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?
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?
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?
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 ?
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 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.
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
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.
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 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.
I thought that a for a stunt competition the real point was who was the better flier.
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.
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!
Hang in there Brett, unless i missed something, majority rules. What part of majority rules don't people understand. Ron.
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
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.
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.
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
Thank you for proving my point about hostility and prejudice to someone you don't know anything about.
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.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!
John Leidle
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?
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 ?
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?
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.Your words: "They have an event at the Nats for the guys who don't want or can't build a nice plane"
John
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.
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?
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...
...
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.
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.
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.
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. H^^
Then there is seeding. I am sure someone will explain how that works.
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.
Starting my next BOM compliant building project. No molded shells here... y1
The following events, as far as I know, have no BOM requirements, and here some of the costs of the airplanes, RTF: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.
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).
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.
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.
(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)
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.
(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
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 like lotto ball type drawing for flight order, circle and for judges....
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"
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"
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. H^^
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. ;D
Is this the Stunt Airplane of the future? n~ n~ n~ n~ n~ n~ n~What is it? I like the wing shape. Just needs a fuselage (for looks) and a bit of color (for looks and visibility.
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
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.uhum that is true
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
PerttiMeI don't expect to be present at any contests with AP LL~ ... but a fuselage even on a short aircraft looks right to me. I want a fuselage whether it is required or not! y1
Why would it need a Fuselage? For AP?
I do see room for a canopy! LL~
That is the combat plane I designed for 75 Nats.
Sparky
I agree with you. America has become too politically correct for its own good.
Let’s follow the rules as written. The biggest heartache I have in all this is the weak folks at AMA. If you have to build your own airplane by the rules - then build it. Having the AMA step in and say let’s all get along is not supportive of the Event Director nor is it supportive of maintaining our event.
Agreed completely. It's an arguable point about what the rules should be. But I can see no justification for not permitting the ED to be able to enforce the rules. And even more so, there is no excuse whatsoever for someone to show up and lie about it, just because they might be able to get away with it. People like that need to get out of the event, they are not welcome.
Brett
I haven't read in this forum as of yet that someone is trying or will try not to let the ED enforce the rules.
I hope you don't think a sheeted foam wing is a prebuilt subassembly.I think I am confused.
I will like to give Derek B credit for admitting that he did not build his wing on his concourse winning model> Wing supplied by Bob Hunt after the devastating fire to their shop.Jose Modesto
Admitting?
Didn't know I was hiding anything......
PJ as to what is legal. Since 2005 all components can be purchased built by others.prior to 2005 they were technically against the written AMA rule but accepted as BOM legal.
Some on this thread believe in the old interpretation of BOM, that a kit is a flat box with no prebuilt allowed. Others believe that BOM is a living constitution were new technologies are allowed to flourish as we have for the past 38 years under PAMPA Nat's administration.
Our challenge during this rules cycle is which do we chose.
Frozen in 1950's "sparky" or as Norm and you believe in a living document that allows new manufacturing methods,Prebuilt,foam component,ARC,ETC.
I believe in the living document that allows new technologies not in the flat box crowd.
You and I only have a disagreement on world champions and how many built their models.
Remember that this thread was NOT ABOUT CHANGING BOM but allowing pilots to fly at Nat's without appearance points as Stated by Ricardo and Alex and ALSO PROPOSED BY BILL RICH TO AMA.I thought that the attacks on Ricardo and Alex were not fair as many on this thread were aware that Bill R. also proposed the same as Ricardo and Alex. Bob Whitely called them "crybabies and Wannabes" this should have been denounced by the postres that new Bill R. had proposed the same.
As to Whitely when you win the Nat's and the USA and deffending world champion are not present is it as valuable as when you beat the best in the world. Just ask some of your friends. From a Wanabe cribaby
Jose Modesto
Thank you Jose
We know who are the REAL crybabies and wannabes
Alex
Norm the challenge with BOM discussions is that Robert S.will tell you that pre-sheeted foam components are NOT BOM compliant, another will say that ARC is BOM legal.
My point is that BOM as listed by AMA is fine. Brett previously said that sheeted wings and tails should not be BOM legal.yet another will say that a flat box kit is the only item that can be purchased.
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
Hi Bill
It was today that I read your post so sory for the delay in answering your questions
Here are the answers:
1- We don't have any concern, this is our POV and opinion. I'm no concerned at all; I have been to 12 NATS all of them with a different airplane, in 8 of them I have received 17AP. Like all of you I'm also a modeler.
2-The benefit in MY OPINION is that by increasing NATS entries we increase interest. See how PAMPA keep loosing members, isn't that a sign of something? After my first NATS I got hooked, I encourage all my fellow flyers to be part of it, they did, now they still encouraging people to fly stunt helping our hobby/sport grow. Agaiin, that is my POV and opinion.
3- No. An opinion is just an opinion and have nothing to do to change or wanting to change anything like
a few people are implying.
but yet think they should be included with the real modellers
that try really, really hard to win the Nat's. I apologize if I sound too competitive, just my nature. Regards, RJ
"Larry said " " I flew at the 2000 and 2001 Nats as an Advanced flier. I think I am far from an incomplete modeler or a Sunday flier and I don't know of many people who have more passion about model airplanes than me. " Hell I didn't even qualify. But lord knows that nobody had more fun that week than me."
GEE Larry
I don't know how you could have had...any.. fun, They made you wear strange shirts all week, talk to you in funny manners, and I even heard the guys that lived next door blocked your room door with picnic tables one morning !!! LL~
Randy ;D