]

HI Chuck,

I an sense, you are correct about the term "OPEN".  In lots of competitive events the term is used to suggest it is "open to all".  Which is true every now and then.  I think of the US Open in golf.  It isn't "open to all" in any true sense.  First, you have to have a registered handicap of below a certain level before you are even allowed to enter the qualifiers.  (and strangely enough, if you go back far enough, the players actually made their own clubs and golf balls!)  Same with some other "Open Events" in sports.  They are not "truly" open. 

In a lot of ways that is what the Open category is like at the NATS, in the case that there are "rules" you must follow to get in.  But, if you want to fly Open at the NATS, all you have to do is pay the entry fee and have a BOM legal plane to fly.  There are absolutely no restrictions based on anyone's "talent level".  Of course, you (collective, not personally "you")) may not be "good" enough to win, but no one is stopping anyone. 

Believe me, it's a LOT easy to fly for the US National Championship in CLPA than it is to play for the US National Championship in golf.  I have been lucky enough to know quite a few that participated in either of those, even winners for each.  All you have to do for the CLPA Champs is like I said.  Pay the entry fee and have a legal model airplane, so in truth is a LOT more "OPEN" than most National Championships.

Open is an age category.  The way I heard the story, model airplane contests used to be only for kids.  There was a Junior category, which was until about 1971 from 0-16, and a Senior category, 16-21.  The story has it that Carl Goldberg got too old to fly in Senior, but still wanted to compete, so a grown-ups class was created.  It needed a name, Senior having been taken. 

[RC Storick]

If anyone has ever flown there they would not complain on how its done. Its like herding cats.Its as fair and open as one could get. Its still the luck of the draw.

[jose modesto]

Ricardo only asked the same question that the Nat's ED Bill Rich asked of the AMA to allow models to fly that were not built by the pilot. Keith Brett Howard your answer to Ricardo should have been that the NATS CD/ED. Had your exact point of view but AMA rejected that option proposed by Bill Rich.
At no time did Ricardo mention BOM or it's removal. I went through most of this post and only you guys have mentioned BOM
Ricardo only asked the same question as our Nat's CD/ED yes I have read the letter sent to the 3 men listed
I hope that you also took our CD\ED to task for proposing to change the NATS
JOSE MODESTO
KEEP BOM AS IS,was,should be
BOM IS DEAD LONG LIVE BOM

[jose modesto]

PJ the worlds have been won many times by pilots that did not build their models. 2008,2010 that model was built by another great builder flyer. 5x china world champion DID NOT BUILD MODEL.
You guys are defending something that was not attacked BOM
BOM means so many different things to many,BOM has changed during PAMPA administration of the NAT'S to include total components built by others. Robert is talking original intent flat box AMA has full components.What is the current BOM 1.5+hours of skill building if this is what's being defended as BOM then BOM is dead.
The reason that AMA had to change The written BOM in 2005was to keep up with NAT'S practice of wings,and full component kits having been in use for over 15 years that were built by others.
If Robert had his way many times national champions would have their names removed from the   Walker trophy as they used components built by others NOT JUST THE SHARKS.
BOM IS DEAD LONG LIVE BOM
PS I like current BOM
Jose Modesto

[W.D. Roland]

Being new retread back into C/L and being X-combat ,Rat orientated for past history, there is a lot to catch up on and sort out, Pilot wise and rule wise to fly Stunt.

My attention is drawn to Stunt or PA or whatever is proper modern term....
So what gets my interest is Building and Flying our own masterpiece(BOM+AP= ). Designing my own is is icing on the cake.

My understanding from past history is BOM and AP in all Stunt competitions. Apparently wrong for modern day.

If we have no BOM and No AP then all that is needed is a big 'old style combat plane' with landing gear and a
'stunt run' type engine. Might need flaps, might not.
Well, just lost most of my interest.

So are 'Real AMA Stunt' airplanes only for the NAT's? That is along drive for me and to build an airplane for use once a year or less is not very smart(?).

Now to what I have seen in the only contest for me in recent history, I am almost positive that Open
was BOM and AP rules. This was at Baton Rouge.
I flew beginner so not 100% sure this is fact. Should be.

I really hope that Arkansas and Texas (Mississippi?)contest are BOM and AP for Open at least.
I think Louisiana is (BR)

I don't see why components prefabbed molded or otherwise from an outside your shop source would violate the BOM.
Assemble,,Build and paint or cover it BOM. Or leave it Gel Coated.( Gel coat, heavy stuff and brittle.)

If you open the box and find a 90% complete airplane that is not BOM.

Is this the Stunt Airplane of the future?

[Bill Little]

Hi David! (WD)

I think you will find that the Baton Rouge contest used the PAMPA Skill classes (or equivalent AMA rule book CLPA category numbers) for their meet so "Open" would have been "Expert".  My apologizes if I am mistaken.  PAMPA Skill Classes allow any airplane to fly.  Some, if not most, local contests have dropped the BOM /AP requirement.  Those in the SE and NE have, AFAIK.  So BOM/AP are a "moot point" where those meets are concerned.

Big Bear

[W.D. Roland]

I guess that a read of the rule book will probably help me catch up!

Memory says  PAMPA and MACA we just off the ground good when I stopped flying.

David

[PerttiMe]

Is this the Stunt Airplane of the future?

What is it? I like the wing shape. Just needs a fuselage (for looks) and a bit of color (for looks and visibility.

[Rafael Gonzalez]

It looks that it will turn a good square corner...

[PJ Rowland]

Jose : I was referring to commercially avaliable composite models winning worlds.. I hardly call Richie K A commerically avaliable version. And the chinese - well Ive seen those models and they certainly are'nt to the level of a russian model so no advantage there - I guess it must be the 60 hr week practice sessions .

[RC Storick]

PJ the worlds have been won many times by pilots that did not build their models. 2008,2010 that model was built by another great builder flyer. 5x china world champion DID NOT BUILD MODEL.
You guys are defending something that was not attacked BOM
BOM means so many different things to many,BOM has changed during PAMPA administration of the NAT'S to include total components built by others. Robert is talking original intent flat box AMA has full components.What is the current BOM 1.5+hours of skill building if this is what's being defended as BOM then BOM is dead.
The reason that AMA had to change The written BOM in 2005was to keep up with NAT'S practice of wings,and full component kits having been in use for over 15 years that were built by others.
If Robert had his way many times national champions would have their names removed from the   Walker trophy as they used components built by others NOT JUST THE SHARKS.
BOM IS DEAD LONG LIVE BOM
PS I like current BOM
Jose Modesto

No where did I say remove past winners. Now on this note. If this continues in its current direction the guy with the most money wins. This was not the intent of the event. Don't say I am wrong look at stock car racing. In the days of Don Nicholson the little guy could make it now if you don't have at least a million dollar budjet you don't stand a chance. And a million is low end. Is this the future of PA?

I am not the only one to feel this way. The vast majority says KEEP the BOM. You can keep campaining to remove it if you like but it serves no purpose.

Also no one cares how the worlds does it. Just the NATS is at hand. And the reason the AMA changed it was not to stay in line with the world it was to combat protests. I WAS THERE TOO! So instead of holding up the contest for a few whiners they made a (bad but quick) ruling. Funny thing is about this on the next rules cycle it will be fixed and there won't be happy people. Could be me but I doubt it.

[W.D. Roland]

PerttiMe
Why would it need a Fuselage? For AP?
I do see room for a canopy!
That is the combat plane I designed for 75 Nats.

Rafael
Yes, with the rearward balance and 2in tall control horn it will do anything, smoothly at that.
Landing was a problem as it goes into ground effects at about 2ft altitude and needs down to get on down.


The Flip side(food for thought?)
When flying Scale R/C in the 80s I was on the other side of the fence on this subject.
My project was the Byron Originals V-35 Bonanza.
This kit consisted of a fiberglass fuse, foam cores and piles of molded plastic parts consisting of control surface skins and other parts.

Did this prefabed stuff save time? NO!!!!!!!!!
Did it take skill? YES, of a different kind than Balsa.
Did it save time over a scratch built balsa one? NO! probably doubled it.

This is also possibly the most complex and difficult building project I had done to that date and still true today.
It did make a fantastic airplane though.

Due to my loss of interest on the 'Argument' going on it has hung on the shop wall for near 25 years only needing
trim color and final assembly.
I still have no clue how that R/C scale BOM turned out


I agree with Howard R.....Would rather hang around modelers than open the box toy airplane fliers.
( I bet like me most Modelers have a few toy airplane too!)

David

[Alex Becerril]

Ricardo only asked the same question that the Nat's ED Bill Rich asked of the AMA to allow models to fly that were not built by the pilot. Keith Brett Howard your answer to Ricardo should have been that the NATS CD/ED. Had your exact point of view but AMA rejected that option proposed by Bill Rich.
At no time did Ricardo mention BOM or it's removal. I went through most of this post and only you guys have mentioned BOM
Ricardo only asked the same question as our Nat's CD/ED yes I have read the letter sent to the 3 men listed
I hope that you also took our CD\ED to task for proposing to change the NATS
JOSE MODESTO
KEEP BOM AS IS,was,should be
BOM IS DEAD LONG LIVE BOM

uhum that is true

[PerttiMe]

PerttiMe
Why would it need a Fuselage? For AP?
I do see room for a canopy!
That is the combat plane I designed for 75 Nats.

I don't expect to be present at any contests with AP   ... but a fuselage even on a short aircraft looks right to me. I want a fuselage whether it is required or not!  

Like a Blue Pants, Graupner Ultra Stunter, or even Mercury Toreador but with your sharp looking wing  

[Alex Becerril]

If this continues in its current direction the guy with the most money wins. [/quote]

How wrong! You are telling me that if I fly a Shark or any other ukrainian model I will win Open or be in a better position to win?
In order to win Open at the Nats what you need is practice. Of course a good flying plane (that most of us have) but most of all practice. We have I think a few of the best pilots of the world; Fitzgerald, Fancher, Buck, Werwage, Walker...None of them fly a Shark or something similar and all of them had beat Ukrainian models.

[RC Storick]

Look its already becoming about the money. If you cant see it sorry. Lets break it down. A 16 year old kid who has aspired to compete at the NATS must first have good equipment. 300+ engine and a plane that will cost 1500. He must transport himself to the NATS and stay for a week average cost 1000. so there is at least 3000 in getting there now. Lets add the cost of the shark 4000 and it will be 5000. (plus a ridiculous 100 dollar entry fee) so what kid can afford it now? NONE!

I don't care if anyone fly's a shark. I care that the rules are followed. I have to play by them so should everyone else.