BOM At the Golden State Stunt Championships

[Tom Niebuhr]

Charles,
There are no stringers. That is a molded shell. The first picture shows the fuselage bottom with the Ace bandage removed but still in the mold buck.  The other views show the inside with carbon strips where the are slits were made to conform with the required shape. This method is shown in the Hunt/Werwage CD on molding contours.

[Avaiojet]

Charles,
There are no stringers. That is a molded shell. The first picture shows the fuselage bottom with the Ace bandage removed but still in the mold buck.  The other views show the inside with carbon strips where the are slits were made to conform with the required shape. This method is shown in the Hunt/Werwage CD on molding contours.

Tom,

Quick glance it looked like stringers. You must have a few "relief" cuts? A few?

I know of that method of building quite well. One of the first examples, was an article published that had that type of construction for a simple weathervane, actually a wind sock for wind direction at some flying field.

I may give it a wirl, I have this project where it could be of some use.

Keep up the pace and the good work on that model.

Charles

[Shawn Lenci]

I am still working on my airplane for the Golden State.  It is a Vector 40 ARF that I stripped all the covering off of, installed Tom Morris controls, cut out the engine beams and am making it fly on electric power.  I will probably put 80 hours in on this "ARF" by the time it is complete.  It wil be covered in Ultracoat with a nicer color scheme than what came on it.  With as much work as I put in this "ARF", I probably could have built one from a kit quicker.  If this is the general quality of ARFs that we will see in stunt, I don't feel we have anything to worry about.  It is not very good in my opinion.  I will probably have close to 100 hours in this ARF by the time it is done.  I have no problem NOT getting appearance points at the contest as I did not "build" this airplane.  I just "re-built" almost evey piece of it.   Looking forward to the event.

Shawn

[Balsa Butcher]

Yup, shouldov built the kit...see you there!  

[Brett Buck]

I am still working on my airplane for the Golden State.  It is a Vector 40 ARF that I stripped all the covering off of, installed Tom Morris controls, cut out the engine beams and am making it fly on electric power.  I will probably put 80 hours in on this "ARF" by the time it is complete.  It wil be covered in Ultracoat with a nicer color scheme than what came on it.  With as much work as I put in this "ARF", I probably could have built one from a kit quicker.  If this is the general quality of ARFs that we will see in stunt, I don't feel we have anything to worry about.  It is not very good in my opinion.  I will probably have close to 100 hours in this ARF by the time it is done.  I have no problem NOT getting appearance points at the contest as I did not "build" this airplane.  I just "re-built" almost evey piece of it.   Looking forward to the event.

   That's about what most people think of the "consumer" ARFs. Most of the public arguments over BOM have used consumer-level ARFs as the arguing point (because it might affect Joe Bellcrank and the anti-modeling crowd it trying to make the argument about "growing the event"), but the driving motivation has been and always will be making it possible to sell hyper-expensive RTF models to a few people to fly at the NATs.

    Essentially, a few custom builders want to be able to build models on commission and be able for the buyers to fly them at the NATs, which is currently illegal, OR a few people who have geared up to build models on a limited production basis (Jose, the Yatsenkos, Kaz) to FAI fliers also want to sell them here. The former may have already taken place and was definitively illegal. The second is a perfectly legitimate business for anything except flying at the NATs.

   In all cases we are not talking about anything like a Vector 40 ARF. We are talking about very high-quality and fully competitive complete package systems like the Yatsenko "Shark". You send money, the model can come back in its own travel container ready to assemble and fly with essentially no trimming, etc. The cost is in the area of $4000 up, and that is not outrageous for what you get. I sure wouldn't custom build/finish/trim an airplane for $4000.

   Of course this point is obscured, intentionally, in most of the BOM discussions, because its pretty hard to get sympathy for those poor downtrodden guys selling models to rich people for thousands of dollars. Instead, it makes a much better narrative to talk about poor Joe Bellcrank being prevented from having inexpensive ARFs by those awful elitists. And think of the hordes of people we would have been overrun with if only we got rid of the BOM!

  Both of those arguments are utter nonsense and even the people spinning the arguments don't believethem  or care anything about "consumer" ARFs or "growing the event".  They want to create a market for the super-expensive RTFs in the US and that means getting rid of the BOM for the NATs. To do that they know that they cannot win on their own merits, and they are such a tiny minority that they know they will never get it changed legitimately, so instead they try to enlist other people that don't have a stake in it to rally to their cause. continually look for loopholes, and if you can torture the logic enough, you might be able to make an argument that closing the loopholes is an example of persecution, and then you can use that to prove it's all a big conspiracy to keep ARFs out of hobby shops. And besides, it's supposed to be about who flies the best, right?

  So it goes, on and on, false arguments posited again and again, spinning the same silly reasoning, all to make a few people some money. This thread degenerated somewhat less than the others, mostly because it started with a perfectly legimate and worthy attempt. Go back and look at some of the others that were started by anti-modeling types, they just about universally find a new "interpretation", a bunch of people say that it is not right, and before long we are talking about "average kits", who flew a questionable model in the year 245 BC and got away with it, how there has been a big conspiracy by Bill Rich, Ted Fancher, Xenu, the Biavians, Illuminati, etc, against the "average flier".

   Brett

[Michael Massey]

Along with my brother, I was thrust into the BOM fray, kicking and screaming all the way.  My brother discussed the issues with a number of people, including me.  So his decision was based on a lot if input, discussion and a strong hard look at the perceived intent of the rule.
Since I had some part of this particular decision, I have spent additional time reflecting on the issue.  I have a rather extensive background in law, law enforcement, regulatory environments and the like.  Therefore I look at the issue a little differently.  Here is my view that I am sure will stimulate additional, and hopefully healthy, discussion.
First and foremost, what are we trying to accomplish?  What is the intent of the rule?  It seems to me that where we are trying to get to is to reward the builder, not the owner, with appearance points based on the effort but into the “fit and finish” of the airplane.  I say fit and finish because when looking at the airplane sitting on the ground in front of us, that is all we can really see.  The flying characteristics will be included in the flying competition and based on how well the plane flies the given required pattern.
If we are trying to reward the builder, not the owner, then what constitutes the builder?  Let me start by asking how many of us have bought some large item and brought it home in a box that says, “Some assembly required”.  Once we finish the (sometimes lengthy) assembly, usually following some rather confusing instructions, we generally have our finished product that performs as we reasonably expected.  None, or very few, of us would claim to have “built” the item.  We merely assembled the item. 
In my mind, this is the thrust of the BOM rule and discussions.  If we merely assemble a pre-built plane, BBQ, child’s playhouse, etc., we are the assembler and not the builder!  If, on the other hand, we grab a set of plans and begin to put pieces together that eventually form a sub-assembly or finished product, then we are more a builder than an assembler.
This sounds straight forward but the “bright line” we are trying to draw to make the distinction between the builder and assembler of our planes is clearly not a bright line.  It is a fuzzy, blurred line placed somewhere between two extremes.  One extreme being the person who simply purchases an already completed airplane with the other extreme being the person who designs, cuts parts, builds then finishes the plane.
Like most of us, I would place the ARF type airplanes (that includes ARCs, RTFs, etc.) in the “assembled” category, not eligible for appearance points, and most all the balance of planes in the “Builder Of Model” category. 
As I stated, the exact placement of the “presented” airplane on the continuum between BOM and model assembler is never going to be exact.  As newer building techniques evolve, the problem will only get worse if we try to write a rule that strictly defines the type of components or build that does or does not qualify as BOM.  We must look at the simple intent of the rule.  Did the person presenting the airplane for appearance points, build the airplane.  By build, I mean would the average or reasonable modeler reading this agree that the model was not a prefabricated model and the builder did exercise significant influence over the critical phases of construction and the “fit and finish” of the plane. 
Will we be deceived by some “builders”?  You bet.  Hopefully few but the reality is that the only way to avoid having the rule violated is to not have the rule.  I think that most of us can agree with Ted’s take on this issue.  He stated my position fairly well.  Tell me that you built it, following roughly what I outlined above, and you will be judged for appearance points.
One last thing, I relish in taking credit for putting on the Golden State, but that is my brother’s place, not mine.  He merely works my tail off at the meet; he is the organizer and driver with significant help from Bob Swan.  Thanks anyway.

[Derek Barry]

  That's about what most people think of the "consumer" ARFs. Most of the public arguments over BOM have used consumer-level ARFs as the arguing point (because it might affect Joe Bellcrank and the anti-modeling crowd it trying to make the argument about "growing the event"), but the driving motivation has been and always will be making it possible to sell hyper-expensive RTF models to a few people to fly at the NATs.

    Essentially, a few custom builders want to be able to build models on commission and be able for the buyers to fly them at the NATs, which is currently illegal, OR a few people who have geared up to build models on a limited production basis (Jose, the Yatsenkos, Kaz) to FAI fliers also want to sell them here. The former may have already taken place and was definitively illegal. The second is a perfectly legitimate business for anything except flying at the NATs.

   In all cases we are not talking about anything like a Vector 40 ARF. We are talking about very high-quality and fully competitive complete package systems like the Yatsenko "Shark". You send money, the model can come back in its own travel container ready to assemble and fly with essentially no trimming, etc. The cost is in the area of $4000 up, and that is not outrageous for what you get. I sure wouldn't custom build/finish/trim an airplane for $4000.

   Of course this point is obscured, intentionally, in most of the BOM discussions, because its pretty hard to get sympathy for those poor downtrodden guys selling models to rich people for thousands of dollars. Instead, it makes a much better narrative to talk about poor Joe Bellcrank being prevented from having inexpensive ARFs by those awful elitists. And think of the hordes of people we would have been overrun with if only we got rid of the BOM!

  Both of those arguments are utter nonsense and even the people spinning the arguments don't believethem  or care anything about "consumer" ARFs or "growing the event".  They want to create a market for the super-expensive RTFs in the US and that means getting rid of the BOM for the NATs. To do that they know that they cannot win on their own merits, and they are such a tiny minority that they know they will never get it changed legitimately, so instead they try to enlist other people that don't have a stake in it to rally to their cause. continually look for loopholes, and if you can torture the logic enough, you might be able to make an argument that closing the loopholes is an example of persecution, and then you can use that to prove it's all a big conspiracy to keep ARFs out of hobby shops. And besides, it's supposed to be about who flies the best, right?

  So it goes, on and on, false arguments posited again and again, spinning the same silly reasoning, all to make a few people some money. This thread degenerated somewhat less than the others, mostly because it started with a perfectly legimate and worthy attempt. Go back and look at some of the others that were started by anti-modeling types, they just about universally find a new "interpretation", a bunch of people say that it is not right, and before long we are talking about "average kits", who flew a questionable model in the year 245 BC and got away with it, how there has been a big conspiracy by Bill Rich, Ted Fancher, Xenu, the Biavians, Illuminati, etc, against the "average flier".

   Brett

This is probably the best description of the BOM War that has ever been written. Well done my friend.

Derek

[Ted Fancher]

Along with my brother, I was thrust into the BOM fray, kicking and screaming all the way.  My brother discussed the issues with a number of people, including me.  So his decision was based on a lot if input, discussion and a strong hard look at the perceived intent of the rule.

(Snipped out a lot of other good stuff)

Will we be deceived by some “builders”?  You bet.  Hopefully few but the reality is that the only way to avoid having the rule violated is to not have the rule.  I think that most of us can agree with Ted’s take on this issue.  He stated my position fairly well.  Tell me that you built it, following roughly what I outlined above, and you will be judged for appearance points.

Bravo, Michael!  What an appropriate and satisfying description of the all but undescribable.  thank you for taking the time to type and post it.

ted

[Igor]

Brett ! You may silently hire  some body to build and finish ARF for you here ; in US or abroad, even use your own design than tell every body that you are the Builder, and you may have it on the raw of appearance, just pick up traditional; Balsa wood technique, that can be made in Garage style of shop  and nobody ever have suspect that you are not a Builder. It may be not world class top of the competitive line model like you have mentioned ,(that is newer know too), it may be cheaper too, not $4000 ,but you will mix the air on your flight field, practicing ,using your previous model while new one is in the building process by hired guy. You will not waste your time, like others stay day by night in their garages , with sanding block in the hand. You will be in the good competitive shape, by the time new ; Nationals legal model will be ready for your trimming.Another two weeks or less and you good to go. That is what i see often around. We need to retain BOM rules I have expressed my opinion long time before, because I see a good philosophy behind of it. Other vice we will se same things, like in RC field happened for last 20  years. Only we need to make our rule more definitely, clear language etc. That will eliminate any manipulations from any side. Try new things, for example get appearance from 6 yards or so, providing of building documentation may help too, try to add "Master" category above "Experts" lets say more than 550 or so like in Boxing, as we have divided by skills. I do not believe we can't make better than Democrats an Republicans. Igor.

[Brett Buck]

Brett ! You may silently hire  some body to build and finish ARF for you here ; in US or abroad, even use your own design than tell every body that you are the Builder, and you may have it on the raw of appearance,

   Of course you could, and I strongly suspect (although can't prove) that it has happened. I am not at all concerned with people actually cheating on it, the vast majority will not cheat even if they can get away with it. So I am not concentrating on enforcement.

    What I think we really need is a clear line on what is allowed or not allowed. If the line is clear on what is allowed or not, there will be no way to "rationalize" away cheating on an ambiguous rule, someone has to decide, with full knowledge, to violate the rule. I think virtually no one will decide to cheat.

    Brett

[Howard Rush]

What I think we really need is a clear line on what is allowed or not allowed. If the line is clear on what is allowed or not, there will be no way to "rationalize" away cheating on an ambiguous rule, someone has to decide, with full knowledge, to violate the rule. I think virtually no one will decide to cheat.

That's what I think, too, but our esteemed contest board rejected both my proposal and a better one from Eric.

[Derek Barry]

That's what I think, too, but our esteemed contest board rejected both my proposal and a better one from Eric.

Yep.

Derek

[john e. holliday]

What would solve the whole thing is that if people were honest about what they are doing.  I admitted recovering an ARF at a VSC and was glad to be told no way for appearance.   I didn't want to miss the Corn Beef and Cabbage dinner I would have missed at Aunt Betty's favorite restaurant,  her house.

[Igor]

Agree Brett with you! We need clear definition with rules. Pretty sure; it will help to eliminate this 30 + years of discussion, misunderstanding, angriness, complaining, and so on.... Igor.

[Steve Fitton]

What would solve the whole thing is that if people were honest about what they are doing.  I admitted recovering an ARF at a VSC and was glad to be told no way for appearance.   I didn't want to miss the Corn Beef and Cabbage dinner I would have missed at Aunt Betty's favorite restaurant,  her house.

Doc, some people have a *completely different* internal definition of honesty.  They might be convinced they *built* the plane and be 100% confident in telling you so.  The only issue is that their version of "built" and yours might be very different.
The Rush and Viglione rule proposals were an effort to increase understanding on what constituted being the builder of the model.

[Brett Buck]

Agree Brett with you! We need clear definition with rules. Pretty sure; it will help to eliminate this 30 + years of discussion, misunderstanding, angriness, complaining, and so on.... Igor.

  You are quite the optimist!  I don't think it will stop this argument (which has been going on far more than 30 years, more like 80), or even slow it down. As soon as we get a perfectly clear definition, someone will start lobbying for adding this, adding that, and try to nudge it back to where they want it, i.e. they can build models for other people with no penalty. Or claim to high heaven that the existing rule is persecution.

   What is unnerving is the tendency for people to get tired of the argument and just want to give in. That would be a tragedy for the event, AND, it also rewards the incessant whining.

  There's really not a whole lot ambiguity now, everybody managed to understand what it meant to "completely construct" their airplanes aside from a few gray areas for a long time. Much more recently people have been trying to misrepresent the gray areas and exploit them with a bunch of bogus arguments just to make this into a "cause".

   The real problem statements in the existing rule are obvious - "average kit" and "few minutes of unskilled effort". The easiest solution, to me, is to simply remove those sentences. That leave the "completely construct" which I think everyone with objectivity would understand excludes all prefabricated parts.

   What I don't think we want is a laundry list of acceptable and not acceptable items, then it becomes a race to find loopholes, and close them, and 10x the arguing. 

    Brett

[Paul Walker]

I understand that Orestes is coming. That's good.
Does he not run afoul of item 2 in Brian's post?
It would be s shame for him to come all that way only to find outthere that there is a problem.

[55chevr]

Perhaps there should be a polygraph test for all competitors.  This is getting silly.  This is a hobby and if someone wants it bad enough they will buy a potential winning plane and claim it is theirs.  The BOM rule is not enforceable.

[Brett Buck]

Perhaps there should be a polygraph test for all competitors.  This is getting silly.  This is a hobby and if someone wants it bad enough they will buy a potential winning plane and claim it is theirs.  The BOM rule is not enforceable.

  Again, essentially no one will cheat if they know what the rules are.

    Brett

[Mike Scholtes]

The endless BOM debate/controversy/obsession strikes me as akin to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." The answer is anything you want it to be, since there are infinite answers. For crying out loud, there are maybe 30 active stunt flyers in California and we all know each other, and we pretty much know how to gauge the relative building skills of each other. If I show up at a contest with something that looks like the work of Larry Fernandez or Jim Aron or PTG and say, "Sure I built this!!" I would be hooted out of the contest and become persona non grata. To my knowledge this has never happened in the 10 or so years I have been attending contests. To me the more relevant question is the degree of sub-assemblies we think ought to be allowed, from our professional component builders. I have a sheeted foam wing on order from Bobby Hunt and it appears that is welcome. But at some point, like a fully built but not painted Shark, it wouldn't be. Maybe we need to focus on the practical aspects of this, particularly subassemblies, and let the angels dance on the head of the pin unmolested.

[Brett Buck]

The endless BOM debate/controversy/obsession strikes me as akin to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." The answer is anything you want it to be, since there are infinite answers. For crying out loud, there are maybe 30 active stunt flyers in California and we all know each other, and we pretty much know how to gauge the relative building skills of each other. If I show up at a contest with something that looks like the work of Larry Fernandez or Jim Aron or PTG and say, "Sure I built this!!" I would be hooted out of the contest and become persona non grata. To my knowledge this has never happened in the 10 or so years I have been attending contests. To me the more relevant question is the degree of sub-assemblies we think ought to be allowed, from our professional component builders. I have a sheeted foam wing on order from Bobby Hunt and it appears that is welcome. But at some point, like a fully built but not painted Shark, it wouldn't be. Maybe we need to focus on the practical aspects of this, particularly subassemblies, and let the angels dance on the head of the pin unmolested.

   Exactly, this entire "controversy" is almost entirely an internet phenomenon. I can recall spending a grand total of about 30 seconds on this topic in real life at a contest - over ~40 years of being involved. Read above, this is whipped into a controversy, for the most part, by a few people who want to get rid of BOM and will keep the argument stoked for as long as they can.

    Brett

[john e. holliday]

And they still won't win if the BOM is dropped.   Look at the contests that don't have appearance points.   Keep BOM for the Jr, Sr and Op contestants at the NATS and any other contest that might have  those classes of stunt.  I still am able to whip up on the kids that do fantastic appearance airplanes and been beaten by a few that  spend more time flying than finishing.

[Steve Hines]

I would not care if there was a BOM if you did not get beauty points, Derek Barry got screw at the Nat's, did any body see the planes that scored as high as him that did not have half the work in there planes. Doug lost because someone said that a plane look better than his. The one that won can now say I won the Nat's because I had a prettier plane than the other guy. Or do you say I won the Nat's and I was out flown. People don't want this to grow, it the only sport where old guys can still win.

[Joseph Patterson]

    Yep, Howard I agree!
      Doug

[Brett Buck]

I would not care if there was a BOM if you did not get beauty points, Derek Barry got screw at the Nat's, did any body see the planes that scored as high as him that did not have half the work in there planes. Doug lost because someone said that a plane look better than his. The one that won can now say I won the Nat's because I had a prettier plane than the other guy. Or do you say I won the Nat's and I was out flown. People don't want this to grow, it the only sport where old guys can still win.

     Or someone won because someone said they flew a slightly better square 8. Stunt is *intrinsically subjective*, it will *always*, repeat, *always* be that way. Every single result since 1947 has been someone's opinion. Ask Doug if he made three mistake-free flights - I already know the answer.  Ask anyone else the same.

   The purpose of the event is to build a nice-looking airplane, and then fly it. Both parts are judged and should be judged. The appearance part of it should count in the end results.

   And, BOM is not about not "wanting this to grow". It has grown dramatically over the last 25 years, and is the only competition event that has grown over that time period. All the events that got rid of BOM have sunk dramatically. And, you can buy all the airplanes you want and fly them at all but one contest in the world. So much for "growth".

    What the BOM debate is about is permitting a few people to make money selling extremely expensive pre-built airplanes to a very select few people to fly at the NATs.

      Brett

[Mike Scholtes]

Just to kick the hornets nest a little farther, we have all probably seen the article in the current Model Aviation about 3-D printed airplanes. These are not static models but fully flyable. Can't wait to see the first CD who has to deal with a 3-D printed model designed entirely on CAD by the "builder" and then printed on the builder's (or a rented) 3-D printer. It will happen, and sooner than we think, I'll bet. 

Personally I would have little interest in this event if not for the beautiful self-built models that we see. It is like a visit to an art gallery. And then we drive them straight at the ground at 60 mph, over and over. That is what I really like, the skin the flyer-builder has in the game. Won't be the same with a printed model even if somehow it is deemed "built" by the flyer.

[Howard Rush]

You can get 3d-printed vortex generators right now.  You can hardly win a stunt contest without them.

[Brian Massey]

You can get 3d-printed vortex generators right now.  You can hardly win a stunt contest without them.

Is that why I'm not winning?

Brian

[Joseph Lijoi]

    
What the BOM debate is about is permitting a few people to make money selling extremely expensive pre-built airplanes to a very select few people to fly at the NATs.

      Brett

This is a bit harsh.  Is there something wrong with making money?  Traveling to any National/Intrernational contest costs quite a bit of money.  I really haven't seen any concerns expressed over costs at the highest level of competition.  Really if I spend 6k on molds but I do the molding myself it is all legal.  I am willing to accept that you want to keep the tradition of the event going but it is difficult for me accept that the cost is the main reason people have such a righteous attitude about it. 

It is totally fair that you guys want to keep the event a certain way because you are the guys flying it.  But I don't buy the cost argument.

You do have a problem creating viable rules that are understood, based on my reading this thread.  Unless I am mistaken if a guy purchases a raw balsa molded model he gets no points for painting it himself.  I can relate to the idea that y'all don't like the fact that the guy dropped some large for a model plane but he did paint it himself, or so he says, so maybe he should get some credit.

Maybe you consider giving a percentage of points based on what the guy declares he has done.  You are on the honor system anyway.

Something to consider.  i don't know if its been done before.  It seems to me that the BOM rules go beyond the Nationals and influences what CD's do at a local level.

[Randy Cuberly]

This is a bit harsh.  Is there something wrong with making money?  Traveling to any National/Intrernational contest costs quite a bit of money.  I really haven't seen any concerns expressed over costs at the highest level of competition.  Really if I spend 6k on molds but I do the molding myself it is all legal.  I am willing to accept that you want to keep the tradition of the event going but it is difficult for me accept that the cost is the main reason people have such a righteous attitude about it. 

It is totally fair that you guys want to keep the event a certain way because you are the guys flying it.  But I don't buy the cost argument.

You do have a problem creating viable rules that are understood, based on my reading this thread.  Unless I am mistaken if a guy purchases a raw balsa molded model he gets no points for painting it himself.  I can relate to the idea that y'all don't like the fact that the guy dropped some large for a model plane but he did paint it himself, or so he says, so maybe he should get some credit.

Maybe you consider giving a percentage of points based on what the guy declares he has done.  You are on the honor system anyway.

Something to consider.  i don't know if its been done before.  It seems to me that the BOM rules go beyond the Nationals and influences what CD's do at a local level.

UUhhhhh.....I think you're missing the point (or possibly making one up) about the cost thing.
The cost is not the issue, it's that you can buy the the instrument to compete with in an event that was configured to be a modeling event not just a flying event!
There's nothing wrong with making money (unless you're printing it yourself) but there is something wrong with allowing money to improve a competitive position in an event that specifically disallows that!
Change the rules and it becomes a different event...As it's been suggested in the past, if that's what you want then start another event or fly F2B.

One last point about the money...It costs a considerable amount of money to build a competitive top level stunter, probably 1500.00 to 2000.00 dollars from start to finish and that figure doesn't include anything for the builders time.

Randy Cuberly

[Howard Rush]

One last point about the money...It costs a considerable amount of money to build a competitive top level stunter, probably 1500.00 to 2000.00 dollars from start to finish and that figure doesn't include anything for the builders time.

Having that much invested in your models, you better come to the Golden State this weekend to get your money's worth from them.

[Brett Buck]

This is a bit harsh.  Is there something wrong with making money?  Traveling to any National/Intrernational contest costs quite a bit of money.  I really haven't seen any concerns expressed over costs at the highest level of competition.  Really if I spend 6k on molds but I do the molding myself it is all legal.  I am willing to accept that you want to keep the tradition of the event going but it is difficult for me accept that the cost is the main reason people have such a righteous attitude about it. 

   You miss the point completely. There is nothing wrong with making money and I don't care much about the cost of competing.

    What is wrong and what I will fight to the end is changing the fundamental nature of the competition (against the overwhelming majority opinion) simply because someone wants to profit from it.

     Brett

[Steve Hines]

Improving competitive position. I think there is a Brett Buck 61 out there, better bellcranks, handles, foam wings. I think this is all great. I don't think Brett got rich off this or even made any money. This is what makes competition better. from what I see Brett will tell you what he knows to make you better. There should be from what I see as building, flying, and a overall. You could win at building, or flying, or both, or in my case none of the above.

I would not let Samantha fly in Jr 3 years ago. Samantha had a flight streak she built, she would have won.  there was no Jr that year. I did not bring the plane. People wanted me to go to hobby shop and get a 049 kit and not even paint it, all she had to do was to take off and land. She wanted to do it, but what would she had won. She wanted to fly this year, but she did not know the hole pattern so I would not her fly. She may have won Gavin had problems. Next year watch out. She gets so mad at me, but she must learn she has to put the work in. I only have her half the time, if we have a bad weather weekend, two weeks we get to try again. She tells me if she had every weekend to fly and every night she would have had the pattern down, and she could have flew at the Nat's. To bad so sad.

Some people will never be good flyers, or builders and some maybe one or the other. I have the money to build a spray booth, and access to others, and all the best equipment I don't what her to win because of this, some people are not so lucky. She has been invited to be in a special art club she would have not problem finishing a plane and could do it with out paint masks. We need rules everyone can understand or let me interpret them.

Steve

[Derek Barry]

Improving competitive position. I think there is a Brett Buck 61 out there, better bellcranks, handles, foam wings. I think this is all great. I don't think Brett got rich off this or even made any money. This is what makes competition better. from what I see Brett will tell you what he knows to make you better. There should be from what I see as building, flying, and a overall. You could win at building, or flying, or both, or in my case none of the above.

I would not let Samantha fly in Jr 3 years ago. Samantha had a flight streak she built, she would have won.  there was no Jr that year. I did not bring the plane. People wanted me to go to hobby shop and get a 049 kit and not even paint it, all she had to do was to take off and land. She wanted to do it, but what would she had won. She wanted to fly this year, but she did not know the hole pattern so I would not her fly. She may have won Gavin had problems. Next year watch out. She gets so mad at me, but she must learn she has to put the work in. I only have her half the time, if we have a bad weather weekend, two weeks we get to try again. She tells me if she had every weekend to fly and every night she would have had the pattern down, and she could have flew at the Nat's. To bad so sad.

Some people will never be good flyers, or builders and some maybe one or the other. I have the money to build a spray booth, and access to others, and all the best equipment I don't what her to win because of this, some people are not so lucky. She has been invited to be in a special art club she would have not problem finishing a plane and could do it with out paint masks. We need rules everyone can understand or let me interpret them.

Steve

Steve I mostly agree with you about the whole Junior thing. I was not going to let Gavin fly two years ago and he didn't really want to because he could not do the whole patter. He felt and I agreed that it would be kind of a hollow win. That is until Dave Fitz. asked me if Gavin was going to fly. I said no and explained why but he insisted that Gavin fly. He felt it was better than having the box sit at AMA headquarters for another year with no names added to it. After that win he vowed to learn more or all of the pattern before the next nats, which he did but unfortunately, as you mentioned, he had some issues about 10 min. before the contest was scheduled to start. The plane got fixed but was hardly flyable. So again, he was happy to win but it was not how it should feel. I hope that Sam will learn the pattern before next year so she can put her name on that trophy and be proud to do so. Gavin will be in senior next year and hopefully there is someone else for him to compete with, regardless of the outcome.

Derek

[Doug Moon]

Steve I mostly agree with you about the whole Junior thing. I was not going to let Gavin fly two years ago and he didn't really want to because he could not do the whole patter. He felt and I agreed that it would be kind of a hollow win. That is until Dave Fitz. asked me if Gavin was going to fly. I said no and explained why but he insisted that Gavin fly. He felt it was better than having the box sit at AMA headquarters for another year with no names added to it. After that win he vowed to learn more or all of the pattern before the next nats, which he did but unfortunately, as you mentioned, he had some issues about 10 min. before the contest was scheduled to start. The plane got fixed but was hardly flyable. So again, he was happy to win but it was not how it should feel. I hope that Sam will learn the pattern before next year so she can put her name on that trophy and be proud to do so. Gavin will be in senior next year and hopefully there is someone else for him to compete with, regardless of the outcome.

Derek

Derek,

I think it's good you let Gavin compete.  Knowing the pattern is not the, entire, point at the beginning.  Getting some competition legs helps.  Life is but one huge competition.  We live it every day.  The sooner a child wants to enter into the fray, whatever the compitition may be CLPS SOCCEER BASEBALL ETC, and see what it's all about the better in my opinion.  Granted the parent is there making sure its not a position of being totally wiped out and then the child is totlaly blown away and wont return.  If my son wants to try it I will certainly be there helping him out along the way, pattern or not.

I really have to say I respect Steve's position of teaching Sam she has to work at it and show she really wants to compete by learning the entire pattern.  Teaching our children about working for things helps to make life's competiton just a little more bearable. By the few little tid bits of info in his post its pretty clear she is all about it and competition is in her future.  Get her in there ASAP and taste he blood in the water!!      You may have the next champion in your arms today! 

I hope to see Sam and others like her in the circle.

[Doug Moon]

When all the dust is settled and all the crying has stopped it all comes down one point....

Did you build your model? 

If you believe it to be so then that's good enough for me sign the entry form and pay the fee. 

Now, let's go get in the circle and kick some ass!

[Brian Massey]

. . .  it all comes down one point.... Did you build your model?  If you believe it to be so then that's good enough for me sign the entry form and pay the fee.  Now, let's go get in the circle and kick some ass!

I think this was the point behind Eric's proposal last year . . . and not a bad idea. If nothing else, peer pressure will keep many honest.

Brian

[Joseph Lijoi]

Randy and Brett

This is what I said:

It is totally fair that you guys want to keep the event a certain way because you are the guys flying it.  But I don't buy the cost argument.

You guys are so keyed on calling me an idiot that you failed to address the rest of my post.

Let me know what you think about my percentage idea.  It will give you the opportunity to call me an idiot again. 

[Joseph Lijoi]

When all the dust is settled and all the crying has stopped it all comes down one point....

Did you build your model? 

If you believe it to be so then that's good enough for me sign the entry form and pay the fee. 

Now, let's go get in the circle and kick some ass!

Define build.  Thats the problem.  This problem did not exist untill fairly recently.

A guy show up to a contest with a plane built (?) from one of your Gieseke Nobler component kits.  The guy had to line it up, assemble it mount the engine and tank.    In addition he has given it a "twenty point" finish by covering the CLC with silkspan and dope.  He tells  this to the CD.

The CD says he does not qualify for appearance points because he is  not the "builder" of the model because the kit came covered in CLC.  Does this seem fair to you?  I get the same number of points as the guy who is borrowing his buddies plane.  The guy is not rewarded for his efforts.

You guys know what the percentage of the construction time is for a presheeted foam wing core is.  Deduct this percentage from the appearance points.  Give the guy with the Yasteshenko ready to fly models a point and a half for screwing (building?)  his model together on site.  Whatever.

Just a suggestion.

[Brett Buck]

Randy and Brett

This is what I said:

It is totally fair that you guys want to keep the event a certain way because you are the guys flying it.  But I don't buy the cost argument.

You guys are so keyed on calling me an idiot that you failed to address the rest of my post.

Let me know what you think about my percentage idea.  It will give you the opportunity to call me an idiot again. 

   How did I call you an idiot?  This is the kind of hyperbole that always gets injected when you guys start losing the argument. Deflect it into a personal conflict, instead of addressing the point.

   But again, *this is not about the cost of competing*, and my point has absolutely nothing about the cost of competing in this event.

    My only references to cost were to illustrate the intentionally fallacious reasoning used about BOM. People claim to be "champions of the people" and "making the event more accessible" and use cheapie ARFs to prove it. When in fact they don't care at all about that.

   This is degenerating along pretty predictable lines, when your side starts (inevitably) losing, then it about throwing around accusations of bias, name-calling, etc, when nothing of the sort has happened.

    Brett

[Bryan Hebert]

Hi Guys new here
While I don`t compete (yet) in CL stunt, I do compete in F3A I hesitate to contribute to the noise
I`m sure I don`t know the whole history of this Aurgument But here is my take.

I design and build(from Scratch) all my models, until I can get the kit made(this "kit"has now been redifined to ARF in a box ,all composite bolt together)I understand both sides of the argument.
While it has boosted our numbers some, Most guys can`t glue a firewall in correctly, But they get more time to fly.

Building a Pattern plane to a top show finish from scratch is a 8 -12 month Build for me working 8hours a day every day. I make the plugs molds ECT I make it all. Most Guys don`t have the skill or time, they would rather just buy a ARF painted by A Chinese Women, Screw it together ,and spend their time Flying. then the young guys Beat me  This does not motivate me at all, I love the Inspiration of it all ,from designing the airplane,figuring out how to Build it with new construction, to designing a scheme around the new model. THEN I get to fly and compete with it.

In Pattern ,We have come to accept this as Normal, Though I sell the ARF`s of my designs, I have no real Love for the ones I own ,Even though I designed it, I feel no emotion towards them,only the ones I create. However Guys with limited time ,Skill or both, Prize these models as though they Built them from scratch ,Mostly because they could never have such a nice plane no matter how hard they tried to build it for themselves.

But, I think having a BOM is a great thing, and shows the devotion ,effort, skill ,ceativity,ECT of the modeler.and this is the effort it takes to earn those 20points.
This drives innovation and the repect, is the only real thing we can earn from it outside the possible 20point that few attain.

I think it`s Easy, looking from the outside in. If the Model is in a true kit form , or from scratch ,reward full points for BOM. If the Model has any assmbly already done it`s not a kit. but a arf,arc. to keep it pure.
I would say the guys with the most respect for this game, or event, already follow the BOM rule. The guys who just want to be a part of the game and buys a ARF /ARC know the rule when they make the Purchase, therefore it`s on them.

I think this is a great Legacy for Controle line and it should stay as pure and American as it has been. Heros of stunt were made by these rules and it made the dicipline better for it. I love it. keep it Pure.

Bryan

[Joseph Lijoi]

   How did I call you an idiot?  This is the kind of hyperbole that always gets injected when you guys start losing the argument. Deflect it into a personal conflict, instead of addressing the point.

   But again, *this is not about the cost of competing*, and my point has absolutely nothing about the cost of competing in this event.

    My only references to cost were to illustrate the intentionally fallacious reasoning used about BOM. People claim to be "champions of the people" and "making the event more accessible" and use cheapie ARFs to prove it. When in fact they don't care at all about that.

   This is degenerating along pretty predictable lines, when your side starts (inevitably) losing, then it about throwing around accusations of bias, name-calling, etc, when nothing of the sort has happened.

    Brett

Brett I was only kidding about the calling me an idiot thing.  Sorry.  I am not trying to make it personal but I can see why you are frustrated at some of the arguments on this forum.  I also think I am agreeing with you in many ways.  I am not out to win any battles.  I am in agreement with you that it is about maintaining the event more than cost,

I am just suggesting a possible way to make the BOM more viable by adressing the existence of cheapie and not ARFs.  I am neither for or against anything.
I just made a suggetion for something that might clarify rules.  Nothing personal.  No degeneration intended.  Tell me what you think of my idea.  It is not anti BOM.  It requires an experienced group to make decisions and a questionaire at a contest.

[Eric Viglione]

Hi Guys new here <snip> I think this is a great Legacy for Controle line and it should stay as pure and American as it has been. Heros of stunt were made by these rules and it made the dicipline better for it. I love it. keep it Pure.

Bryan

Hi Bryan, welcome aboard. You get it! And since this really only matters in a big way at 1 contest per year, the Nat's, it's a pretty lame argument for people who don't have any skin in the game to try and ruin what has worked so well and is a long standing success. I have to admit, I didn't "get it" 100% myself at first, but once I started going to the Nat's, it all immediately became very clear. There is nothing complicated about it, you build your plane, bring it to the Nat's and go fly it. It's great fun. I can't imagine taking the time off work and all the expense to go to the Nat's to fly an ARF. Worse yet, if EVERYONE did that, how boring would it be? Half, maybe more than half, of the fun of going to the Nat's is seeing what your buddies have created over the last year. Heck, I'd rather see what my buddies built 5 years ago show up again and again, than rows and rows of the same top of the line 2 or 3  popular ARF variations. That would kill it for me, and I venture to say most others involved. Building a better mouse trap, and putting your creation through it's paces is a thrill many of us enjoy and have a hard time explaining to those who have never done it. People that are in this hobby for the long haul tend to get it more than those who want a quick foot in the door, usually followed by a quick foot right back out the door.

At least that's my .02,
EricV

[proparc]

I design and build(from Scratch) all my models, until I can get the kit made(this "kit"has now been redefined to ARF in a box ,all composite bolt together)I understand both sides of the argument.
While it has boosted our numbers some, Most guys can`t glue a firewall in correctly, But they get more time to fly.


Bryan

Great points Bryan. But building an F3A ship from scratch or kit, and building a control line stunt ship is a WHOLE different can of worms. A full-on F3A ship build from kit or scratch would SEVERELY tax the skills of even the guys on this forum,(and were good at what we do!). The size,cost, complexity of a full on competition 2M pattern ship would make a BOM in that event virtually untenable. The event would collapse almost immediately.

But, are ships seldom ever go over 700sq. Consequently, it is more feasible for us to have and maintain a BOM rule. Control line stunt is a prestige event,(that's gonna cause a storm of controversy). A large part of that prestige stems from our long standing and, fiercely maintained requirement to "roll your own". It demands a "complete modeler" to participate and that's the way we like it,(I should say most of us).

[Bryan Hebert]

Hi Milton

I agree, wasn`t trying to make a direct comparison , I was just trying to compare notes with the way our whole modeling mind set is these days in any model competition.

To be a legend, it must be earned, that trophy awards you the status. the effort it takes to get that status must not be lowered it should stay high and hard to attain.  this creates an equal footing to share the stage with the Greats!

I do think prestige is, and should be part of any great effort we should make the standards as High as they can be. Any other way to win that award would be a hollow victory in my view. This Must be earned at all levels building, flying, and Innovation. after all, every aspect of the award is judged by your peers in the game!

Probably said more than I should, not really knowing the game, But it`s just the way I see it.
I`m drawn to the sport for the purity of the effort and the history of game.

hope to meet some of you soon,I have enjoyed reading all the replys
reminds me of some of my rambling on rcu
Bryan

[Bob Reeves]

I just made a suggetion for something that might clarify rules.  Nothing personal.  No degeneration intended.  Tell me what you think of my idea.  It is not anti BOM.  It requires an experienced group to make decisions and a questionaire at a contest.

Actually just a system like you are talking about was proposed a few years ago by Marvin Denny and was rejected. A few of us still think it's a viable solution, we have been using it at the Gluedobbers stunt contest for the last three years and the contestants seem to really like it. Can't remember the exact point spread but something like..

20 Max 15 Min if you built it from scratch or a kit.
15 Max 10 Min if you used componet parts
0 if you bought it RTF.

There is another step in the actual rules and as I said can't remember the exact numbers but this will give you the the idea.

[Joseph Lijoi]

Actually just a system like you are talking about was proposed a few years ago by Marvin Denny and was rejected. A few of us still think it's a viable solution, we have been using it at the Gluedobbers stunt contest for the last three years and the contestants seem to really like it. Can't remember the exact point spread but something like..

20 Max 15 Min if you built it from scratch or a kit.
15 Max 10 Min if you used componet parts
0 if you bought it RTF.

There is another step in the actual rules and as I said can't remember the exact numbers but this will give you the the idea.

I was thinking like a Council (like a Vatican Council) would convene and determine what percentages of effort there would be in "building" a ship.  The basis would be what the council detemines is a good average amount of man hours required to build a kit from parts or from scratch.  This would be like a jobbers piecework book.  So the council determins that aligning the parts, mounting the enginre and wheels etc comprises x amount of hours or x percentage of a basis build.

A guy shows up with an ARF.  Through a questionare or verbally he tells the CD I got this in the box and did everything in the manual.  This particular guy does a real nice job of assembling the ARF and displays some modeling skills (don't laugh) or at least some pride in the finished product.  He may have added colored fillets.  So on the basis he gets 11 points.  The Stunt Jobbers piecework manual determines that the labor attested to comprises 10 percent of the basis.  So the guy is awarded 1.1 points.  Basically you would be giving the guy some aknowlegment for his efforts and differentiate him from a guy who does a very poor job of assembling his ARF, instead of just lumping them together.  The guy who makes an effort to do a quality job is rewarded, which I think is the element of the event that you are trying to maintain.

[Bob Whitely]

Again, I have to agree with Brett and Ted. The answers are simple and Brian did
a masterful job of stating them.
Since we all know each other and some of us can build pretty good we can virtually
identify every arc whatever from a normal model. I for one would never give any points
unless I was absolutely convinced the competitor built the thing. Just ask a few simple
questions as to how he did this or that and that will tell you right away if they built it
or not.
Of coursed if the pilot says he is the builder of the model that would take care of all the
above. He either did or is outright lying and will soon be found out. Them types we
don't need in our small patch of the hobby. RJ

[Steve Hines]

Derek, Gavin won beginner that year. I did not think she should fly. last year her did not want to put in the work. We were just about to stop flying. We do control line because of Sam, she got me back in to it. I stop CL back in the 70's. I did fly a little RC. I shot trap 3 to 5 days a week. I went all over the U.S. doing this. One year I even took 7place at the Grand, and there was over a 1000 guys shooting. She know if she wants to stop I will go back to shooting. Things are different for me and CL. The other thing is I don't want her to get girl points. This is why I do not like BOM the way it is. Jeff Trailer did the best thing for her at the FCM, he told her he would not give her points because he like her. Sam wanted to get over 300 points there, that was a goal of her for this year, she did not make it. She tried hard this year and I like that. Dad will do this again next year.

Steve

[Steve Helmick]

Brian. posted are two photos of a Yatsenko Yak Kit that fits the current BOM being used at the GSSC contest??
Jose Modesto

I would say "Heck No!" But I'm not Brian or Mike.  Steve