Bill Rich new ruiling comes down from mount olimpus

[jim gilmore]

I'm a tad confused...
So let me explaine to clarify.
If I build a model and buy from bob hunt molded balsa leading edges. the model is , or is not eligible for bom ?
I think the confussion here is How much of the model/surface can be made by another .
Landing gear ? Wheel pants?
Wing surface.
Foam wings with them fully sheeted ? but I cover snd paint them ?
A crashed model that I collected at the field and put together from new and old parts in a completely unique way ?
Maybe the NATS is a place for just the best flyers AND builders.
I do not claim to know but it seems that This is something that covers more than the idea of BOM Vs designer and assebler of the model.
Perhaps we really need to allow all models but vastly increase the penalty to what percents the building of any model is actually done by the flyer.
Has the NATS ever allowed the competitor to borrow a model to compete in the event of a lost model ?

[John Stiles]

I'm a tad confused...

Maybe the NATS is a place for just the best flyers AND builders.
I do not claim to know but it seems that This is something that covers more than the idea of BOM Vs designer and assembler of the model.

The cream rises to the top don't it? Then forgets that it came from a cow like everyone else. The lines get drawn and redrawn to keep the solid ground hard to get ones feet onto. But that's an age old story...nothing new under the sun as they say. There's not much room at the top for innovation I guess. Oh well, all high things eventually are brought low. Get out your sticks and tissue now, and get ready for the March winds. This is just one man's opinion and not worth much.

[Randy Powell]

>>Maybe the NATS is a place for just the best flyers AND builders.<<

That's what it's always been.

I have to make one note here. This event has thrived for more than 50 years because it's not just one thing. It's not just buy a toy and learn to operate it. It's a combination of skill in building (and sometimes designing) a plane, finishing and detailing that plane, learning to operate a drive train effectively through varying conditions, skill in trimming the plane to fly in various and sometime challenging conditions and skill in flying the pattern. A complete test of the modeler. It's largely unique in the modeling world (though it didn't used to be). This is what the current form of the BOM is designed to encourage; skill in all phases of the event. The National Championships is supposed to be a test of all phases of modeling. Building and finishing skills, operating skills and flying skills.

I find it interesting that there is so much heat over this one contest. I've now read the whole thread and it seems to include a lot of rule lawyering with a few like Randy Smith trying to keep a lid on it and put out factual information.

[Steve Fitton]

Nice post Randy P!  You summed up the crux of the issue very well indeed!

[John Stiles]

>>Maybe the NATS is a place for just the best flyers AND builders.<<

That's what it's always been.

I have to make one note here. This event has thrived for more than 50 years because it's not just one thing. It's not just buy a toy and learn to operate it. It's a combination of skill in building (and sometimes designing) a plane, finishing and detailing that plane, learning to operate a drive train effectively through varying conditions, skill in trimming the plane to fly in various and sometime challenging conditions and skill in flying the pattern. A complete test of the modeler. It's largely unique in the modeling world (though it didn't used to be). This is what the current form of the BOM is designed to encourage; skill in all phases of the event. The National Championships is supposed to be a test of all phases of modeling. Building and finishing skills, operating skills and flying skills.

I find it interesting that there is so much heat over this one contest. I've now read the whole thread and it seems to include a lot of rule lawyering with a few like Randy Smith trying to keep a lid on it and put out factual information.

Ah well...you know how it is, like everything else in this country....the tools have almost all been handed out, and all the old factories that made the tools, shut down. There'll come a day when all things will be disposable by design....when all the old mechanics pass away that is. There won't be enough tools to go around, and those few who get them grandfathered will be the only ones with them.....everyone else will just hafta be satisfied to sit in the peanut gallery and watch. 

[Tim Wescott]

""Randy does this mean that the Shark fuse with the fiberglass outer surface is OK. So the prefinish is only for the flying surfaces wing and tail. Thanks for the clarification.
The objection to the fiberglass surfaces is only for the wings,flaps,stab and Elevator so the objection is not to the fiberglass finish but to were this finish is located. """

Hi Jose

What I said was wing, stab, flaps, elevators, vertical stab and rudder
Those are the flying surfaces that most people think of as "flying surfaces"  However  again They are NOT my rules and I am not AMA or any official capacity to decide
My opinion is if you bought out a plane like a Classic for example that you molded out of fiberglass, someone could take the plane, put it together in short order and fly it without adding any paint or finish, because it is already covered, and that would make it a  RTF, not a kit.

I am sure anyone that writes and Asked Bill any questions about what is and what is not ,he will be happy to answer.

(taking things in reverse)

I would very much like someone with a more immediate stake than I to write Bill -- in fact Jose, I address this to you: please write Bill.  Anything we say here is gas, compared to what Bill can and should do at the Nats.  Nothing any one of us says here is going to get your planes in, or keep your planes out.  We could all, collectively personally guarantee that you'll get in, but when you show up to the registration tables it would all mean nothing compared to the word of whoever is interpreting Bill's interpretation of the rules.  

So please write to him.  Please tell him that however clear his statement may be, you are still in doubt about where your planes stand.  Make sure he understands the build process that your customers have to undertake then ask him for a specific ruling on your planes, as sold to folks like me.

I need to point this out again:  Bill specifically talks about prefinished flying surfaces.  The actual rule makes no distinction between flying surface or anything else, nor does it address solid, prefinished surfaces (Don't believe me -- look it up and read it for yourself).  Making a prefinished flying surface illegal without making a cowl or a canopy or a fuselage top illegal is entirely Bill's invention.  Calling a solid surface "covering material" is entirely Bill's interpretation (and obviously one that he's going to stick to).  He's the ED, he can do that.  He can change his mind at the event, too.  Personally, I think if he's going to rule against a prefinished wing, then to be consistent with the rules he should also rule against a prefinished cowl, and if he were strict he'd rule against a canopy.  Clearly he doesn't have that in mind -- but in that he's swimming against the current of the rule.

I am sure that he feels that he's clarified things perfectly well.  But I don't see clarity in his ruling.  I don't know if I can buy one of Jose's planes and get in.  I don't know if I can go into competition with Jose and have a market.  I do know that I can't buy a pre-built, pre-finished plane and fly it, and I'm 100% OK with that.  But I also strongly suspect that I can buy a plane built with "traditional methods" that's a heck of a lot more finished than what I can buy built with composites, and I'm very much not OK with that.  Somewhere between starting with a complete, ready-to-fly airplane and starting with a pile of CF cloth and epoxy resin there is a line.  But I don't see, from Bill's ruling, where that line is.  Since I don't think I'm stupid, I think maybe the ruling needs some clarification.

[Randy Powell]

>>Bill specifically talks about prefinished flying surfaces.<<

If you build the mold yourself and pull the molded component, is it "pre"-finished? Or just finished by you?

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Andrew Tinsley]

 It is really none of my business as I live in the UK. So from a perspective a few thousand miles from this conflagration er.......discussion. It seems simple, without getting bogged down in nitty gritty.
  If there is a BOM rule, then it is pretty obvious that purchased planes, such as Yatsenko's etc, DO NOT qualify! If everyone is getting upset about a BOM ruling, then they should be petitioning the AMA to drop the ruling and not explode over the forums!
  The degree of nit picking going on here, is about as useful as discussing how many angels you can get on a pinhead. I appreciate that some people may be financially penalised and that is not good. Surely the question that SHOULD be debated is if there is a BOM rule, why have such planes been allowed in the past? Seems to me that Bill is just doing his job.

Andrew

[Robert Zambelli]

Remember when model airplane competition was FUN?   
We built our own airplanes. We had fun. We were proud of what we brought to the field and flew.

Some were magnificent (Dave Gierke's), some looked like crap (mine  ). But they were ours. We cut out ribs, glued the parts together with Ambroid, sanded down the big lumps, covered with silk or silkspan, brushed on the dope.
Bolted on a Fox 35 and had a ball wiith our own handiwork.

Look how far we've come. Name calling, politics, multi-thousand dollar investments (to make a wing?), exotic and expensive materials, accusations of cheating and rule bending, threats, out-and out lying, cheating.

When we were kids we turned out some pretty nice airplanes. We're adults now, smarter (?) and with more skill.
Why do some of you have such a big problem with building your own plane. It's not exactly rocket science.
I'd rather enter an average looking plane that I built than some spectacular showpiece that I bought from someone else.

Bill is in charge. The rules are in place. Why not just obey them?

Bob Z.

[Tim Wescott]

It is really none of my business as I live in the UK. So from a perspective a few thousand miles from this conflagration er.......discussion. It seems simple, without getting bogged down in nitty gritty.
  If there is a BOM rule, then it is pretty obvious that purchased planes, such as Yatsenko's etc, DO NOT qualify! If everyone is getting upset about a BOM ruling, then they should be petitioning the AMA to drop the ruling and not explode over the forums!
  The degree of nit picking going on here, is about as useful as discussing how many angels you can get on a pinhead. I appreciate that some people may be financially penalised and that is not good. Surely the question that SHOULD be debated is if there is a BOM rule, why have such planes been allowed in the past? Seems to me that Bill is just doing his job.

The problem is that there is an option in between purchasing a fully finished and working airplane, and building from scratch.  You can buy a kit.  As soon as you put that in the rule, some joker (me, if I have the time), will make a complete plane that just needs one screw installed and call it a 'kit'.  So the rules address this (go read it, I'm tired of quoting it).  But two things have happened (as far as I can see -- I can't afford to make it out to the Nats): one, the rule is ambiguous as to composites (it specifically mentions "covering material", not "outer covering"), and two, in prior years the rule has been interpreted with more and more laxity.

The spirit of the rule shines through: you have to be largely responsible for how the plane looks and how it flies.  But that's not how the rule is stated, and enforcement has apparently been lax.  Consequently, some opportunistic souls have, without really meaning harm, found ways to finagle the process to get what are more-or-less bolt-together planes into the competition.

So they're (quite properly) tightening things up.  Where all the hoo-haw comes in (and yes, I'm donating a lot of blather to this project) is that the tightened-up interpretation of the rules is vague, and seems to point to an interpretation that is way stricter than the spirit of the rules for one sort of construction only (composites), while still allowing laxity for other sorts of construction (traditional foam and wood). 

Per Bill's interpretation I could go out and buy an "ARC" that has a fully finished fuselage and a wing that is brought up to the bare-wood stage, ready for covering with the plastic film or paint of my choice as long as it is not of composite construction.  That's even more permissive than the rule book, which wouldn't allow me the finished fuse.  Furthermore, this hypothetical aircraft could come with a roll of plastic film covering that's pre-printed with some nifty coloring scheme, and I would only have to spend the (admittedly considerable, if I wanted appearance points) effort required to put that covering on nicely.  Then I could go fly the plane in competition.

But if I read it strictly, per Bill's interpretation I couldn't even go out and buy a pair of pre-molded composite wing skins and build an otherwise original wing for an otherwise original plane around them -- even if I had to spend 400 hours to make a plane that was only an equal to a "Bill legal" wood and foam plane that only required a hard day of applying covering before it could fly.  Those pre-molded composite wing skins would "poison" my plane in Bill's published view, to the point where not only would I not earn appearance points -- I wouldn't be allowed to fly at all.  That is what has me hot under the collar.

So -- sturm and drang.  I suspect -- and I'm hoping -- that Bill just misstated his case in his zeal to exclude the real troublemakers.

I'm also hoping (Jose) that someone will bring this up with Bill directly.  I won't be getting to the Nats for years, at which point this is going to be a done deal.  The fork in the road is coming up fast and I really want to see the AMA take the right path.

[Tim Wescott]

Remember when model airplane competition was FUN?   
We built our own airplanes. We had fun. We were proud of what we brought to the field and flew.

Some were magnificent (Dave Gierke's), some looked like crap (mine  ). But they were ours. We cut out ribs, glued the parts together with Ambroid, sanded down the big lumps, covered with silk or silkspan, brushed on the dope.
Bolted on a Fox 35 and had a ball wiith our own handiwork.

Look how far we've come. Name calling, politics, multi-thousand dollar investments (to make a wing?), exotic and expensive materials, accusations of cheating and rule bending, threats, out-and out lying, cheating.

When we were kids we turned out some pretty nice airplanes. We're adults now, smarter (?) and with more skill.
Why do some of you have such a big problem with building your own plane. It's not exactly rocket science.
I'd rather enter an average looking plane that I built than some spectacular showpiece that I bought from someone else.

Bill is in charge. The rules are in place. Why not just obey them?

Because they're either unclear, meaning that they can't be followed, or they're flat-out unfair.  That's why.

If unfair, unclear rules are OK, then we may all as well show up at a contest and have three names drawn out of a hat, and those people given trophies.

You can go.  I'll stay home.

[Mark Scarborough]

G/Day Brett,
                 Sorry but no i didn't mean to open old wounds and do know about how things work over there, but i sit here and read these forums all the time but don't normal say anything and i know why now.Because people like myself not a know flier like youself cant have an opinion of thought.All you do is shoot people down and not once praise anybody its Brett's opinions that count.
Sorry but I'm not into people that think that they are better then everyone else because they won a Nat's.Shame winning goes to some peoples head.
     BYE

REALLY? How do you get that interpretation out of what Brett said,, If anything, he has proven to take the path that is best for the event, as opposed to personal gain,,

[jose modesto]

Bob Z.the current BOM rule allows SOMEONE ELSE TO BUILD THE ENTIRE PLANE WITH THE FLYER REQUIREING JUST OVER 1+ hour of skilled labor and finish. You could not have a weaker BOM than that.
What you are deffending has not existed since the advent of foam wings. these became popular  and extensible used in the 1970's to today
We further allow professionally constructed planes to fly in our NATIONALS (1.5+ hr of con st and paint)



 Bob some additional information is required in order to understand how we got the clarification on BOM from the AMA in 2004
The rule prior to the 2004 Nat's did not include, the wording allowing airplane components that WERE NOT built by the Pilot. some one threaten to file multiple protest of models. The AMA in order to avoid a big problem co defied in the rules that all components could be built by others. if the 2003 rule had been enforced many great fliers with the most beautiful models would have been baned.(as per the witten rule NOT THE ACCEPTED Nat's rule)
 ALL pilots at the  Nat's New of these models but were not deemed to be BOM  NON compliant. in stunt sometimes rules are changed  with out changing the rule book. When a  majority of NAT'S pilots accept a new way of competition no rule changes are made its just understood that this is OK.
 systems that became acceptable with out rule changes. Foam Wings,complete built component parts,ARC and profesionally built models (Foam wings= sheeted with foam flaps ,leading and trailing edge, with landing gear mounts, Foam stab an elevators) these pieces today are a no brain-er but in 1970  this was the cutting edge technology, and stunt fliers always looking for better ways to build accepted this technology. 1969 to the mid 1970's these did not fit under the average kit or any part of BOM but Just became accepted here we stand today and no one will say that this technology is illegal but at a time up to 2004 they were as the rule read not as accepted and practiced.
Jose Modesto

[John Stiles]

Remember when model airplane competition was FUN?   
We built our own airplanes. We had fun. We were proud of what we brought to the field and flew.

Some were magnificent (Dave Gierke's), some looked like crap (mine  ). But they were ours. We cut out ribs, glued the parts together with Ambroid, sanded down the big lumps, covered with silk or silkspan, brushed on the dope.
Bolted on a Fox 35 and had a ball wiith our own handiwork.

Look how far we've come. Name calling, politics, multi-thousand dollar investments (to make a wing?), exotic and expensive materials, accusations of cheating and rule bending, threats, out-and out lying, cheating.

When we were kids we turned out some pretty nice airplanes. We're adults now, smarter (?) and with more skill.
Why do some of you have such a big problem with building your own plane. It's not exactly rocket science.
I'd rather enter an average looking plane that I built than some spectacular showpiece that I bought from someone else.

Bill is in charge. The rules are in place. Why not just obey them?

Bob Z.

Hello, Robert....I never used a wing or fuse jig in my whole life....when jigs came along everybody jumped for joy because now their "builds" would be perfectly straight...and fly better than those ill-built caveman planes that did a few extra cartwheels while performing the stunt patterns.....oops lost some points on that loop....oops, outboard wing dragging the ground....oops does not look quite right for the beauty contest. So...should wing jigs be illegal too? What it looks like to me, is a sorta elitist attitude prevails today that wasn't apparent in my younger days. That's just an observation from a simple minded C/L wannabe.

[EddyR]

I keep hearing about the FIVE great flyer's that could have not competed at the 2003 Nats if the BOM had been enforced. I think we would all like to know who these great flyer were. DON'T JUST BLOW THIS POST OFF,GIVE US THE NAMES.

Ed

[Bill Little]

OK,

There are people who have been around the event for YEARS, DECADES, , who have been down this path of "BOM Rule discussion" so many times it has become sickening.   There are pros and cons to what ever side you take on the issue, but the fact REMAINS, the BOM Rule is part of the CLPA event as far as AMA is concerned, and honestly will probably never be dropped.  These are NOT NEW PROBLEMS, only new to those who are just getting started out, it seems.  I mean no disrespect when I say that, but it is probably the reason many people will give what appears to be a curt or "short" answer, though.

I personally know Jose, have for quite a while, and consider that we are on very friendly terms.  If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't be as polite, probably!  But,then I don't have the time, money, etc., invested that he does while working under the premise that what he is doing is "legal".  After all, it has been "legal" for several years.

I know Bill Rich, personally, and I have NEVER found fault of any kind with how Bill conducts himself.  He is addressing a "problem" that has (as Jose stated, roughly) escalated for 40 years, at least.  I do not envy his job, at all.

While I like to delude myself in to believing that I can, given the time, and desire, build a wing just as straight, light, and perfect that my friend Bob Hunt can, either in wood or foam.  But, alas, it probably is just a delusion!  However, these pre-constructed wings (not only by Bob, but others, too) have been in use for a long time at the NATS in all classes. Those examples are only the "tip" of the iceberg, and if taken strictly by the original BOM rule, many would/could say they should not be allowed.  That is a moot point.

Jigs for construction, John?  Those have been around in some form or another since man began building model airplanes for sport and competition.  I didn't "know" what they were for a long time, but I used some for of "jig" on the first plane i ever built.  it might have only been blocks of balsa to support the leading and trialing edge, to tabs built into the kit's ribs, or a board to pin the TE to, etc..   No offense, Brother John, but that isn't close to a Yatsenko, Minato, Tom Morris, or other "pre-constructed model".

Tim, I think you are finding out that the BOM Rule has been rather "unclear", vague or "unfair" almost as long as the rule has been around.  From a historical point, the rule was created to keep Dad's from building planes for younger contestants which was very "unfair" to those young people who built their own.  Even in the beginning there were "master" builders who would build you a model a model for a price.  That wasn't exactly "fair', either.  This isn't a "new problem".  Flying model airplanes in competition was originally based on the premise that the person built, finished and flew his own model.  In the eyes of the AMA, and others, it still is the case as pertaining to CLPA.

The turn if this thread is a reason some forums have "banned" BOM discussions.  and rightly so.  In the VAST majority of cases, it leads to nothing positive.

I have not expressed "my opinion" on the BOM Rule for a long time on a forum.  I hope I don;t have to do so for a long time again, if ever.  However, I will in this thread if needed for further clarification.

Bill Little

[jose modesto]

Ed first we must define your BOM standing
1)original Bom: were a pilot must build his own plane from scratch or kit With NO PREFABRICATION allowed and must apply his own covering.
(the rule prior to 2004 did not allow ANY prefabrication not found in the average kit)
Kits= Nobler,Chief,Smoothy,Thunderbird,Stiletto, Shark,DolphinETC.) BOM did not change significantly until 2004
2) Bom as it has been with pilots agreeing among them selfs what was legal
(professional built planes, quickbuilt kits,full component Kits, ARC etc.)
The question is were do you stand, as the written rule or as accepted by the pilots. (THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT COUNT)
Ed if you are of the original intent then any component Not built by the pilot would make the model illegal. That means any component built by any of the many custom builders would have been illegal
 This is what caused the AMA to issue the ruling allowing full component parts as BOM legal,
 Ed are you not believing your own eyes. AMA changes the BOM in a drastic way with no vote out of permissible rules cicle or research just a one week decision.(if there is smoke there is fire. Ed if you are of original intent then you are like the person that made the threat of massive protest that the AMA had to squash SO THE RULING
Or Ed. are you with the ever sliding BOM that has allowed the purchase of complete prebuilt models as long as you do 1.5hr of skill labor and paint the model.
The answer depends on which side you are on Original intent or sliding Bom that followed the current technology and evolved with it.
Ed were do you stand or are you like Bob believing in the hobby of your youth not in the reality that it has become.
Jose Modesto

[John Stiles]

Jigs for construction, John?  Those have been around in some form or another since man began building model airplanes for sport and competition.  I didn't "know" what they were for a long time
Bill Little

Shame on you brother Bill....you know I used that simply as an example[to illustrate the evolution of the sport]....how long a time??? ROFLMBO

[Bill Little]

Shame on you brother Bill....you know I used that simply as an example....how long a time??? ROFLMBO

Brother John.........  my apologizes.

"How Long"??................since I posted the picture of my "super zoot", indestructible, multi mega dollar jig on our other site!
LL ~

[John Stiles]

Brother John.........  my apologizes.

"How Long"??................since I posted the picture of my "super zoot", indestructible, multi mega dollar jig on our other site!
LL ~

You're too fast for me bro.....I'm talking about where it relates to the historical lifespan of the sport...not your age or mine. ROFL

[Rafael Gonzalez]

I am getting sick. I am getting sick of intelligent folks making accusations, being simple minded and seeking the extreme situations to justify their point of view. It has become a tug of wordings with many "pretending" to be lawyers. I see it as a simple ruling. Build anything you want YOURSELF with your own parts. Carbon fiber, gel coat, all the latest and the greatest goodies. But it is YOUR PLANE. It is built by you. Now, "Joe" buys all your formed parts, "Joe" primes them, etc. JOE PAYS $1000 for your plane parts. That compares to a Sig Chipmunk's foam built wings? Who are we kidding!!! Did "Joe" design the wings/flying surfaces, or did he just FILLED them in?

I am almost insulted at the less than intelligent comparisons. How much does a cowl costs? I am not even close to fly the complete stunt pattern (OMG outside Sq's), but that does not prevent me from realizing what is at stake in the BOM rule. The BOM rule is an attempt to justify that you are an expert designer, builder and fly-er. Not for anyone to be able to buy their way into a true and wholesome competition. A lot of folk have an investment in the decisions. I believe the rule is not intended for an originally built model to not fly. Only for a purchased model with any parts that provide a reasonable advantage over a typically/represented model (my opinion).  The fact is that the competition is becoming more and more out of reach for me and I am sure many others. Perhaps, PAMPA and FAI have the right approach. NO BOM. It was eliminated for combat many years ago. Who had time to build 20-30 models that in one match could last 4 seconds. Then, it became way out of reach for me to buy 3-4 Nelsons. FAI is heading the same way.

 Speed limit combat is going strong in the Northeast. One flies 4 times regardless. As opposed to Fast/Slow AMA. Travel thousands of miles to fly twice if you are unlucky or have a competitor with the greatest and the best. And that is O.K. But let's review our process and realize where we are headed. As one comment somewhere was stated, "...it is becoming a rich man sport". There is nothing wrong with that. Car racing(Nascar), PGA, Yachting, etc. are such. Is that what we want out of C/L?

Flew my 3D 27% EDGE at a local contest, Next to 35-45% aircraft. My plane looked like a midget. $400 vs. $4000. Did much better than some competitors (according to a few others, of course including me) But my aircraft did not look right. Had nothing to do with the aerobatic program. Could be the analogy for a conventional balsa built entry v.s. a superfinished, extralight, aerodynamically clean entry.

I do not see any personal attacks in here. Just people trying to be fair to the little guy and a lot of crying ("woohoo"), extremism from others....
"Let the handle be the deciding factor for the best pilot" I am positive that any of the guys in here can beat any of us "little guys" with a flite streak..

[Rafael Gonzalez]

By the way, I do not support the NO BOM rule. If the BOM gets eliminated, I''ll know that I will never justify or afford a $1000 aircraft, so that leaves me out.

[jose modesto]

Some of you guys must get your heads out of the sand as it pertains to BOM its not your fathers BOM. professionally built planes are allowed READ THE BOM RULE as posted The rule specifically states how many hours of skilled labor is required as long as you paint.
Second i wished that the component shell sold for that much.
I will post my next project so you guys that are unaware of what it takes to construct a shell model will get educated.
some of the comments are UN informed even with the BOM rule posted you still search for a time long past.
 Just please read the rule it really allows professional built models NOT BY THE PILOT. REALLY. Really.
I may not be the greatest writer but the point stands.
Jose Modesto

[Bill Little]

Hi Jose,

I agree.  "Built models" are allowed, or at least have been, to some degree or another for at least 40 years.  I need to get back on the AMA site and see what the "Rule" read like now, not the "interpretations".  I will admit to not having read the rule for some time now, but I am aware of the interpretations, both written and unwritten.  One of the unwritten ones was the 51% rule.  Never has that appeared in print, anywhere, that I am aware of .  But it has been "understood" by many and actually accepted as part of the rule by many.

Too much confusion has been caused by "interpretations".  It should just be re-written in those terms, and nothing else included in the rule book.  Like I have already said, "A Rule should need no interpretation".  Bill has issued his directive.  David has said it will be the same for 2012, as long as he is around and is the NATS ED for CLPA.

If I hadn't really loved this hobby for close to 50 years, I wouldn't say anything.  I'm definitely not in the class of pilots to have it cause me any affect, either way.  That's for sure, but I would love to see the problem END.  I also believe we assert too much emphasis on "personal integrity".  Too ambiguous!  What one man can see in his mind as perfectly acceptable may not come close to another's view.  Who is to say which one is right?  As long as the individual perceives it as truth, his integrity is not the issue. 

Of course I can envision the chuckles in some parts for me being so bold as to offer my opinion.  

Best wishes, Jose.
Bill

[RandySmith]

(Control Aerobatics additionally interprets that any model, that is
pre-covered in the box is excluded from competition).

Jose  the BOM statement above does not allow any professional built models as long as you spend 1.5 hours painting

What you would need to do is to build ARCs, those are legal to sell, just like Sv-11  ARCs are, SV-11 ARFs are not

I may call you as soon as I get out of snowbound jail

Randy

[Randy Powell]

This is why I gave up arguing BOM. It's just a mindset. You get it or you don't. No amount of argument will convert anyone. People believe what they believe. They will argue for what they want (lawyering tricks, extreme argument, ridiculous scenarios, whatever) and someone else's opinion is immaterial.

[jose modesto]

Randy you must include the rest "and paint" that is how a professional built model is BOM compliant.
The SV11 ARF is really good Bob Lampione is assembling one and all parts look great. the flying reports are  outstanding. The electric conversion also has had great reports.
Randy my challenge is that the new ruling outlaws all molded shell construction. the shells  in my KITS are finished in a traditional way. Dope,silkspan talc ,color,trim and clear I learned from windy how to finish the shell construction models.
 there is very little prefabrication in a shell kit. The shells are Pinned to the lost foam wing jig,You also must cut all ribs and assemble as a lost foam wing. Randy all above is nor allowed. But i can purchase and entire prebuilt model assemble and paint. My system requires allot more building than purchased  completed components built by a professional world and Nat's champ.
My system non BOM entire purchase model BOM.  the logic scape's me
When you pin the shells down each panel is perforated by pins at least 12 per 1/4 panel all these must also be filled.
The entire objection is to the glass cloth outer surface which is finished as described above.
My shell kit a true building kit "NON BOM"  Professional built full component kit(wing,flaps,stab,elevator ,flaps,fin rudder wheel pants BOM compliant. Something is amiss. My kits are allot closer to the original rule than the professional built component kits
 I have posted the wing structure this is what someone who purchases the shells has to do just to build the wing. the seam around the perimeter requires allot of work.
Jose Modesto

[jose modesto]

Bill i posted the actual AMA rule at top of post. i wanted all to see what the rule actually said.
Randy  Powell You are a true BOM craftman for that I salute you.
i will ask you which BOM as listed and used by AMA with the 2004 AMA clarification Or original intent.
some argue for the traditional meaning of BOM, but you also must come to terms that the AMA inserted in the rules that complete models can be used as long as you meet the requirements 1.5 hr skill labor and finish. (This is not me making it up its the AMA rule)
guys this is the rule for Nat's competition. Don't fight me. We have(PAMPA) administered the Nat's since 1973 the rules are our doing we have accepted  these changes that are now codified in the rule.  Bill is trying to roll  it back as a BOM fan this could be applauded.  only objection that i have is being lumped in with a prefinished painted ARF when my system requires true building of model not prebuilt professional components
No lawyer or tricks just read the AMA rules   "BOM is dead Long live BOM"
Jose Modesto

[Rafael Gonzalez]

This is why I gave up arguing BOM. It's just a mindset. You get it or you don't. No amount of argument will convert anyone. People believe what they believe. They will argue for what they want (lawyering tricks, extreme argument, ridiculous scenarios, whatever) and someone else's opinion is immaterial.

I totally agree, Sir. The more it seems to be argued, the more entrenched folks seem to get. I agree the rules need to be more specific. They need to be upgraded to the 21st century. I've built many Arf's and Arc's R/C and C/L. I would like to meet the person that has put together one of those in 1.5 hours! It renders any plane legal to fly. Unfortunately, many see this as a way to take an advantage/edge over others and not letting the flying speak. Ignoring the way it was meant to be. I will just limit myself to local contests instead of participating at the NATS. I won't participate in any competition that I need thousans of dollars to enter a model...This seems to be in the state Fast Combat was or worse....

Thank you all for your lessons and time. I'll move on and stop littering this thread.

[jose modesto]

Gonzarafa: (please put your real name in your profile) you don't need thousands as there are inexpensive rout to competition
Brodack ARC SV22-Vector-Strega-Legacy  three(3) of the models listed are Multy national championship winners. All under 200.00
RSM kits Thunder Gasser,trivial pursuit, shark,ETC. Multiple Na ts winners All under 250.00
Tom Neibor has an excellent line of kits all under 250.00
You have so many NON expensive options that your statement above is not valid.
when a rule is clear as to purchase components(AMA BOM 2005) you  can wish for a time long ago its just not the reality or the rule. you must awaken from your dream state and just read the rule and come into 2011
You cant say that someone that follows the rules as written is looking to take advantage. of who. We all know the AMA rule  . THOSE ARE THE RULES live with them or wait to the next rule cycle and propose a change.
Jose Modesto

[Clancy Arnold]

I think some of you need to read the Rule Book.

Rule Book pages attached!
Clancy

[Clancy Arnold]

To answer the question on replacing a damaged or destroyed model.
Clancy

[john e. holliday]

I may get slapped down for this.  Have sent our control line director/manager a note about all this jibberish.  Yes I said jibberish.  Do all of you people fly Open at the NATS?  I know I don't and I don't fly Junior or Senior either as I am too dad blamed old.  I would say the people raising the most fuss have never even attended a NATS let alone flown in one.  Some people have gone way over board to prove the validity of their plane as far as meeting the rule.  It is the people that expect appearance points for a plane they did not build.  I have even known people who get their planes finished by someone else just so they can get an extra point or two for appearance.  A friend of mine is no longer with us as he did that for a few RC people and a couple of CL's.  I have not attended a contest in my area or even the districts I share in which the Junior, Senior or Open was flown.  They have all been PAMPA Classes.  Yes the appearance points have had a empact in the outcome of some of the NATS.  But, not as much as people flying in a class or age group they should be in.  

I have several kits that do not meet the rule as Bill defines them.  Is that going to stop me from assembling and flying them.  I gave up appearance points at VSC one year and will do it again if my plane does not qualify.  But, the CD's do let the planes fly.  Now when I am told I can't fly Expert PAMPA because I did not build the plane they will not see me again at that contest.  I think this has gone on too long and myself thinks it should be shut down.  

By the way I can build mucho better than I can finish.  Don't belleive me just look at my planes up close some time.

[John Miller]

Jose, I fail to see where the kits you describe, would not qualify. Apparently, your kit includes the wood and the covering. Your construction methods have you placing the covering material in a lost foam jig, and then glueing the wing structure together, and to the covering, again, in the jig.

I suppose one could use prefinished plastic sheet, laid into the lost foam jig, and build the wing the same way you do. In your case, it might be argued that you are applying the finish as you build the wing.

So, is this the way all your proposed kits are constructed? If so, you may not have anything to worry about, IMNHO.

[Randy Powell]

 

>>Ignoring the way it was meant to be. <<

This was never meant to be a flying only event, but that is certainly what would make some segments happy.

Get rid of doing all that messy modeling stuff.  I mean, you don't make your own clubs to go play golf, right? Why waste your time actually building the plane. What if you mess it up? It would be a waste of time and money. Let $3 a day Chinese factory workers do that plebeian labor. This is a flying event. It's about flying skill. I'd rather buy and fly.

As I said, some don't get it. And they won't get it. It's just not where their head is at. To them, flying is the "fun" part and they either can't or won't develop the skill to build. Maybe they don't have the time or place to build. Whatever the reason (and some of the reasons are good ones), they are not going to build their own. And that's fine. I go to contests all the time that guys fly ARCs and ARFs, use planes built by someone else. They don't get the appearance points bonus, but they get to do what they want: fly in the contest. And some do very well with it and seem to be having a fine time to me.

Oh well, it's the nature of the world today, I guess. I do agree with Jose's main point and have stated so here several times. It would be nice to have a clearer rule. Some need each area completely explained with diagrams so that there is no possible way to obviate the rules. Maybe that would be a good thing, I don't know. Many of us read the rule and don't have any problem understanding it. You have to build your own model. OK. While it's vague in spots, the intent seems clear. Doesn't matter much how you went about building it as long as you did it yourself. You want an all carbon fiber unit? Fine. Build the plugs (carve, machine, whatever), make the molds and lay up your model. That would fit the interpretation it seems to me. But do it yourself. What I mostly see is guys trying to figure out how to not do it themselves and still have a legal model. Must be some way I can use a wing that someone else built, a fuselage someone else laid up and still have a legal plane. So we end up with a bunch of nitpicking word dissection, what does that part REALLY mean, when they say "you" do they mean "you yourself"? sorts of arguments. But it would be nice to have some of the more vague and outdated parts of the rule cleaned up. And it would be much easier if we just instituted the 51% rule we've all talked about, but then there would be nitpicking on just what constitutes 51%, I suppose. There will always be rule lawyering and nitpicking. That is just human nature.

As I said, this is a pointless argument. Guys that get the point don't have any trouble following the rule. For those that don't, nothing I might say will change their minds. And that's fine.

OK, rant over. Back to your regularly scheduled argument.

[jose modesto]

Randy with all  due respect . The rule allows a completely built(component)model there is no ambiguity to this.
I find it hard to follow.
Randy if the point is that the rule is wrong then you have a valid view.
Lets not forget that THE RULE ALLOWS A COMPLETY BUILT MODEL NOT BY PILOT
Randy we have several BOM
1)  BOM original intent= Your style Designer, Builder, flyer. this to me is the purest form of BOM
2) APOM= assembler,painter,flyer  any one that has any component built by others.
Randy at the Nat's these two realities live side by side and compete with each other.
The AMA rule as posted has taken into account both realities.
these are facts.
Jose Modesto
PS. always look for your next model as your designing, engineering and painting take a back seat to no one. thanks for keeping the hobby that i fell in love with alive.
My models of my youth Formula S,novy 4,Vic Macaluso crusader,F14,Bob Lampione Sabre,Simon shoe string.
I hope that you guys understand that I'm NOT AGAINST BOM.just the elimination of my composite kits (true builders Kit) fiberglass and wood

[EddyR]

Jose  Let me tell you a story about a Nats I went to in the late 80's. I had a clear silk model but it did have nine colors hidden in the rather simple trim theme. Well it ended up sitting right behind Jimmy C's 20 pointer on appearance judging. The next day before we flew there was a group of  six guys standing and pointing at my model. I walked over to listen to them and they didn't know me as I had not been to a Nats since 1960. They were mad because my "bag of balsa" that is what they called it got more pretty points than there balsa covered foam wing jobs did.  I had built my own bellcrank,horns,and was using O-rings home made wheels. That is about as close as one will ever get to the perfect BOM model but these guys didn't like it. You will never make everyone happy. You can defend your product on here till they pull the thread down and all you will accomplish is stirring the BOM pot. Write it up nice and clear and present it to Pampa and the AMA. Sounds like a nice product to me but you are going after a very small market. Also I woulden't say to much about it here as some one more than likely had a pattent that covers what you are doing.
Ed

[Randy Powell]

Ed,

That was my ultimate point. Why argue? You will never make everyone happy. I wish they'd just let any plane fly at the Nats and just give appearance points to flier constructed planes. Just like we do in PAMPA contests. Not because I think that's the right thing to do, but it would calm the arguments down to a dull roar.

[Eric Viglione]

Jose – I’d like to try and keep the emotional side out of this, and stick to just the facts, 'cause it's hard to get mad at facts... and a whole lot easier to have a rational discussion that way...so I have a few comments on some of your posts.

1) We only have 1 (one) BOM to deal with right now or any given year. The current rule, that started out as an interpretation became the new rule in the following years rule book and this years is quoted on the main page and locked right now. We are dealing with the realities of today, not yesteryear.

2) Covered is still covered, be it fiberglass or silkspan. I glass all my fuselages (or at least the front end), and know exactly what it takes to fill 1/2 ounce cloth. I've even done it with dope. (not recommended, resin works better)

If I started selling silkspan'ed wing clam shells tomorrow, they would not be legal either. Just because my early attempts might have wrinkles or air bubbles and will require work to finish does not mitigate the fact that they are covered. Eventually, I would get better at doing the silkspan and could provide a world class product. I am sure with time, your glass cloth would have no voids or lifts as you called them, but even if they did, they are still covered.

3) Jose, Let's change the venue for a moment. Lets say we are in a racing event, and the size limit is .35 size engines. Ok, the new CD/ED of the event is talking to the various manufacturers and even buys one himself, and finds out the Belchfire .35 is really a .38 displacement. He looks deeper and finds that several manufacturers engines are also miss-marked. So, the CD/ED announces that the Engines that are miss categorized, even though they were allowed in the past, will no longer be allowed to race in the .35 only event.

Think about it. That is all Bill is doing. Bill did not re-write the rule or amend it. It is was it is, still in the book and as posted and locked on the front page of this forum today. Bill even waited for the 2011 rules to be posted before he made the announcement, to be certain he was enforcing the CURRENT AMA RULES...The notice he sent out was not a re-interpretation where we need to pick apart his wording, because his announcement was just that, an announcement, not a new rule, but an announcement that the AMA BOM as it is currently written will be followed, and a heads up about the type of models that have been found lacking those requirements.

Hope that makes sense,
EricV

[Will Hinton]

I've followed this thread closely while keeping quiet with my own thoughts.  Now that Randy Powell has expressed my thoughts exactly (and much more clearly) I don't have anything more to say except "amen".
Will

[Shultzie]

Humm?
Sorry...but I just couldn't contain enough self control so this post should self destruct in 60 sec.
Here is what my old Super Chip might look like if this new BOM rule were present back in the daze of old.
 

[jose modesto]

Ed R. thanks for the wise counsel, i will head your advise.
you like Randy Powell are true BOM masters. I remember the assistance that you gave to me in 1988 at an Atlanta contest. Windy,Joe Ortiz Scott smith and I attended a southern meet(spring) great time was had by all.
There was a true BOM builder pilot Mike Spedelere he also built models with clear and color tissue absolutely amazing work and very light.
thanks guys lets build Models.
Jose Modesto
I salute all true BOM craftmen. Werwage,Gieske,Walker,Powell, WINDY, Adamusko, Lampione,Macaluso,Simon,Hunt,Suarez, D Gierke, kotsteki ETC.

[Paul Walker]

Jose,
I would suggest that you document the complete plane you are making. Pictures of all the parts.  Then send it to Bill Rich so he can point to the area he might think doesn't meet the rules. At that point, a meaningfull discussion between you and Bill could be had. Arguing here will not solve the problem.

Paul W

[jose modesto]

Thanks Paul will do. I will make a kit and send to bill for his review.
Jose Modesto

[RandySmith]

Jose

There is  zero questions about...  you....  flying any kits you build.
The only questions come in when you make planes for other people

Randy

[Doug Moon]

Jose,

As far as your business is concerned Bill has not touched or hurt or decimated it one stinking bit of it with what will be his ruling on the BOM for 2011.  I know this from first hand experience with UHP.  

Every time and ARF, yes that is ARF, comes out from UHP it is nearly sold out instantly!  The second run takes a little longer but it always sells out before more can be ordered.  These are competitive model designs as well and would be competitive for the win in just about any venue in the country.  Every single person who buys one knows going in that they are NOT and NEVER will be BOM compliant.  Yet somehow the shelves are still empty.

One of the large purchasers of said models is KAZ.  Steve sells him a large amount of kits at a cut rate due to volume and he sells them through his company.  If you have a good quality offering your over seas customer will help clean you out as well.

The UHP quality is high and the performance is good.  These specific ARF planes were NOT entered at the nats to get a good pedigree and all that noise.  The designs themselves were past nats winners but these planes are not.  It is a myth that you have to have some superior nats performance to sell your model.  A total myth.  It doesnt hurt but it isnt needed.  Besides you are talking Impact and SV22.  They are already superior at the nats.  No need to prove the design.  It is already done.  

Go ahead and get your models ready to sell.  If the product is good and it works well your shelves will be empty.  Why?  Because people want to fly.  It is that simple.  People want to fly.

Only a very tiny handful of people will not buy your model because it not nats legal.  Big deal.  It wont matter in the grand scheme if you are trying to bring in some cash.  It just wont matter.  If those few sales are going to make or break it then you will find the time and cost and headaches involved might not be worth it in the long run.  There just isnt much there.

You better hurry up and get on with it because the age group around here isnt getting any younger.

Windy and Dave arent out of business either.  And to say Bill has put them out of business because he is enforcing a rule the way he sees fit is not fair, and totally false.  You were way out of line there.

Now, lets say your business is up and running and going great guns and this comes out and all of a sudden the sales just stop and your customers tell you this is the reason and the only reason then you have legs to stand on.

Sorry man, the whole he ruined my business thing really rubbed me the wrong way.

As to the part about wheels, cowls, wheel pants, etc not being legal.  Those are all parts found in the average kit.  That is in the original rule and still in there today.  Nothing further needed on that.  

[John Stiles]

Jose,
I would suggest that you document the complete plane you are making. Pictures of all the parts.  Then send it to Bill Rich so he can point to the area he might think doesn't meet the rules.
Paul W

Great idea!

[jose modesto]

Doug I stand corrected. The actual word should of been BUSINESS MODEL. that it what i should have said. The UHP story is comforting and gives me hope. Looking forward to seeing you and your brother at the Nat's (bring Jake)
Jose Modesto

[L0U CRANE]

Gentlemen,

Randy is the Event Director for the CLPA Championship. That competition is run under AMA Event #322, which includes the BOM requirement as he states it.

The Skill Class Events (#323, Beginner;  #324, Intermediate; #325, Advanced) specifically permit non-BOM models to enter, even though they are ineligible for Appearance Points. I believe Nats Skill CLass events will be flown by the Skill Class Rules.

Expert Skill Class, #326, is not flown at the Nats. Instead, AMA Event #322 - basic CLPA Rules - is the Expert-level competition.  The championship, and competition for the Walker Cup relate to the AMA #322 Event.

I hope this softens some of the agitation. Top Nats fliers I've met take pride in their own construction and finishing ability, as well as their flying talent.

[Paul Walker]

Gentlemen,

Randy is the Event Director for the CLPA Championship. That competition is run under AMA Event #322, which includes the BOM requirement as he states it.

The Skill Class Events (#323, Beginner;  #324, Intermediate; #325, Advanced) specifically permit non-BOM models to enter, even though they are ineligible for Appearance Points. I believe Nats Skill CLass events will be flown by the Skill Class Rules.

Expert Skill Class, #326, is not flown at the Nats. Instead, AMA Event #322 - basic CLPA Rules - is the Expert-level competition.  The championship, and competition for the Walker Cup relate to the AMA #322 Event.

I hope this softens some of the agitation. Top Nats fliers I've met take pride in their own construction and finishing ability, as well as their flying talent.

This is not correct. Randy is NOT the Ed for the Nats.

Bill Rich is the ED for the Nats.

Any questions should go through him.

Paul Walker