Author Topic: Appearance Points in Open (Read 17005 times)

WhittleN · « **Reply #100 on:** February 28, 2011, 10:03:35 AM »

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.
Flying C/L stunt is a total commitment event. You build beautiful airplanes and put them through the maneuvers. It is not about can I get some guy to build me a stunter or get me some prebuilt subassemblies to glue together; so I will have the time to concentrate on flying the pattern. One can certainly concentrate his/her time on flying and having someone else built their airplane but when you come to the NATS bring an airplane that you built.
Norm
Building my own since ‘63

Brett Buck · « **Reply #101 on:** February 28, 2011, 10:23:24 AM »

Quote from: WhittleN on February 28, 2011, 10:03:35 AM

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

Alex Becerril · « **Reply #102 on:** February 28, 2011, 02:00:11 PM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on February 28, 2011, 10:23:24 AM

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.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #103 on:** February 28, 2011, 02:16:53 PM »

Quote from: Alex Becerril on February 28, 2011, 02:00:11 PM

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.

That is a key feature of the other thread.

Brett

John Lindberg · « **Reply #104 on:** February 28, 2011, 02:19:14 PM »

I thought I read that AMA told the ED that he/she is NOT to disqualify anyone for violating (in the ED's opinion, I suppose) the BOM, it can only be done through a registered-with AMA- protest, by another flyer. Once the flyer swears that he/she built the plane, it's out of the ED's hands. I wonder if the ED can file a protest.

jose modesto · « **Reply #105 on:** February 28, 2011, 02:20:46 PM »

Norm the AMA CLPA current rules (2005) allow the use of components built by others. Are you suggesting that we follow the AMA or some other rule. AMA clearly says that these items are BOM compliant.
Norm would you be shocked or offended if you new that some national champion didn't Completely build their models prior to 2005. would you require that the champions forfit their wins or at least admit that their championships were won with components built by others.
I think we need a truth commission were any national champion prior to 2005 admits that they did not completely build their model with out penalty. The common practice in the 80's and 90's was to get a fully sheeted wing,tail flaps with leading and trailing edges installed and you build the fuse. Some of you purist who used these items now want to outlaw these components.
For me the list starts in 1969
I can tel you for sure that there are many more to add to list.
This new found commitment to the original BOM after 44 years of it being constantly changed(by contestants) with the culmination of AMA putting into law(2005) that prebuilt ARC are BOM compliant is a little baffling. Bob Hunt posted that its a little hypocritical of the current group that has benefitted from all the prebuilt components now want to change the rule after taking advantage of all the construction innovations.
We have concourse winners,20 point models that the hart of a stunt model (the wing) was not built by the pilot.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

WhittleN · « **Reply #106 on:** February 28, 2011, 03:12:29 PM »

Jose
I hope you don't think a sheeted foam wing is a prebuilt subassembly. When we talk about prebuilt subassemblies we are talking finished gel coated assemblies strait out of an exquisitely machined mold. I think you could look at pylon racing and pattern for an example of how an event turns after proliferations of molded airplanes.
Have you actually kept records since 1969? I think you are twisting foam wings to fit your argument. Other than you, I have not heard anyone equate a pre-sheeted foam wing user to a cheater. If you have ever used one then you know it’s not even close to a finished “pre-build subassembly”.

Norm

PerttiMe · « **Reply #107 on:** February 28, 2011, 03:26:23 PM »

Quote from: WhittleN on February 28, 2011, 03:12:29 PM

I hope you don't think a sheeted foam wing is a prebuilt subassembly.

I think I am confused.

I'd say a sheeted foam is roughly the equal of a prebuilt balsa wing.
Perhaps it was somebodys opinion and not a rule that prebuilt (ARC) balsa wings and balsa fuselages are not legal?

Derek Barry · « **Reply #108 on:** February 28, 2011, 04:06:25 PM »

Quote from: jose modesto on February 28, 2011, 02:20:46 PM

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......

Brett Buck · « **Reply #109 on:** February 28, 2011, 04:23:47 PM »

Quote from: Derek Barry on February 28, 2011, 04:06:25 PM

Admitting?

Didn't know I was hiding anything......

Right - this is what we have come to, confessing to things that are both legal and accepted practice. That's one reason these discussions tend to get nowhere, because people are trying to justify future actions by saying "someone else did something some time in the past" when it has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand. Which in this case is what the rules will be *in the future*.

Brett

jose modesto · « **Reply #110 on:** February 28, 2011, 05:21:38 PM »

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. We need a baseline for BOM discussions.
Ricardo and Alex Asked the same question that Bill Rich asked the AMA to let non pilot built models fly at Nat's. They were savaged as wanting to get rid of BOM. I thought that Brett,Howard and Keith should of said that Bill asked the same question then the piling on would of stoped.

Derek it was a compliment from me that you stated that your wing was by Hunt Not a negative comment on you.

Norm the 2005 AMA BOM rewrite just put our practices in the rule which made what some considered BOM non compliance models legal.
Norm there is a method of cutting foam wings that require the 1/32" wood sheeting covered with .5 glass cloth then super cored for lightness is this wing legal? the question was in reference to the portion listed below of Bill's BOM interpretation.
"or solid hard finished surfaces such as molded fiberglass or Carbon Fiber molded surfaces will not be allowed under BOM."
looking for input not a fight would like a clarification on this method. The complete process is done by others and supplied to builder Flyer
Jose modesto

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #111 on:** February 28, 2011, 09:52:10 PM »

I also didnt realise that hunt wings were against what was considered " Normal " or Illegal

Just so there is no confusion jose - I officially admit my undercarts & Spats are made by someone else but I applied the primer.

jose modesto · « **Reply #112 on:** March 01, 2011, 05:55:50 AM »

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

Alex Becerril · « **Reply #113 on:** March 01, 2011, 07:15:24 AM »

Quote from: jose modesto on March 01, 2011, 05:55:50 AM

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

RC Storick · « **Reply #114 on:** March 01, 2011, 08:21:55 AM »

Quote from: Alex Becerril on March 01, 2011, 07:15:24 AM

Thank you Jose
We know who are the REAL crybabies and wannabes
Alex

In deed we do!

Brett Buck · « **Reply #115 on:** March 01, 2011, 10:15:08 AM »

Quote from: jose modesto on February 28, 2011, 05:21:38 PM

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.

The key feature of this argument is SHOULD BE, not "IS". You can't fault someone for taking advantage of the rules as written. So I think the "so and so did such and such back in 1967" sort of argument is just not valid. For my money, I question whether the Shark, even as the kit, should have been deemed legal. So I agree, mostly, with the idea Bill is trying to implement.

But once it was deemed legal, I certainly have no problem with Orestes having used it *even when he beat me for the National Championship*. He was *following the rules as written and interpreted*.

Same thing with pre-built wings - it's a classic "red herring" in this discussion. You are more-or-less trying to claim that since other people have done things that may (or may not) be illegal under some future hypothetical rule, the whole thing is a fraud so why not dump the whole thing. That's a ludicrous argument - do we say that the FAI rules are nonsense because David's 75 used to be illegal so he should sand his name off the WC trophy? That's about the same as saying "prebuilt wings may be illegal in the future so look at you guys talking out of both sides of your mouth"

And for the record, not that it matters one way or the other, I built my wing including cutting the cores. Irrelevant to this discussion, just like Derek buying his.

Brett

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #116 on:** March 01, 2011, 11:56:48 AM »

Why did I stoke the fire??

I'm over this debate. Its the same old tired statements against BOM your going around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around.

Stop.. refuel......

around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around around and around and around

And im NOT talking about practice to be top 20...

I know this is about control line and the purpose is to go around in circles and make an impression but its old and tired.. Build your OWN plane within the confines' of what is expected of an expert pilot and compete with that - Compete fair - and Hard and to the same degree as those before you.

For the record - I agree with this statement : I certainly have no problem with Orestes having used it following the rules as written and interpreted*.

I have not met Orestes, but I personally know others who have met him and say nothing but how nice of a guy he is and a deserving champion - I go with that.

There is simply nothing left to add that is of constructive value to this argument/thread/debate

Bob Whitely · « **Reply #117 on:** March 01, 2011, 01:48:15 PM »

This is for Jose. I think, if I remember correctly, that Mr. Werwage, Wynn Paul and some
others were there at that particular Nat's. I would say that I had an even playing field.

As for those that wish to have the "Nat's Experience" they have two ways to go.

1. Build their own plane and fly J/S/O depending on their age.

2. Buy, borrow, steal or otherwise obtain whatever plane they can afford or desire and enter
Advanced at the Nat's. The advanced class was instituted just for those that choose
not to build their own or have unlimited funds to have one built for them. These are
what we call incomplete modelers or Sunday fliers without any real passion for what
those of us that really enjoy the hobby and will put forth the effort to get those gold
ribbons instead of trying to buy their way in. I feel sad for them. RJ

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #118 on:** March 01, 2011, 01:52:53 PM »

There is simply nothing left to add that is of constructive value to this argument/thread/debate

[/quote]

Now, lets see how long it takes for someone to bring it up again.

Nuthin more fun than beatin a ded horse.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Alex Becerril · « **Reply #119 on:** March 01, 2011, 01:55:35 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on February 25, 2011, 01:25:41 AM

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.

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #120 on:** March 01, 2011, 04:20:00 PM »

The advanced class was instituted just for those that choose
not to build their own or have unlimited funds to have one built for them. These are
what we call incomplete modelers or Sunday fliers without any real passion for what
those of us that really enjoy the hobby and will put forth the effort to get those gold
ribbons instead of trying to buy their way in. I feel sad for them. RJ
[/quote]

Sorry Bob, I've gotta disagree with you on this one.

You know that nobody enjoys building more than me and I'm not a bad builder either, so I support BOM and want all the appearance I can get since my flying sucks.

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.

In 2000, I had only been flying for a couple of years and at that point had never even competed as an Advanced flier.
However, I wanted to experience the National Championships, but as an Intermediate pilot it would seem pretty stupid to even think about entering Open. So I flew Advance and sucked. Hell I didn't even qualify. But lord knows that nobody had more fun that week than me.
(Just ask Ted and Brett.)

From most of the advanced pilots I met, they were pretty much in the same mindset. Advanced at the Nats is great for those climbing the stunt ladder and wanting to rub elbows with the "big Shots" for a week. I learned a lot and became a better flier from that weeks experience.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Bill Little · « **Reply #121 on:** March 01, 2011, 05:03:42 PM »

Quote from: Alex Becerril on March 01, 2011, 01:55:35 PM

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.

Thanks, Alex. I appreciate your opinion, and I have no real answer to the "growing participation" question. I do realize that so many local contests have dropped appearance points altogether so flying any type of model, locally, isn't a problem in many areas. Still, the level of participation isn't leaping upwards at a large rate. I'm really afraid, and convinced, that nothing we can do will ever bring back the numbers of fliers in C/L that was prevalent in the late '50s and early '60s. Aviation as a whole is not the draw that it was then. Model building of any kind is not as large a segment of our population. Kids who grew up flying C/L are not like the kids of today. I know that aspect of life, I spent over 30 years dealing with them day after day. Less and less is the desire to "make" something, rather "buy it", and airplanes that fly on "strings" are of no real excitement for the vast majority. Far too much has changed through out society. The days of hearing model airplane engines crank up on Saturday morning in some part of town are long gone. (and I truly think we as a Nation are the poorer for it)

And as for the NATS, there is SO much more than allowing or not allowing a model to fly that factors into competing at that level. You personally know that. So much more that even if we DID drop OM and AP for the NATS age group classes, participation would not dramatically increase. There is just so much more to factor in than what we allow to fly.

Thanks
Bill

john e. holliday · « **Reply #122 on:** March 01, 2011, 05:43:06 PM »

We can never get back to the numbers of the 50's-60's with all the people worried about noise and safety. In the KC area we had as many as 6 clubs flying and sanctioning or holding contests each weekend. Some one decided we couldn't use the public schools grounds for flying. People started flying RC as it opened up or slacked off on requirements to fly RC. With the city parks thinking more of the masses can't justify circles for CL. I see ball diamonds sitting vacant and kept mown, but we can't fly on them like we used to at KCK City Park. Same with the soccor fields, can't fly on them even if we use carpet to catch fuel droppings. So how do we get new people when we have the majority against us?

Bob Whitely · « **Reply #123 on:** March 01, 2011, 09:45:35 PM »

Larry, I can appreciate your point of view up to a point. Your planes are absolutely
gorgous and always front row. I can't build as well as you but I try. My real point
is that you could have entered Open at the Nat's and had just as good a time as in
Advanced plus you would have flown against the best. The whole Nat's is about the best
modeler, that means both building and flying. I've seen you fly and I've seen your
planes, you would do well in Open as you just have to try harder to get up the ladder.
I have also seen that ARFs and ARCs are good for the new guys, but very very few ever
get beyond that stage 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

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #124 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:23:23 PM »

Quote from: Bob Whitely on March 01, 2011, 09:45:35 PM

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

I think you just sound factual.. There is nothing compeitive about it - How are you competing against someone when they build their own model and you don't ?

( not YOU .. you but metaphorical You. )

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #125 on:** March 02, 2011, 10:26:37 PM »

[quote author=Bob Whitely
My real point is that you could have entered Open at the Nat's and had just as good a time as in
Advanced plus you would have flown against the best. The whole Nat's is about the best
modeler, that means both building and flying. I've seen you fly and I've seen your
planes, you would do well in Open as you just have to try harder to get up the ladder.
. Regards, RJ
[/quote]

At the time, as an Intermediate flier, I thought that I would be wasting a lot of peoples time, judges, contestants and such, if I flew Open.
Not only that, I embarrassed myself enough in Advanced and would have only embarrassed myself more in Open.

But as I said before, I had a great time and took a lot away from whole experience. I cant wait to get back there and do it again.
Take care Bob, I'll see you at the Palmer.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Chuck Feldman · « **Reply #126 on:** March 04, 2011, 06:55:06 AM »

I cannot believe what Bob said. He must be fed up with all this BOM crap. I do not believe that the Advanced class was added to the NAts so as to get the lower class fliers to be seperated from the elite. See my other posts about Balls being kicked in the other BOM treads.

Hey if you come to the NAT's with an old nail keg that you bought at a yard sale and rigged it to fly then you pay your fee and enter the contest.

John Lindberg · « **Reply #127 on:** March 04, 2011, 08:18:23 AM »

Sounds all right to me, the Nats is about competition, Bob is being competitive in a very polite way. Pretty mild compared to other competition, in my opinion.

RandySmith · « **Reply #128 on:** March 04, 2011, 02:36:53 PM »

"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 !!!

Randy

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #129 on:** March 04, 2011, 09:36:51 PM »

Quote from: RandySmith on March 04, 2011, 02:36:53 PM

"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 !!!

Randy

Thanks a lot for reminding me of those traumatic experiences. And just when I had almost forgotten.

That Pin Head Jeff even tied a rope from the doorknob of my room to a tree. Thank god for my trusty X-Acto knife

But I did get even with him BIG TIME Boy oh boy did I get even with him

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

john e. holliday · « **Reply #130 on:** March 05, 2011, 08:07:48 AM »

Was that as good as someone dropping water balloons on other competitors from second floor balcony? Nothing like pulling mind games on your friends in modeling also.