Appearance Points in Open

[Alex Becerril]

Why doesn't AMA allow a person to fly in open a non BOM legal model?
It's okay not to give that model AP BUT not letting him/her fly it at all ? is questionable or not?
Any special reason?
Should they revise that rule and just allow it to fly like PAMPA does?

 

[Brett Buck]

Why does AMA won't allow a person to fly in open a non BOM legal model?
It's okay not to give that model AP BUT don't let him/her fly it at all is questionable or not?
Any special reason?

  Because it's the Open National Championship. The rules for the Open Championship require that you have built your own model to be able to compete. The point of the Open national championship is for modelers to construct a model and them compete with it.

    Brett

 

[RicardoMartinez]

I thought that a for a stunt competition the real point was who was the better flier. In scale that would be the point, no ?

[Bill Little]

Why does AMA won't allow a person to fly in open a non BOM legal model?
It's okay not to give that model AP BUT don't let him/her fly it at all is questionable or not?
Any special reason?
Should they revise that rule and just allow it to fly like PAMPA does?

HI Alex,

This is part and parcel of the heated discussions going on in the NATS BOM threads already.  The vast majority of AMA NATS competitors in Open at this period of history WANT the BOM to be part of the rules.  AP are not given to "NON BOM" models, since they cannot fly in the age group events.

"OPEN" is an AMA Age Group Class like Junior and Senior.  It only applies to the NATS, since I know of no local meet that uses the AMA Age groups as their only classes anymore.

The NATS are AMA, and flown to AMA rules.  The "PAMPA" Classes that have been "added" to the NATS (only "Advanced" is an "OFFICIAL EVENT" of those, Beginner and Intermediate are not "official events") are simply "add ons".  To fly for the Walker Trophy, you must fly, and win, in J/S/O.   So, there is no "ambiguity" in that ruling since it is the AMA National Championships.

Personally, I really do not know why "Advanced" was made an "Official" event.  I have several friends who have win Advanced at the NATS, and it is nothing personal about them, I just don't know why it was done.  It could have stayed a non official event and still have been flown like Intermediate and Beginner or Classic and Old Time.  

PAMPA "rules" do not apply to AMA Age Group events,only AMA rules.  After all it is the National Championships run by the AMA.  The AMA gets to call the shots, as it should be.

Big Bear

[Howard Rush]

Why does AMA won't allow a person to fly in open a non BOM legal model?

The simple answer is that the rule states it.  You can't use 75-foot lines or a 1.5 cubic-inch engine, either.  The reasons we have the rule have been well stated in these discussions.  

It's okay not to give that model AP BUT don't let him/her fly it at all is questionable or not?

No.

Any special reason?

The simple answer is that the rule states it.  You can't use 75-foot lines or a 1.5 cubic-inch engine, either.  The reasons we have the rule have been well stated in these discussions.  

Should they revise that rule and just allow it to fly like PAMPA does?

The AMA rules have both the age (with BOM) and skill-class (no BOM) categories.  You ask if the age classes, used only at the Nats, should be abolished in favor of skill classes.  Specifically, you seem to be suggesting that Expert be flown, rather than Open.  I don't think so, but "they" is you.  You are welcome to submit a proposal to destroy the Nats if you want.  I'll oppose it.

Just build an airplane.  

[Bill Little]

I thought that a for a stunt competition the real point was who was the better flier. In scale that would be the point, no ?

HI Ricardo,

See my post to Alex.

The AMA NATS CLPA Age Group events (J/S/O) are about more than just twiddling the handle.  It is about being a "modeler".   It is what sets apart the event from all others in the World.  The collective "We" like it that way.  The vast majority of Open competitors at the NATS want to keep the BOM and have it signify that the pilot actually builds his own airplane.  More is required than simply "flying".  The rest of the "World" might not see it that way, but that's OK.  I don't see any Americans telling the Italians how to run their National Championships, nor should we.  More CLPA fliers are in the USA than anywhere else, and we run things the way we want to.  I know you are well aware of that point.

Big Bear

[RicardoMartinez]

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.

[Trostle]

I thought that a for a stunt competition the real point was who was the better flier. In scale that would be the point, no ?

The Control Line Precision Aerobaticsrules DO NOT state anywhere that it is a flying only event.  The BOM requirement has been a part of the CLPA rules for over 60 years.  The CLPA is a model airplane contest which means the model that is built by the contestant and has the best combined score of appearance points and flight points will win.

Keith

[PerttiMe]

Let it be. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be.

Of course, none of this affects me in any way...

[Alex Becerril]

The simple answer is that the rule states it.  You can't use 75-foot lines or a 1.5 cubic-inch engine, either.  The reasons we have the rule have been well stated in these discussions.  

No.

The simple answer is that the rule states it.  You can't use 75-foot lines or a 1.5 cubic-inch engine, either.  The reasons we have the rule have been well stated in these discussions.  

The AMA rules have both the age (with BOM) and skill-class (no BOM) categories.  You ask if the age classes, used only at the Nats, should be abolished in favor of skill classes.  Specifically, you seem to be suggesting that Expert be flown, rather than Open.  I don't think so, but "they" is you.  You are welcome to submit a proposal to destroy the Nats if you want.  I'll oppose it.

Just build an airplane.  

[RicardoMartinez]

The Control Line Precision Aerobaticsrules DO NOT state anywhere that it is a flying only event.  The BOM requirement has been a part of the CLPA rules for over 60 years.  The CLPA is a model airplane contest which means the model that is built by the contestant and has the best combined score of appearance points and flight points will win.

Keith

Where in my statement did you see me write that I thought that it is a flying only event?? Cause I don't see it. What I wrote, in other words, was that the priority in stunt is flying and the priority in scale is building, simple enough.

[Howard Rush]

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.

If the owners of those ARFs want to fly in Open at the Nats, they can go through the rules process to change the rule.  They have not done so.  They can take their multitudes of ARFs and fly in the numerous East Coast contests that welcome ARFs to the extent of giving them special incentives.  They don't do that either.  

Just build an airplane.

[Bill Little]

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.

Which "Majority".  That's the rub.  Like I have said on numerous occasions.  The NATS are the NATS.  The guys who compete in J/S/O for the Walker Trophy are the only ones affected by the AMA BOM in this discussion.  THEY want the BOM and it is by a large majority that THEY want the BOM.  What I do with my buddies at the ball field has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.  An R/C guy blowing a couple hundred dollars to get an ARF and flying it once or twice is not part of the equation.  I can safely say that many of those events have occurred and they have NOT become a part of competitive CLPA because of their buying an ARF/ARC.

The "sales" of ARFs/ARCs is irrelevant to the discussion since it doesn't impact the AMA BOM for AGE GROUPS at the NATS.  Might be a hard concept to understand , but it isn't, really.  

 
Big Bear

[Randy Ryan]

The simple answer is that the rule states it.  You can't use 75-foot lines or a 1.5 cubic-inch engine, either.  The reasons we have the rule have been well stated in these discussions.  

No.

The simple answer is that the rule states it.  You can't use 75-foot lines or a 1.5 cubic-inch engine, either.  The reasons we have the rule have been well stated in these discussions.  

The AMA rules have both the age (with BOM) and skill-class (no BOM) categories.  You ask if the age classes, used only at the Nats, should be abolished in favor of skill classes.  Specifically, you seem to be suggesting that Expert be flown, rather than Open.  I don't think so, but "they" is you.  You are welcome to submit a proposal to destroy the Nats if you want.  I'll oppose it.

Just build an airplane.  

Howard I just love the way you so gently chide. HEHE

[Brett Buck]

I thought that a for a stunt competition the real point was who was the better flier.

  No, it is not. For at least the last 60 years, it has been a combination of who does the best combination of building and piloting skills. If you don't understand that you will not understand the arguments about BOM.

   FAI is solely a test of the piloting skill. for good or bad.

    Brett

[Brett Buck]

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.

  The poll we took was 80:20 in favor of the BOM. That this is how we are going to go is, to me, a closed issue. ARF Sales have nothing to do with this issue since ARFS *are* legal in every competition aside from the National Chmapionship.

   

[Derek Barry]

Like Howard said, "Just build an airplane"

[Wynn Robins]

Like Howard said, "Just build an airplane"

and let the subject got for $&@ sake.......has been flogged to death and nothing new and/or interesting has come from ANY of the discussions -just bickering - and we dont need that!

[Brett Buck]

and let the subject got for $&@ sake.......has been flogged to death and nothing new and/or interesting has come from ANY of the discussions -just bickering - and we dont need that!

Wynn - that's the strategy. The anti types just start the same argument over and over on the hopes that it will wear everybody down. They know that they can't win in a heads-up vote, the majority is overwhelmingly against them. It's not fair arguing but the only way they win is if enough people give up.

  This latest round has been going on about 5-6 years now. I don't enjoy this any more than you do, but I don't think it makes sense to destroy a very successful event by allowing myself to be browbeat into submission by a minority with an agenda.

   Brett

[Ron Merrill]

Hang in there Brett, unless i missed something, majority rules. What part of majority rules don't people understand. Ron.

[Brian Massey]

I've been back in modeling for about 2 years now after a 35+ year layoff. The first time I saw "ARF", "ARC" and "BOM" all I could think of was . . . huh? I got back into it partly for the flying, and partly for the building. I'm only on my 4th plane since returning, and am still making my share of mistakes. But to me, that is part of the total modeling experience. Now that I know what "BOM" and "CYO" (crash your own) mean, I say on this point the AMA is correct, it should be kept.

Just thoughts from someone the rules will never really effect.

Brian

[PJ Rowland]

Could there be an element of insurance / safety involved in this original ruling ?

Signing a waver style declaration stating you are the Builder of the modle - All responsibilty lies therin with the builder and flyer. Surely there would be a sub clause in the insurance that would cover the flyer if he / she constructed the model due to being an " expert in the field " If it was a chinese made kit or RTF there is no quality control and no control over safety. There may be a clause in the insurance about them if they didnt.

Im no expert in law but I suspect this may be a reason.
?

[Bill Little]

Hang in there Brett, unless i missed something, majority rules. What part of majority rules don't people understand. Ron.

Hi Ron,

So you are backing up Brett and the rest of us that want to keep it in place, right?   

If you mean the majority of the people is actually affects then I agree with you, too.  The majority of the people it actually affects want to keep it, I don't understand why those that it does NOT affect want to drop it.  I haven't flown in a NATS in several years, but I intend  to again in the near future.

I kinda take that back..... I taught and coached (coaching was the "easy" part) in public schools for well over 30 years.  I should know that the latest generation want things there way, only, and want it now..... and for free......  and for you to do it for them........ 

Young people like Matt C. are the minority and that minority is dwindling every day..

Bill

[Bob Whitely]

Don'tcha just love it!  Every negative  comment about the BOM always comes
from the crybabies, wannabes and those that don't want to take any time or
pride to get good enough to fly at the Nat's.

Arf's and Arc's are just fine for the newby/beginner and those that just wish
to be sport or Sunday fliers.  I don't want them anywhere near my Nat's ever!

As Keith said the Nat's is a combination of building and flying and experience in
the modelling world.  You don't get that with the ready mades.  I really don't and
won't make time to help someone with an Arf.  If they want to build a plane that is
a whole different thing.

All you guys that are so uptight about "Can't fly at the Nat's cause you didn't build
the model" can just go and have your little ARF contests and I'm sure you will
enjoy your own  "ARF/ARC"  experience.  Wouldn't that be wonderful!!

Meantime leave the real modellers alone as it is fairly obvious that none of you will be one of us.

Of course I really have no opinion  as I am just a competitor and have flown at the Nat's a few times....RJ






arc

[RicardoMartinez]

Wynn - that's the strategy. The anti types just start the same argument over and over on the hopes that it will wear everybody down. They know that they can't win in a heads-up vote, the majority is overwhelmingly against them. It's not fair arguing but the only way they win is if enough people give up.

  This latest round has been going on about 5-6 years now. I don't enjoy this any more than you do, but I don't think it makes sense to destroy a very successful event by allowing myself to be browbeat into submission by a minority with an agenda.

   Brett

I can't believe how upset people get about others voicing their opinions for the better of their common hobby. All of us discussing here are modelers we just have different P.O.V. about the BOM. I don't know why people think that this a battle to save man kind or saying that we are the winners and you are losers (jajaja  ) as if this was a basketball game. It's a matter of concerns and opinions for the good of the hobby nothing else, I just don't understand the hostility and prejudices that have been made.

[Trostle]

Where in my statement did you see me write that I thought that it is a flying only event?? Cause I don't see it. What I wrote, in other words, was that the priority in stunt is flying and the priority in scale is building, simple enough.

Ricardo,

OK, let's first look at your statement:

"I thought that a for a stunt competition the real point was who was the better flier. In scale that would be the point, no ?"

No, you did not say that CLPA is a flying only event.  You did say "that for a stunt competition the real point was who was the better flier."  So, I should have been more precise in my response that the rules DO NOT specify that the point of competition is to determine the better flier.  The competition is won by the contestant who has the highest combined score of appearance and flight points as it has been for over 60 years.

I should have also explained what is probably obvious to even the least experienced competition modeler is that rules used in scale or any other event have nothing whatsoever to do with our CLPA event.

Keith

 

[Russell Bond]

"I really don't and won't make time to help someone with an Arf.  If they want to build a plane that is a whole different thing."

WOW!!!
When I read this from Bob, I had to re-read it as I didn't believe what was said!
What a thing to say or think!
Have you ever thought that maybe the ARF flyer might be interested in building a model once he gets more experienced?
ARFs can at least get new people into the sport and then you could help them build their own plane.
This has happened in our club.

I'm so glad we don't have this debate here in Australia.

[Randy Ryan]

I can't believe how upset people get about others voicing their opinions for the better of their common hobby. All of us discussing here are modelers we just have different P.O.V. about the BOM. I don't know why people think that this a battle to save man kind or saying that we are the winners and you are losers (jajaja  ) as if this was a basketball game. It's a matter of concerns and opinions for the good of the hobby nothing else, I just don't understand the hostility and prejudices that have been made.

That's your point of view Ricardo, others of us feel that the event has is roots and its value in the full process of building and flying stunt models. Many of us owe our professions to our modeling as youngsters which increases the value we place on it even more. Some, like me, probably would have had much different lives had not been for this interest that kept me out of trouble because I have wild tendancies, higher value yet. Bickering and bitterness are unpleasant for sure, but people like me sometimes feel as if others disregard our feelings and opinions. They feel that we simply don't understand they want to grow the hobby. But the fact is, ARFS will NEVER grow the hobby, but they have the great potential of distorting it out of shape and making it something totally foreign to those of us that place this great value on not just a simple sporting event, but in many ways a way of life. I've said it before and others have too, if it even goes the route of FAI, I'll go do something else. If people don't want to build the equipment they use I suggest taking up bowling, the ball is customized and all you need to do is roll it in the right direction.  

Ta DAAAA!!!!

[Brett Buck]

I can't believe how upset people get about others voicing their opinions for the better of their common hobby. All of us discussing here are modelers we just have different P.O.V. about the BOM. I don't know why people think that this a battle to save man kind or saying that we are the winners and you are losers (jajaja  ) as if this was a basketball game. It's a matter of concerns and opinions for the good of the hobby nothing else, I just don't understand the hostility and prejudices that have been made.

   Then, why, Ricardo, do I hear the same bunch of people dragging up the exact same argument, over and over, and never even attempting to take the counter-arguments into account. The pro-BOM people *almost never* start these threads, it's always the "anti" side trying to start a controversy.

 The only point in continuing to bring it up it to attempt to browbeat others into getting so tired of it that we give up. Oh, and of course, be able to claim to be wounded somehow by the constant "attacks" they have to endure - on a topic they know *full well* will get pushback. And in fact brought up just to get something going so they could claim to be wounded or to be shocked with the "hostility" they receive.

    Maybe some people who actually know something about the topic actually do believe what they are saying. But I certainly haven't seen any glimmer of "best interests of the event" from almost anyone on the anti side of the debate, and almost no one on the anti- side even has a clue what the event is about. With a few notable exceptions, of course.

   I've seen the playbook, I know what you guys are trying to do, and I reserve my right to object to it. I know that makes it a lot tougher to run roughshod over the rest of us.

    Just like everybody else, I am awfully tired of this topic. But I will be damned if I let a bunch of guys who know next to nothing about the topic and have essentially no experience with the event, or even an interest in it as it currently is, *destroy it* on the off chance that it will be somehow better for some poorly-defined reason. Particularly when their only chance to succeed is to wear the rest of us down. Sorry, I am not going to just give up.

   And I might add that you guys appear to not care one whit about *our* opinion, and there's no way in the world you can claim that it hasn't been extensively and patiently explained. I think the modelers have been exceptionally patient with this argument over the years, it's you guys who ignore the arguments and just bleat on, over and over, with the same silly arguments. And then expect everyone to just roll over.

   Sorry if that seems a little hostile but there's one very easy way to avoid people getting exasperated with you. Just continuing to pound away, you have to expect that people will get sick of it after a while. I think you are *counting* on it.

     Brett

[RicardoMartinez]

   Then, why, Ricardo, do I hear the same bunch of people dragging up the exact same argument, over and over, and never even attempting to take the counter-arguments into account. The pro-BOM people *almost never* start these threads, it's always the "anti" side trying to start a controversy.

 The only point in continuing to bring it up it to attempt to browbeat others into getting so tired of it that we give up. Oh, and of course, be able to claim to be wounded somehow by the constant "attacks" they have to endure - on a topic they know *full well* will get pushback. And in fact brought up just to get something going so they could claim to be wounded or to be shocked with the "hostility" they receive.

    Maybe some people who actually know something about the topic actually do believe what they are saying. But I certainly haven't seen any glimmer of "best interests of the event" from almost anyone on the anti side of the debate, and almost no one on the anti- side even has a clue what the event is about. With a few notable exceptions, of course.

   I've seen the playbook, I know what you guys are trying to do, and I reserve my right to object to it. I know that makes it a lot tougher to run roughshod over the rest of us.

    Just like everybody else, I am awfully tired of this topic. But I will be damned if I let a bunch of guys who know next to nothing about the topic and have essentially no experience with the event, or even an interest in it as it currently is, *destroy it* on the off chance that it will be somehow better for some poorly-defined reason. Particularly when their only chance to succeed is to wear the rest of us down. Sorry, I am not going to just give up.

   And I might add that you guys appear to not care one whit about *our* opinion, and there's no way in the world you can claim that it hasn't been extensively and patiently explained. I think the modelers have been exceptionally patient with this argument over the years, it's you guys who ignore the arguments and just bleat on, over and over, with the same silly arguments. And then expect everyone to just roll over.

   Sorry if that seems a little hostile but there's one very easy way to avoid people getting exasperated with you. Just continuing to pound away, you have to expect that people will get sick of it after a while. I think you are *counting* on it.

     Brett

Thank you for proving my point about hostility and prejudice to someone you don't know anything about.

[James Mills]

After reading Brett's latest post I have to say well said.  In one of the posts I remember one point of the banning the BOM rule being that time constraints from work, family, and so on keep flyer's from building their own planes and I have my doubts.  I know time constraints from career and family (work a job, have a separate business, 9 year old, involved in church and so on) but I hear surveys as to how much time the average person spends in front of the television and how much time in front of the computer (and there are 4 fingers pointed back at myself here). 

So here is the point of my post: pick a design you like or want to try, order a foam wing, controls from Tom Morris, iron on finish/rattle can finish (which should take less time) and take time away from the TV and computer and you'll have a ship in short order (put a TV in the shop if needed).  The point is the majority of us can find the time to build if we make the decision to do so.  There is an old teaching that says "show me what you spend your time on and it will show you what is important to you"(paraphrased).

So as it has been stated, just build a plane.  No one has said to be competitive at the Nats that you have to build a concours winning 20 pointer.  As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to see what the average appearance point score for the Open champ would be.

My two cents worth,


James

[Brett Buck]

Thank you for proving my point about hostility and prejudice to someone you don't know anything about.

   So it's your personal right to beat the same old points again and again, and no one has a right to get irritated about it? Sort of one-sided, wouldn't you say?

   So, mission accomplished, victimhood achieved.

     Brett

   

[steven yampolsky]

To Ricardo and Alex:

Having never been a NATS competitor myself, I have a somewhat different view of the reasons offered by other members of this forum:

US Nationals rules are based on the belief that a stunt competition should consist of measuring both the flying as well as building skill of a competitor. Majority of other countries are following a different belief that the stunt competition should be a measurement of the flying skill alone. Both beliefs are PERFECTLY VALID and should be looked at as cultural variations of the same sport. Either style should be celebrated and encouraged, not denigrated or challenged at every turn.

When you visit Great Britain, do you insist that the whole country start driving on the right side of the road? No, you don't. You just accept the way things are and follow the rules. Same applies to stunt competition.

I hope I made view clear.

[Clint Ormosen]

Well said, Steven.

I don't get to hostle about this subject. I believe in the BOM simply because I believe that building is part of "modeling" the same as flying is. They go hand in hand. When I got into this madness they call stunt, the rules were explained clearly to me and I followed them. In fact in Western Associated Modelers contests, you wern't even allowed to fly a plane you didn't build, period. Of course, there really wasn't any ARF's to be had, but plenty of "pre-built" components for you to cheat with.

Simply put, If you believe yourself to be a modeler, you'll see the point of the BOM.
If you believe this to be nothing more than a flying competition with toy planes, you won't get it at all.

[John Leidle]

  They have an event at the Nats  for the guys who don't want or can't build a nice plane .If a guy wants to fly against the top fliers he needs to build one like they do. Pretty simple & pretty fair. I really don't understand why some guys want to change something that has worked since Truman's time in office.
  John Leidle

[steven yampolsky]

  They have an event at the Nats  for the guys who don't want or can't build a nice plane .If a guy wants to fly against the top fliers he needs to build one like they do. Pretty simple & pretty fair. I really don't understand why some guys want to change something that has worked since Truman's time in office.
  John Leidle

Now, that's just an insult to all Advanced class contestants! Have you seen the workmanship of the models flown in Advanced!!!??? Just because the class rules allow entering of models not built by contestant, it does not mean that the class is for those who can't build!

[RicardoMartinez]

Alex and I have always built our own planes, it was just recently Alex got the chance of the Yatsenko. I don't know why everybody keeps saying build a plane, cause we have dozens of planes which we built ourselves. Alex has flown in a dozen Nats with planes he built. I personally fly skywriters which I have to build because they don't come ARF or ARC, and even if they came that way I wouldn't. I've never owned a ARF/ARC. I came in first in intermediate in 2001 with a Skywriter I built, and what a hassle it was to get that plane over to muncie. I don't know why you keep putting words in our mouths. We never said take out the BOM rule, nor did we imply it, we just said to rethink the part about not letting others fly. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY before you reply anything else, it's very simple. Read the tittle of the post no one has bothered to answer it, you are just saying whatever you want to say.

[Chris McMillin]

Why doesn't AMA allow a person to fly in open a non BOM legal model?
It's okay not to give that model AP BUT not letting him/her fly it at all ? is questionable or not?
Any special reason?
Should they revise that rule and just allow it to fly like PAMPA does?

 

No.
Chris...

[Chris McMillin]

I thought that a for a stunt competition the real point was who was the better flier. In scale that would be the point, no ?

No.
Chris...

[RicardoMartinez]

Thanks Chris

Ricardo....

[Steve Hines]

Bob  When you see a flyer with a arf show him how to fly and then show him how to build. The first plane I built you could hardly fly. would have stoped flying if a person had not took the plane and did some work to it. My planes now are not 20 pointers but there is no one better at building at the field I fly at now. Untill you go to the nats and see the planes and flying you cant under stand. Any one that does not put the time in to build will never put the time in to flying, so they have no chance to win. Look at what happen to rc pattern, you better have a pocket full of money. Maybe if we help hundreds of arf pilots we will get 1 great pilot. If not it still more fun than going to work.

[PJ Rowland]

ARFs can at least get new people into the sport and then you could help them build their own plane.
This has happened in our club.

I'm so glad we don't have this debate here in Australia.



I think ARF's in general are good - but what is being debated here - isnt the first timer buying a Nobler ARF and wanting to have a go at the Nats - Its about the Top level guys who are buying Sharks ect... or moulded composite models and trying to push for Top 20. Thats what needs to be stamped out.

I dont think you will hear anyone saying they wont help a beginner starting out with engine runs with a Nobler ARF down at the local..


Quote from: RicardoMartinez on February 24, 2011, 08:40:52 PM

Thank you for proving my point about hostility and prejudice to someone you don't know anything about.

There is no Hostility in this Forum - Its just going over the same old points and some get irritated by it. Generally its those whom have first hand knowledge and where BOM directly effects them.  To put it completely bluntly it doesnt effect anyone except for a select few top guys...

If you beat a dead horse for long enough its constant twitching may resemble its alive - But its still dead. Like the BOM Thread.

 


Quote Brett Buck  :

Just like everybody else, I am awfully tired of this topic. But I will be damned if I let a bunch of guys who know next to nothing about the topic and have essentially no experience with the event, or even an interest in it as it currently is, *destroy it* on the off chance that it will be somehow better for some poorly-defined reason. Particularly when their only chance to succeed is to wear the rest of us down. Sorry, I am not going to just give up.


Sorry if that sounds like Hostitility - but this how the majority of Top level stunt guys feel about it.
I enjoy building - I enjoy trying to get better and build a competitive model - Some say " least we dont have to worry about this in our country - There is little incentive to perfect your building skills - get a top class finish to your ship when you have a myriad of russian models flying well.


There is a reason I've spent 6 weeks with my main US Nats model in primer and its not due to being Lazy in the paint dept. Its because I know fully well Guys like ( Insert any Top 20 ) Are trying to do the same thing - get it perfect. You want every single point you can get.


What some DONT realise is that once you attain a certian level of skill - 500 + point flights ect.. There is more to the event than just making a perfect Square loop.  You need to mast other disiplines - and we Enjoy that - we enjoy looking for the next big improvement to OUR pattern.
Why is everyone going electric? Why was there a push toward 4-stroke a few years ago?  Why did Dave Fitzgerald change the way we think about models and engines with the ThunderGazer .75 Combination and winning the worlds?

The answer to all those questions is : Innovation - looking for an Edge over their rival.

I see no point or benifit to buying a prebuilt model - You can't alter it - you cant improve on it - Having flown a Yatsenko classic I wouldnt say its by any stretch Amazing.  Nice but like getting a taxi...


I agree it is a flying event - but to be a true world class flyer you need to master more aspects than just flying. There are dozens of great flyers out there - But those who can build and modify - Set up engines modify them - In the case of say Dave Fitz he wanted to get his engine running in a way never done before so had it specifically altered and Won the Worlds.... - So if you want to just fly and practice your flying you will only ever reach a certain level in this sport.

No Prebuilt has ever won the Worlds Champs..  

[John Leidle]

  Steven,, that was not an insult to anyone.I don't feel I need to qualify my thoughts to you or anyone,, but yes I have been to Indiana & looked at the planes .All planes, you might reread what I wrote & take the neccesary time to digest it before smashing me.
                   John

[PerttiMe]

I see no point or benifit to buying a prebuilt model - You can't alter it - you cant improve on it -

What exactly prevents altering a prebuilt aircraft?

... or do you mean building a whole new one that is slightly different?

How well ARC, ARF, or RF aircraft fly, is not the issue here, however. It is all about BOM and AP.

[steven yampolsky]

 Steven,, that was not an insult to anyone.I don't feel I need to qualify my thoughts to you or anyone,, but yes I have been to Indiana & looked at the planes .All planes, you might reread what I wrote & take the neccesary time to digest it before smashing me.
                   John

Your words: "They have an event at the Nats for the guys who don't want or can't build a nice plane"

[PJ Rowland]

What exactly prevents altering a prebuilt aircraft?

... or do you mean building a whole new one that is slightly different?

How well ARC, ARF, or RF aircraft fly, is not the issue here, however. It is all about BOM and AP.

Well - thats not entirely correct - The reason people use them is to be competitive with little to no work in building them. Those whom oppose Bom and AP are Pro ACR, ARF, RF.

What I mean is if you wish to make alterations to the design - Larger tail, better flaps you cant. Well perhaps you could if you pull new moulds ect.. but the modeller whom buys that model isnt looking to do this.

[Bill Little]

Hi Alex and Ricardo,

Just greeting both of you to make it easier especially since Ricardo included you with him in his recent post.  I guess I didn't fully understand the original question to this post which was:

Why doesn't AMA allow a person to fly in open a non BOM legal model?

The answer to that specific question is ridiculously easy.  It's against the AMA rule for flying in Open.  No offense intended with that answer, really.

Grouping the next series of your questions together:

It's okay not to give that model AP BUT not letting him/her fly it at all ? is questionable or not?
Any special reason?
Should they revise that rule and just allow it to fly like PAMPA does?

Yes it's okay to to not let him/her fly.  Simply because the specific rules for the specific age group classes do not allow flying a non BOM legal model. (which IS the "special reason")  And it is not questionable unless someone wants to submit a rules change proposal and it would actually be passed.  Which is something that HAS been tried, repeatedly, and failed.  No "one person" can change the AMA rules at the NATS.  And PAMPA only suggests rules and classes.  PAMPA has no "power" over anything pertaining to CLPA, regardless of what many may think.  PAMPA cannot "sanction" meets, etc..  I spent a few years as a District Director/Trustee in PAMPA, so I can speak with some knowledge there.   The AMA actually adopted the "PAMPA Skill Classes" as official classes in their rule book, otherwise there would be no "official Advanced Class" at the NATS.

No, the AMA should not adopt the PAMPA skill class rules for their age group competition.  The AMA doesn't want to change THEIR rule, and the vast majority of the modelers directly involved don't want to change the rule either.

You know, maybe if I had the funds to get a Yatsenko Shark (or other version from them) I could somehow increase my ability to fly 100% and stand a chance of possibly making the Top 20.  But that in and of itself would not do it, I'm afraid.  Just like getting a pair of Michael Jordan's personally worn basketball shoes wouldn't make me able to hang in the air for 10 seconds and dunk like he could.  Building a CLPA model to the level of Top 5 standards is NOT my problem.  And I do have a couple ARFs, so I have no prejudice there.

This thread, and all the others pertaining to the BOM and Age Groups at the NATS, affect so few C/L fliers, I cannot understand why it is always questioned. The ones who are actually involved never bring it up.  Why? 

The BOM Rule might need some tweaking, but it ain't going away as long as the AMA is involved.  And I see no alternative for some other organization putting on a true National Championship for CLPA in the US.  The AMA has run it for CLPA over 60+ years now.

Now, I would like to politely ask you (and Ricardo) a few questions:

1. Why the great concern when a very understandable rule is in effect?

2. What would be the "true great benefit" of allowing someone to fly in an age group at the NATS with a "non BOM legal model", and changing what has worked since the event's inception?

3. Have either of you submitted a Rules Change Proposal?

Bill Little

[PerttiMe]

Well - thats not entirely correct - The reason people use them is to be competitive with little to no work in building them.

So you mean you can be "competitive" (as in do pretty OK) with a pre-built aircraft BUT you cannot reach the real top with one?

...
The answer to all those questions is : Innovation - looking for an Edge over their rival.

I see no point or benifit to buying a prebuilt model - You can't alter it - you cant improve on it - Having flown a Yatsenko classic I wouldnt say its by any stretch Amazing.  Nice but like getting a taxi...
...

[RC Storick]

When you visit Great Britain, do you insist that the whole country start driving on the right side of the road? No, you don't. You just accept the way things are and follow the rules. Same applies to stunt competition.

Oh I love this! this is kinda like drivers license tests printed in Spanish or a dozen other languages. I wonder if I go to their country if they are printed in English? Or would I have to learn their language if I wanted to play their game?

[PJ Rowland]

Perri - Thats correct.

You will always be limited by the technology your flying with no ability to alter or innovate.

You can win Certainly - you could win the Nats - ( pre 2011 ) Possibly even win the worlds - but your really pushing it when compared to those whom do innovate.

Don't take my words as gospel im only offereing an opinion - Maybe the Chinese will all buy Sharks and dominate for the next 10 years at WC .