I think he's making some good points here, and I think he's going way overboard on others. I do think he's spot-on when he talks about just enforcing the rule as written, and inviting a change -- ED's shouldn't be legislating. On the other hand, I think he's going hard over in the wrong direction in his interpretation, or at least he is being terribly unclear on just how and when molded components can be used.
Clarification of BOM at 2011 Nats -Not a reinterpertation of the BOM Rule
The BOM rule will be strictly enforced at the 2011 Nats. Kits/airplanes that have the flying surfaces covered when purchased/acquired do not qualify for BOM. Gel Coat or primered - painted airplanes ,or solid hard finished surfaces such as molded fiberglass or Carbon Fiber molded surfaces will not be allowed under BOM. Gel Coat is part of an actual type of finish of the flying surfaces, over the covering.
Gel Coat?*
Anyway, at this point I'm OK with what he's saying -- no finished-in-the-mold surfaces that I buy from Jose or whoever. Presumably Jose can finish his
own airframes in the mold, or he can invite friends over to finish
their airframes in the mold, or he can invent a technology where he sells one-off molds for
anybody to make airframes, finishing them in molds that only last for one or two sets of surfaces.
On many planes it the finish. Airplanes that are pre-painted with primer also represent a type of finsh over the covering of the flying surfaces.
Now, this both goes too far and shows a lack of understanding of the molding process. First, you
can't have a molded part without
something that a Philadelphia lawyer could make out to be "a finish". Second, for many processes you can't reasonably ship a part without something that that same Philadelphia lawyer could call "primer". Third, unless you're getting an entire one-piece wing skin that includes top & bottom, you're going to have to do extensive work around any lines where you glue panels together to clean them up. That kind of work isn't trivial, unless Jose is
really good at what he does. Fourth -- exactly
how is this different from UltraCoat? Note that if you say "Ultracoat is floppy" I will immediately ask you for a measure of floppiness
in engineering units that marks the defining line between an acceptable or an unacceptable finish.
This turns the BOM rule into a "no advanced materials at all" rule. That's great for anyone stuck in 1950, but it sure doesn't work for me.
I am having a hard time understanding some of the posts I have seen regarding the enforcement of the AMA BOM rule at the Nats. When a Nats entrant signs the entry form he/she is signing a statement that they are in fact the Builder of the Model. As ED I am charged with enforcing the BOM rule. I am not accusing any of the past EDs of not correctly enforcing BOM.
The BOM rule is very clear, if the model’s flying surfaces are covered in the kit, then these are in fact ARF and not ARC and therefore do not qualify under the current BOM rule. If you have purchased a commercial manufactured plane with pre-covered flying surfaces don’t bring it to the Nats and try to compete in Junior Senior or Open. The very nature of molded construction causes the covering of the flying surfaces to occur.
So I can buy a wing from Jose, cover it with Silkspan, and that's OK? I'd like to hear an answer on
that.
Examples would be the Yatsenko planes, Sharks, Classics, and others like the Blue Max and Extra 300.
I.e., anything using post-1950 technology. Oh my, I feel so special. Why not just cancel control line PA entirely, and limit all competition to Old Time Stunt?
He may have a point here, and if so then the BOM rule desperately needs to be revised.
There will be no “Grandfathered Planes,” just because they may have been allowed to compete in prior Nats; they will not be allowed to compete in 2011.
This, actually, I can agree with. If he thinks things have gone off the rails and he wants to put them back -- fine. I hope he isn't surprised to find twisted rails on the ground when he's done.
Rather than trying to get around BOM by compromising your integrity, why not build an airplane that meets the BOM requirement and compete on a level field with all the other Nats competitors.
This sure sounds like a slap in the face to
somebodyIt seems that each year, the line gets pushed further and further as to what is allowed under the rather nebulous "interpretation" that the AMA generated several years ago. The reason for that interpretation was valid at that time. There was a serious threat of multiple protests that could have had the effect of shutting down our whole Nats event that year. Nonetheless, the interpretation was made and was inserted in the rulebook and we have been saddled with that ever since, whether it is good, bad or indifferent.
Once again, getting things back on the rails is laudable.
Basically, I think the AMA BOM requirements for our CLPA event are acceptable.
If this is how they can be read, I think they stink. If this is acceptable to you, Bill, then you should "show some integrity" yourself, and campaign to eliminate control line PA altogether in the US, and only have Old Time Stunt.
The Nats EDs now have a problem with how far this ARF/ARC thing has gone. When a flier first appeared at the Nats with a Shark by Yatsenko, he had done his homework to document that his was a special kit that was especially set up by Yatsenko to qualify as a kit. It had come in pieces and he had assembled it. He had documentation to show the E.D. what he had started with and of his assembly. The E.D. readily admits that he put more emphasis on the time required to assemble the “special kit” and neglected to apply the “covering” of flying surfaces part of the rule. The photos used to document the building clearly showed the surfaces were already covered when purchased. Nevertheless, his model qualified as a BOM. Unfortunately, there are now prebuilt airplanes available (Made in Russia, the Ukraine or elsewhere) that their owners feel are acceptable because a previous model was acceptable, not knowing all the details that went into the decision.
So were do we go from here? The line has been pushed too far. I do not think it is too late to redraw the line and push back to where we have some semblance of a BOM. There are those who argue that our CLPA event is a flying event. That is not entirely correct. I think it is best described as a model airplane event that means that the contestant builds and flies his model in competition. That has essentially been the case since the BOM requirement went into the rulebook in the late 1940s.
"Some semblance of a BOM" and completely eliminating entire swaths of modeling technology are two different things, though.
It will not be easy to put the “Genie back in the bottle,” but we must do so. To allow planes that are pre-built, covered, primed and/or painted is unfair to the vast majority of competitors that build their own models to qualify for BOM.
I still take exception to the notion that a plane that has molded components -- that still must be integrated into the finish of the rest of the plane -- is somehow a snap to finish.
It is entirely unacceptable for a few contestants to ignore the rule and compromise their integrity to gain an advantage. The BOM rule depends on the individual’s integrity. It’s certainly difficult to enforce this rule, but it is not difficult to identify the commercially available molded airplanes that obviously don’t qualify for BOM. I personally have flown many of these planes and actually own a Blue Max. I would love to be able to compete with this plane at the Nats but it doesn’t qualify for BOM. If you do not agree with the current BOM rule then you must take the proper steps to either revise or eliminate it.
Hear hear!
Don’t try bending the rule to gain an advantage.
You heard it -- no fiberglass cowls, no prefinished props (remember "just because it's been allowed before..."), no wheels with the original finish, no pre-formed canopies, etc.
I want to be very clear on this point: I do not have any personal interest other than making sure we are following the BOM rule as defined. As 2011 Nats ED my responsibility is to see that rules pertaining to the event are followed.
[/quote]
I think that Bill's interpretation goes too far, and that he would do better to find an interpretation of the rules that
does allow honest builders who use some modern technology components to compete. If any good comes out of this uber-strict interpretation of the rules, it'll be a rewording of the BOM or it's utter elimination (and note: I build my own models, so I'm not just grumbling because I want to buy a plane and win -- I'm grumbling because I think the BOM is a ball and chain around the ankles of Americans, who I want to go to the Worlds and win, consistently).
* A side comment here:
Gel Coat, as I know it, is way too heavy for Control line PA. By the time you get
a layer of the Gel Coat that I'm familiar with into a mold, of sufficient thickness
that it won't alligator when you hit it with resin, you've used up your weight
budget for the entire airframe.
That doesn't mean that there have been advances since I was applying Gel Coat
for money in a job long, long ago, and it certainly doesn't mean that there
aren't other things that act like Gel Coat only lighter, that are colloquially called
Gel Coat.
Topic: Bill Rich new ruiling comes down from mount olimpus (Read 17582 times)
