BOM At the Golden State Stunt Championships

[Brian Massey]

I received an inquiry regarding how the BOM rule would be applied at the GSSC. Good question, so I thought I might pass the rule's application on now so no one is surprised.

I do not want to interpret, or read into the rule something that the AMA has not specifically written. Over the past few years, many interpretations have been made, and then reversed by others. It is quite obvious that the AMA has a lot of work ahead in the next round of rules changes to get this very contentious issue settled.

Therefore, until the next round of rules changes, this is how the current rule will be applied at the GSSC:

1/ Models built from a kit of individual parts (major components not pre-assembled), will qualify for “BOM” regardless of any “finish” that may be the result of a process of manufacturing the component parts, and therefore qualify for Appearance Points.

2/ Models built from a kit of pre-assembled major component parts, (generally referred to as an ARF, ARC, RTF and OPP) will not qualify for “BOM” and therefore will not be awarded any Appearance Points.

It is my belief that this conforms to the intent of the BOM rule, in that the builder has done a “significant amount” of critical construction and finish of the model presented.

Brian

[Brett Buck]

1/ Models built from a kit of individual parts (major components not pre-assembled), will qualify for “BOM” regardless of any “finish” that may be the result of a process of manufacturing the component parts, and therefore qualify for Appearance Points.

    By the way, Brian asked a number of us how to proceed and I was surprised at how the so-called "gel coat" rule/interpretation/determination/whatever had been interpreted. It was surprising to me that anyone thought it was still in effect. But more interestingly, some of those queried were of the impression than anything with gel-coat was not qualified for BOM - even if you built it yourself!

    The "gel-coat rule" was intended, apparently, to declare that anything that came with pre-fabricated shells were gel-coated out of the box was not eligible. Let's leave the argument over the value of that "determination" alone for this thread.  But surely, if you build up your own parts in whatever way, and it happens to include gel-coat or other finish that you put on yourself during the construction process, that was always OK.

   The gel-coat rule only ever applied to shells you bought from someone else already "gel-coated" or otherwise partially finished. It never ever applied to parts you made yourself with the finish included, and I am sure that Bill would agree with me. It was about pre-fabricated parts, not parts you made yourself.

  I applaud Brian's rather extensive effort to determine the correct interpretation of the rule book as is stands today (as opposed to the various assertions and what-have-you in the 2005 to 2011 time frame). Greg Hahn finally did in 2011 what many of us had wanted for years in determining that if it wasn't a rule passed through the normal CB process, it wasn't a rule. Brian has nicely encapsulated that notion above, probably for the first time, actually stating it out clearly.

     Brett

[john e. holliday]

At least he has spelled out what he is doing.   So thank him a lot fellows.

[Paul Walker]

If you hurl a fox there, do you have to be the "UOE"?  (User of engine).

[Igor]

Brian. Selective, individual, interpretation of BOM rule . All ways been a case of discussion. For example : Pilot should be builder of his model in order to qualify for appearance points, what if pilot has hired some body to build or finish model for him,or purchased and than; he has put his model between other ones in the row for appearance. How you going determinate , if what he use for official flight has been made by himself in order to qualify for those additional points.You can simply ask: if he made his model by himself ? If his answer "Yes"  ; he is good to go.No proof require. This is  worse than Gel cote and any thing.  People manipulate and use advantage over gap in the rule a lot. One man has told me recently: We are not friends, -  only for 6 minutes. I have to learn ; how to be flat to it. and concentrate on more important things. If I do not have that nice car you driving - you are not my friend ; but if you silently buy model from me ? You may be  the one! Sorry for Allegory! Igor.   

[jose modesto]

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

[Brian Massey]

Brian. Selective, individual, interpretation of BOM rule . All ways been a case of discussion. For example : Pilot should be builder of his model in order to qualify for appearance points, what if pilot has hired some body to build or finish model for him,or purchased and than; he has put his model between other ones in the row for appearance. How you going determinate , if what he use for official flight has been made by himself in order to qualify for those additional points.You can simply ask: if he made his model by himself ? If his answer "Yes"  ; he is good to go.No proof require. This is  worse than Gel cote and any thing.  People manipulate and use advantage over gap in the rule a lot. One man has told me recently: We are not friends, -  only for 6 minutes. I have to learn ; how to be flat to it. and concentrate on more important things. If I do not have that nice car you driving - you are not my friend ; but if you silently buy model from me ? You may be  the one! Sorry for Allegory! Igor.   

I know Igor, this is a very contentious area within the CLPA community. I'm not sure any rule will ever be written that can safeguard against those that do not want to stay within the spirit of the rule. I've seen pilots bring photo albums of their model, not so much to brag about their building, but more to prove they did it.

Brian

[Igor]

I have book with pictures with some of the building and finished process. Because I have experience people asked me. And I start to think : why it is so selective and applicable to me. Because model most likely can't be made in common garage style of shop. But traditional balsa wood technic , foam wing etc. Do not have questions, and can be purchased or made and finished by some body else for Pilot. The picture above is commercial picture of kit that usually you can see in any model magazine or web site where is proof of pilot building and finishing process ?? Very often when I ask some pilots : How you made this or that; or where you get this; they start to tell me B.S. I instantly understand that he has not been involved in building or finishing process.That is sad reality some times. Igor.

[Steve Hines]

Has anyone ever made a gel coat model. Where I  use to work we made gel coat, it would be so heavy it may not fly. The things that we use are not gel coat. Look up gel coat on google and see what is.

Steve

[Brett Buck]

Has anyone ever made a gel coat model.

  Yes, all the Yatsenko models are gel-coat straight out of the mold.  The "gel-coat" rule, if you ever thought it was a rule, is long gone. So is the "2005 interpretation" that allowed ARCs. etc. Now it is back to "did you completely construct the model?" just like it was in 1996.

    Brett

[Mike Scholtes]

I hate to poke at this hornets nest, but are we saying that models built from component suppliers like Bob Hunt and Tom Morris and the ARC Impacts are not going to be allowed appearance points as the current supposedly nationwide rule is applied on the West Coast? How about using some components from suppliers but scratch building others such as the fuselage? This is NOT an academic question to me and several other NorCal flyers.

And BTW the Yatsenko models are certainly not all gel coated out of the mold, unless you are referring only to the ones with skins made that way. Igor has posted photos of sheeted foam components and raw balsa fuselage shells with no coating on any of them.

[Randy Cuberly]

Does this mean that I can or can not use sheeted foam wing halves from Bob Hunt?

This is not a retorical question.  I have never understood this situation and never really recieved a straight answer to the question.

Randy Cuberly

[jose modesto]

Posting for clarification on what the Yatsenko Brothers ACTUALLY produce. Not all models are gel coated. (none are Gell Coated)
You can order Raw Balsa shell kits.
The Raw Balsa Kits were produced as a responce to the banning of any material on exterior surfaces.
photo #1 Shark raw balsa Kit
photo#2 New Classic Raw Balsa Kit
photo#3 finished and Raw Balsa Shark front end

Jose Modesto

[Avaiojet]

Kit?

Some R/C guys call ARF's "Kits."  They even have "Builds." 

I don't see any "Kits" in those photos.

I see assembled "Parts." 

Stages of assembled parts.

If the playing/judging field in compitition is to be kept equal, the playing field will have to be re-defined. So will the word "kit." Seems to have lost true meaning over the years. Just like "model builder" or "modeler."

Re-define. An example would be a special Class for those individuals that don't build, or a special class for those individuals that purchase pre-assembled models that are clearly not kits by the true definition of the word. Like the assembled parts in the above photos.

OR, you could have a special Class for those who claim they built the model. 


Last thing I would want to experience in comprtition, is a model being judged as a kit when it isn't.

When it's not fair judging, that takes the fun out.

One of the many reasons I have absolutely no interest in competition.

Like those graphic guys that sell "stencils" when they clearly are not.

Perils what we have to deal with.   

Charles



 

[Derek Barry]

Kit?

Some R/C guys call ARF's "Kits."  They even have "Builds." 

I don't see any "Kits" in those photos.

I see assembled "Parts." 
 

Even Charles gets it. LOL   

Derek

[Brett Buck]

Posting for clarification on what the Yatsenko Brothers ACTUALLY produce. Not all models are gel coated. (none are Gell Coated)

  Foolish me, I was going with what Yuri told me directly at the 2004 NATs, I guess I should refer to you instead of *the people who built them*. Perhaps "gel-coat" doesn't interpret well - your picture above shows a base color finish on the prefabricated wing panels, which is the issue.

In any case, gel-coat or no is absolutely irrelevant, that was rescinded/never implemented, along with anything in the rule book suggesting that *any* form of partially pre-built models (2005 interpretation that permitted "ARC"). Those are long gone as of two years ago, please actually read the rule book as it is right now. It is now (for our purposes) *identical* to what it was in 1996. Prefab models (made either by aerospace engineers in the Ukraine or 8-year-old girls in China), models built by/borrowed from other people, etc, *don't get appearance points*. Sorry, they just don't, and only an overreaction to "threatened disruption" at the 2005 NATs ever permitted it.

  If someone has an ARF/ARC or a model you borrowed from someone else, no problem, you are perfectly welcome, you just don't get appearance points. Just like almost every contest since *1974*.

For your convenience  (emphasis added). All Brian has done is define what "every reasonable effort" means for his purposes.

6. Builder of Model: The CD shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has completely “constructed’ the model(s) he uses in competition, including the covering where used, with “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model starting with no more prefabrication than the amount used in the average kit. Models which are completely prefabricated and require only a few minutes of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition. In the case of rubber-powered models (excluding Indoor duration models), commercially available balsa, plastic, and hardwood propellers may be used. Materials and design may be obtained from any source, including kits. The builder-of-the- model rule applies to every AMA event unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event.





    Brett

[Tim Wescott]

  Foolish me, I was going with what Yuri told me directly at the 2004 NATs, I guess I should refer to you instead of *the people who built them*. Perhaps "gel-coat" doesn't interpret well - your picture above shows a base color finish on the prefabricated wing panels, which is the issue.

I wonder if it's really called "gel coat" in English usage when it's not for polyester lay-up.  I was the gel-coat guy at my dad's shop for several years, off an on*.  The stuff that I sprayed had to be at least 20 mils thick or it'd alligator when the part got laminated onto it: given that it contributes little in the way of strength that'd be way heavy for a stunter.

Epoxy-based in-the-mold finishes could probably be much lighter, because the chemistry would allow the material to fully set before the next layer went on, which would, in turn, allow the finish to be much thinner without gatoring.  But I don't know about that fancy epoxy stuff.

* Spraying gel coat is a job that is both unpleasant and demanding on one's skills.  It's the perfect job to stick with one if your kids because they understand the business reasons for not having rejects, and they're not going to up and take a job someplace cleaner in a few months.

[Avaiojet]

Even Charles gets it. LOL   

Derek

Derek,

Let's see. I was just about thirteen when I built my first "kit." Hummm, I believe that was in late 1958.   

I offer a fuselage "kit" of The New American and Sig offers the Banchee wing "kit."

No, nothing pre-fab or partially built.

Just a "kit."

Charles

[Steve Hines]

Brett lets look at the rules. (kit) A set of articles or implements used for a specific purpose. ARC would be ok under kit. (Average) This would be ever changing. ARC would be more of a average than a box of balsa. I under stand Completely prefabricated. ARC would not fall under this. (Few) should only be used if less than 4, then you would use less than -------. So if you only had to cover or paint it would be more than a few. Then if you don't meet BOM you shall be excluded from competition. Says nothing about appearance points. If it is a good rule than use all of it, if not don't use it.

Steve

[jose modesto]

Brett your 2004 info as to gel coat was valid  in a general sense. since 2005 we could order models or replacement parts with OUT any PAINT.  2010-11 when Bill R.decided to write a rule that would ban the Yatsenko  type models.
Our responce was to produce a composite kit that would comply with his ruling and the 2005 Nat's component  interpretation that allowed ARC models.
my photos are of two models the Shark and the new classic These Kits were created to Show Bill that the models could be made with out any exterior finish or fiberglass. the two models were NOT BOM compliant as the models alignment and take apart systems were installed by the Yatsenkos
Further the 2005 Nat's emergency BOM interpretation that allowed ARC was rescinded. What we have is the BOM  as posted by Brett.

 Quotes from Brian bellow
" Models built from a kit of individual parts (major components not pre-assembled), will qualify for “BOM” regardless of any finish that may be the result of a process of manufacturing the component parts, and therefore qualify for Appearance Points."
models can be built from a composite shell model as long as " the builder has done a significant amount of critical construction and finish."
Under this interpretation a Composite shell kit with a primer finish as part of the manufacturing process would garner appearance points as long as the CD agrees with "significant amount of critical construction.
Hey I like this ruling. 

[jose modesto]

Charles let me show you a 2013 foamwing kit.
The Bob Hunt foam wing  is covered with molded 1/23"balsa shells. The shells are painted in the mold.
this method requires all the work that you have with a traditional foam wing.
you have to sheet,install controls,join the two halves and install in a fuse.
this NEW FOAM wing meets the requirements that Brian has outlined for significant construction and finish.
if you are trying for a front row finish then the primer on the exterior is used as your first coat of primer with lots of sanding to come.
Last Photo you can also use the way Tom Dixon builds foam wings withopen bays.
Jose Modesto

[Ted Fancher]

It's amazing to me that we can still get people like the Massey Brothers to run contests.  Thank you both for exposing yourselves to the predictable. 

As far as I'm concerned if somebody is willing to look me in the eye, shake my hand and say he built and finished the model he/she enters, fine crank it up and try and whup me.  If he/she is stretching the truth or just plain prevaricating it will not remain a secret for long.  We're a small community of whom the vast majority are principled individuals for whom lying to win a  five dollar plaque or trophy is simply not something they'd consider.  That's good enough for me to let them play with me.  The handful that don't and do win something once in a while will know exactly what they won.  If they can live with it so can I.

The tradition of winning stunt with what you built and finished yourself is too important to the event to let a handful destroy it by making such a big deal about them.  Let them cheat if they must but don't burn down the event to make what they do OK.

Just one man's opinion, fwiw.

Ted

[Avaiojet]

Charles let me show you a 2013 foamwing kit.
The Bob Hunt foam wing  is covered with molded 1/23"balsa shells. The shells are painted in the mold.
this method requires all the work that you have with a traditional foam wing.
you have to sheet,install controls,join the two halves and install in a fuse.
this NEW FOAM wing meets the requirements that Brian has outlined for significant construction and finish.
if you are trying for a front row finish then the primer on the exterior is used as your first coat of primer with lots of sanding to come.
Last Photo you can also use the way Tom Dixon builds foam wings withopen bays.
Jose Modesto

Jose,

Thanks for recognizing that I exist. Kudos for that.   

What's your point?

Charles

[jose modesto]

Ted. first let me thank you for your work at the Nat's. although a had a rough Nat's getting the scores i got from you  on my two flights were the highlight for me.your scores made the ride home bearable. Thanks again for your friendship and great advise that you shared all those years that you competed at the Nats and i pestered you with questions.
As to Brians interpretation of BOM i could not be happier with his interpretation of BOM. I love that he will allow subassemblies that are not RAW BALSA.
I have no issues with his interpretation.
now the Devil in me would call his interpretation of BOM as the IGOR PANCHENKO carve out.(it could also be called the Orestes Hernandez BOM RULE)
since i produce composite shell models I'm 100% in agreement of his ruling.
Jose Modesto

[Sean McEntee]

Gonna stir the pot here a bit...

 
6. Builder of Model: The CD shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has completely “constructed’ the model(s) he uses in competition, including the covering where used, with “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model starting with no more prefabrication than the amount used in the average kit. Models which are completely prefabricated and require only a few minutes of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition. In the case of rubber-powered models (excluding Indoor duration models), commercially available balsa, plastic, and hardwood propellers may be used. Materials and design may be obtained from any source, including kits. The builder-of-the- model rule applies to every AMA event unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event.

"...and require only a few minutes of unskilled effort for their completion...."


-How many ARFs out there can be "completed" in "just a few minutes"?   
- I know tons of people who can't put a Sleek Streak together, let alone an ARF. So what about "completing" an ARF is unskilled?
- I consider myself a decent BUILDER.  I also consider myself a lackluster FINISHER.  The finish portion of the build is where allot of good projects go bad (overweight, mistakes with the finish) and the finish IS what is ultimately judged on contest day.  So remind me why some ARC-type models are legal and some aren't?
 
-I love Ted's outlook on it.  There really is nothing to gain by falsifying efforts.  which is why I could name at least a half dozen people that I know of who have bought half-finished airplanes from swap-meets, estate clearing, and so on.  They finished those models, flew them in contests and claimed appearance points.  Their names are not important, but what is important is that I consider these people of the highest moral character. If they felt that they made enough of an effort that the appearance score that they got was in fact THEIR score, than that was fine with me.  If I bought an ARC, covered and painted it, I would have no issue claiming appearance points (all 7 of them, give or take) and I wouldnt hold it against anyone else for doing the same.

[Brett Buck]

Brett lets look at the rules. (kit) A set of articles or implements used for a specific purpose. ARC would be ok under kit. (Average) This would be ever changing. ARC would be more of a average than a box of balsa. I under stand Completely prefabricated. ARC would not fall under this. (Few) should only be used if less than 4, then you would use less than -------. So if you only had to cover or paint it would be more than a few. Then if you don't meet BOM you shall be excluded from competition. Says nothing about appearance points. If it is a good rule than use all of it, if not don't use it

   The Event rules for Skill Class aerobatics explicitly says you can fly an airplane you did not build but you will not receive appearance points.   ARCs ARE NOT QUALIFIED, as specifically mentioned in Brian's ruling.  The only thing that ever permitted ARCs to receive appearance points was the "2005 Interpretation" which is no longer in effect and was removed from the rule book on spring of 2011 because *it was never passed by the CLACB contest board* - which is what we said in 2005, too.

  ARC and ARF are not kits at all, much less average kits.

   Brett

[Brett Buck]

s.
As to Brians interpretation of BOM i could not be happier with his interpretation of BOM. I love that he will allow subassemblies that are not RAW BALSA.

  When we were discussing this off-line (Brian and the people he asked for input from) I was surprised that there seemed to be a very fundamental misunderstanding about the "gel coat rule" (or whatever you might call it). Some interpreted it to mean that any model with "gel-coat" (prefinished) was illegal - even if you made it yourself. As near as I can tell this was never the intent, anything anybody made themselves was and is always OK regardless of construction.

  Buying pre-finished parts from someone else was what the "gel-coat" rule was about, now that, AND ARC have been definitively made ineligible again by never implementing the gel-coat rule in any official way and by ridding ourselves of the loathsome "2005 interpretation".


  I would ask anyone the same question Steve Kaluf asked Brian Kieffer in 1996 - "did you build every part of this model yourself", which he answered honestly in full knowledge of the consequences. If we can trust a kid to tell the truth in those circumstances, I would expect no less of anyone else.

    Brett

[Doug Moon]

Brett your 2004 info as to gel coat was valid  in a general sense. since 2005 we could order models or replacement parts with OUT any PAINT.  2010-11 when Bill R.decided to write a rule that would ban the Yatsenko  type models.
Our responce was to produce a composite kit that would comply with his ruling and the 2005 Nat's component  interpretation that allowed ARC models.
my photos are of two models the Shark and the new classic These Kits were created to Show Bill that the models could be made with out any exterior finish or fiberglass. the two models were NOT BOM compliant as the models alignment and take apart systems were installed by the Yatsenkos
Further the 2005 Nat's emergency BOM interpretation that allowed ARC was rescinded. What we have is the BOM  as posted by Brett.

Jose,

I gotta be straight with you here.  No offense.  But Bill Rich did NOT re-write the rule.  You need to get your facts straight before you make such slanted comments about someone.  Your comments make it sound as if this one person was out to BAN and certain model and individual.  IF that is what you are trying to say then you couldn't be further from the truth.  There was no out and out move by Bill to Ban the Yatsenko models.  What there was and has been since they became part of the 322 landscape was an outward cry from many in the CLPA community to put a stop to the erosion of the BOM rule.  Ever since the very first time someone "bent" it a little way way way way back whenever that was the rule has been pushed and pushed and pushed.  Bill was going to be the Nats CD at the year it had reached a feverish pitch and he wanted clarification on the situation from AMA.  So did many others.  The very owner of this board made some calls to the AMA himself to see what all the fuss was about.  It was then determined by those at the AMA, NOT BILL, that the 2005 interpretation of the BOM was never in fact voted on by the CLACB in a proper rules cycle and therefore was not an a properly implemented into the rule and was removed from the book. 

There was not and never has been a rule proposal put forth by Bill Rich to re-write the BOM rule to ban a certain model, there is no record of that happening.  Once the 2005 interpretation of the rule was removed from the book, as it should have never been in there in the first place, Bill put forth how he would interpret the rule.  Long before the contest happened just as Brian as done here.

On another note.  I saw the model you have there in photo 1, the raw balsa one, in person at the nats.  It is a fantastic model and I would think anyone would love to have such a fine piece of craftsmanship.  But if that were my model there is no way in hell I could ever say I built that model.  The simple truth is I did not build it.  I painted it.  But painting is ONLY PART OF THE BUILDING OF THE MODEL!!  No matter how much time it takes.  No matter how much someone wants it to be it simply isn't all of the process of building a model. 

I used to get really mired down in who built what blah blah blah.....but what it all boils down to is this, did the contestant sign the entry form that states they agreed and adhered to the rules set forth by the AMA?  Signing the entry form includes the BOM when in use.  It really is just that simple.  Can you and do you believe you adhered to the rules. If so, then there you go. Simple as that...

PS sorry for all the comma splices.  My grammar is horrible.  I can't believe I write a column for a publication... 

[Ted Fancher]

Ted. first let me thank you for your work at the Nat's. although a had a rough Nat's getting the scores i got from you  on my two flights were the highlight for me.your scores made the ride home bearable. Thanks again for your friendship and great advise that you shared all those years that you competed at the Nats and i pestered you with questions.
As to Brians interpretation of BOM i could not be happier with his interpretation of BOM. I love that he will allow subassemblies that are not RAW BALSA.
I have no issues with his interpretation.
now the Devil in me would call his interpretation of BOM as the IGOR PANCHENKO carve out.(it could also be called the Orestes Hernandez BOM RULE)
since i produce composite shell models I'm 100% in agreement of his ruling.
Jose Modesto

Jose,

If I gave you good numbers it was solely because I believed you earned them, Jose.  As you can imagine, after a week of watching the tricks and doing my best to pull appropriate numbers I'm sure you can understand that my old timer's memory is pretty much an empty vessel now!  I, too , have enjoyed our occasional  personal and more often long distance exchanges of opinions and advice.  I also applaud and commend you on your development of composite structures while still recognizing the challenges such technology has placed on what many (yes, yours truly included) consider the heart and soul of our event.

I'm sure you're aware that my rather vocal exasperation with this ongoing issue is primarily the result of my long term relationship with the event and my respect for what our champions have needed to accomplish in order to win those championships.  I will remain happy with the direction of the event (in the US) as long as we continue to require that those whose names will be etched on the Walker Cup remain required to accomplish those same challenges in the same manner.  Thus, my willingness to shake hands and fly under the principles that have existed for so many decades.  Life is too short to besmirch our challenges with endless  dotted i's and crossed t's.  

Let's just agree that these are the rules and we must each be willing to sign our names to the entry blank saying we complied with the rules.

Then we go and fly.  Life is too short to waste on defining the undefinable.

Ted

[Randy Cuberly]

Does this mean that I can or can not use sheeted foam wing halves from Bob Hunt?

This is not a retorical question.  I have never understood this situation and never really recieved a straight answer to the question.

Randy Cuberly

Well, I still didn't get a straight answer to my question.  I currently own several of these sheeted wing halves...they were expensive and are beautiful.  I would like to get a straight answer from those that know.  I don't want to cheat but this situation is beginning to really irk me.  I purchased these long a go when it was considered no problem and now I keep hearing hints that they suddenly have been considered illegal for BOM...can someone please give me an answer!

Randy Cuberly

[Derek Barry]

Well, I still didn't get a straight answer to my question.  I currently own several of these sheeted wing halves...they were expensive and are beautiful.  I would like to get a straight answer from those that know.  I don't want to cheat but this situation is beginning to really irk me.  I purchased these long a go when it was considered no problem and now I keep hearing hints that they suddenly have been considered illegal for BOM...can someone please give me an answer!

Randy Cuberly

Sheeted foam wings are perfectly legal. I used one at the Nats (actually won a concours trophy with it) and it had "Bob Hunt Wing" Painted on it. I had to put the controls in, make the flaps, make and apply the wing tips and leadout guide, oh, and one small other thing....Build and finish the rest of the freaking airplane!!!

I can still look someone in the eye and say "Yes, I did build my airplane."

Derek

[jose modesto]

Doug. I specifically stated that the two raw balsa models were NOT BOM COMPLIANT. Read my post.
The models were to show Bill R. That his concerns about gel coat,fiberglass outer surfaces could be addressed and the ARC type models could be produced to his BOM interpretation. Don't forget that ARC were approved for competition by the AMA. 2005 to 2010
What Brian has further interpreted for BOM, to include different manufacturing methods that may have a finish as part of that process.
I also posted a method of sheeting foam wings with molded shells that through the manufacturing method a smooth outer surface is achieved. Since the builder has to sheet the foam wing in my opinion this method would be approved for appearance points based on Brian ruling for his contest. This method is more work than purchasing sheeted foam wing panels were the sheeting is done by others.
 This interpretation of BOM will allow different manufacturing methods,were Bill R would have eliminated this method from receiving appearance points and only allowed a raw balsa exterior surfaces.
Wait until the laser printing comes into stunt, not just to make VG but entire models. Progress moves on,stunt wants to hide in the 1950's
Jose Modesto 

[Doug Moon]

Doug. I specifically stated that the two raw balsa models were NOT BOM COMPLIANT. Read my post.
The models were to show Bill R. That his concerns about gel coat,fiberglass outer surfaces could be addressed and the ARC type models could be produced to his BOM interpretation. Don't forget that ARC were approved for competition by the AMA. 2005 to 2010
What Brian has further interpreted for BOM, to include different manufacturing methods that may have a finish as part of that process.
I also posted a method of sheeting foam wings with molded shells that through the manufacturing method a smooth outer surface is achieved. Since the builder has to sheet the foam wing in my opinion this method would be approved for appearance points based on Brian ruling for his contest. This method is more work than purchasing sheeted foam wing panels were the sheeting is done by others.
 This interpretation of BOM will allow different manufacturing methods,were Bill R would have eliminated this method from receiving appearance points and only allowed a raw balsa exterior surfaces.
Wait until the laser printing comes into stunt, not just to make VG but entire models. Progress moves on,stunt wants to hide in the 1950's
Jose Modesto 

Jose, 

I didnt say you said it was BOM legal. I just said for mself i couldnt call the BOM legal if it were mine.  You should read muy post, here I will just quote it " But if that were my model there is no way in hell I could ever say I built that model."

Why do you keep trying to attach Bill to everything negative about the Yatsenko models?

If you buy/build your 3d printer and use it and teh software to create your parts for your model more power to you!!  I saw the lastest MA and and I am thinking the same thing.  But buying a completed mdel from someobe elses printer with someone elses work... you know the drill.  Just build YOUR plane in whatever fashion YOU want and all is good.  Whats so hard about that?

[Brian Massey]

Well, I still didn't get a straight answer to my question.  I currently own several of these sheeted wing halves...they were expensive and are beautiful.  I would like to get a straight answer from those that know.  I don't want to cheat but this situation is beginning to really irk me.  I purchased these long a go when it was considered no problem and now I keep hearing hints that they suddenly have been considered illegal for BOM...can someone please give me an answer!

Randy Cuberly

Yes, they are legal (at least at the GSSC) as they are at the Nats.

Brian

[Mark Scarborough]

Brett lets look at the rules. (kit) A set of articles or implements used for a specific purpose. ARC would be ok under kit. (Average) This would be ever changing. ARC would be more of a average than a box of balsa. I under stand Completely prefabricated. ARC would not fall under this. (Few) should only be used if less than 4, then you would use less than -------. So if you only had to cover or paint it would be more than a few. Then if you don't meet BOM you shall be excluded from competition. Says nothing about appearance points. If it is a good rule than use all of it, if not don't use it.

Steve

THe BOM rule applies to appearance points in Pampa classes ( begginer , intermediate, advanced and expert) the BOM applies to eligability and exclusion in Junior Senior and open  so in other words, exclusion only applies at the NATS, in most contests, at least those that use appearance points, BOM applies ONLY to getting appearance points
My understanding here in the NW is that an ARC is eligable for HALF ( 0-10) points,, that Is what I was told, and as a builder, painter, I can live with that because the assembly , alignment, and finish are a substantial portion of the process,, so SOME reward is acceptable to me,,

[Mark Scarborough]

It's amazing to me that we can still get people like the Massey Brothers to run contests.  Thank you both for exposing yourselves to the predictable. 

As far as I'm concerned if somebody is willing to look me in the eye, shake my hand and say he built and finished the model he/she enters, fine crank it up and try and whup me.  If he/she is stretching the truth or just plain prevaricating it will not remain a secret for long.  We're a small community of whom the vast majority are principled individuals for whom lying to win a  five dollar plaque or trophy is simply not something they'd consider.  That's good enough for me to let them play with me.  The handful that don't and do win something once in a while will know exactly what they won.  If they can live with it so can I.

The tradition of winning stunt with what you built and finished yourself is too important to the event to let a handful destroy it by making such a big deal about them.  Let them cheat if they must but don't burn down the event to make what they do OK.

Just one man's opinion, fwiw.

Ted

bottom line ,, this is what it is,, HONOR, integrity, trust,, its a toy airplane contest and as far as I know there are no 10,000$ checks for winning,, if you can tell me you built it, unless I KNOW otherwise,, I am good with that,, I dont need pictures,, affidavits, or anything else,,

[Dan McEntee]

   This is just an evolution of the same controversy that has been around since the first model competitions. In reading the old magazines, you'll find scathing letters to the editors and to the AMA about guys building their models from KITS and not scratch building them, in order to meet the BOM! The upper level scale guys looked down on kit builders or those that used magazine published plans and not their own. It caused some to get excited when Top Flite started including preformed leading and trailing edges, and preformed fuse shells in their kits. And the last time the discussion got this heated was when MonoKote was introduced to the scene. The feeling of some was that there was NO WAY you were BOM compliant if you used that stuff! But as times changed and technology advanced, the rules changed to meet them. The key words in the rule are "average kit" and one might broaden that to mean "what is commonly and readily available" in the current market. I am all for and pro BOM, but some where down the line, it will have to be adjusted and someone will come up with the proper language that will make it clear and make everyone happy. (Well, and least make most people happy!)
    Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[55chevr]

It is simply about integrity.  Someone could pay a good builder for a scratch built plane and claim to be BOM.  The BOM rule can not be easily enforced.

Joe

[RandySmith]

Brett your 2004 info as to gel coat was valid  in a general sense. since 2005 we could order models or replacement parts with OUT any PAINT.  2010-11 when Bill R.decided to write a rule that would ban the Yatsenko  type models.

LETS  GET THIS  STRAIGHT  NOW ,  BILL RICH  NEVER  WROTE ANY RULE PERIOD, HE WAS CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE WHEN HE TOOK THE JOB AS NATS  E.D.   THE  RULES THAT WERE IN FORCE BEFORE BILL DID ANYTHING ,BANNED YAT.  , AND OTHER PREFINISHED MODELS

TO WRITE THAT BILL R  DECIDED THAT HE WOULD WRITE RULES TO BAN MODELS IS NOT TRUE


RANDY

[Brett Buck]

Why do you keep trying to attach Bill to everything negative about the Yatsenko models?

   Because claiming persecution works a lot better if you can find a boogeyman to blame for it. It's the same old tired story that has been going on in various forms for various causes for something like 30 years. Everybody is against me, look, that guy said something I didn't like, look, that guy kept me off the FAI team, look, that guy's in an elitist, look, that guy is keeping you from flying ARFs, etc.

     Much easier to rally people to your side when you can define someone as the enemy. Doesn't really matter who, or exactly what they did, as long as you can make a plausible argument that you are a downtrodden underdog instead of one of those terrible successful people.

   Brett

[Eric Viglione]

Thanks Randy! +1 !!

Really need to knock off the revisionist history Jose. No one who was actually there is buying it. This is too small a community to get away with such blatant attempts at misinformation.

EricV

LETS  GET THIS  STRAIGHT  NOW  BILL RICH  NEVER  WROTE ANY RULE PERIOD, HE WAS CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE WHEN HE TOOK THE JOB AS NATS  E.D.   THE  RULES THAT WERE IN FORCE BEFORE BILL DID ANYTHING BANNED YAT.  , AND OTHER PREFINISHED MODELS

TO WRITE THAT BILL R  DECIDED THAT HE WOULD WRITE RULES TO BAN MODELS IS NOT TRUE


RANDY

[jose modesto]

 Gentlemen this conversation should be moved to debate zone.while leaving Brien's original posting.
Brian's posting should stand alone.
I applaud his willingness to allow different manufacturing methods as long as the builder has accomplished "SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT of critical construction and finish."
This interpretation and understanding is far more important at this time than who did what to whom a couple of years ago.
Brian's definition for his contest is revolutionary. Brian allows prefabrication, were and exterior surface can be other than raw balsa,as part of the manufacturing process and be eligible, for appearance points as a BOM model. Of course you must comply with significant amount of critical construction and finish.
BRAVO
Brian your courage in first being a CD and second,for addressing this subject(BOM) in an enlightening way Is refreshing. Thank You.
Jose Modesto

[Steve Fitton]

Jose, you totally need to take Jay Carney's job...

[phil c]

Gonna stir the pot here a bit...

"...and require only a few minutes of unskilled effort for their completion...."

-How many ARFs out there can be "completed" in "just a few minutes"?   

Have to agree with Sean.  I have a couple of Brodak ARF's in the basement.  It would take at least 3-4 hours to fix them and put them together.  Hardly "a few minutes" unless you consider 2-300 of something "a few".

[RandySmith]

Have to agree with Sean.  I have a couple of Brodak ARF's in the basement.  It would take at least 3-4 hours to fix them and put them together.  Hardly "a few minutes" unless you consider 2-300 of something "a few".

The  few min rule is not current, it was dumped.

Randy

[Randy Cuberly]

Sheeted foam wings are perfectly legal. I used one at the Nats (actually won a concours trophy with it) and it had "Bob Hunt Wing" Painted on it. I had to put the controls in, make the flaps, make and apply the wing tips and leadout guide, oh, and one small other thing....Build and finish the rest of the freaking airplane!!!

I can still look someone in the eye and say "Yes, I did build my airplane."

Derek

Thanks Derek.  Nice to get a straight answer and I appreciate it very much. 

Randy Cuberly

[Tom Niebuhr]

Thank you Brian for defining how you will handle this. I agree completely.

Ted has nailed my feeling. Appearance and BOM are a major part of our event, and separates stunt from all the others. This gives us skills in blue print reading, construction and finishing that benefits you for a life time.  There will always be a lot of dependence on honesty. If the person is lying it is between him and the guy upstairs, and other competitors to point that out. Eventually every one will get their comeuppance.

I am including some pictures of my new project. It will be electric semi-scale Korean era jet with retracts. I can use a laser but this is a one of a kind  project so I am hand cutting everything using my computer layouts.

In the past when applicable I have cut my own wing cores, but I have lost the local supplier of foam, and Bob Hunt will cut the wing core for me. He also does a much better job. I will skin the wings myself. I dare anyone to say that I did not build this airplane.

[Avaiojet]

Tom,

That's shaping up nicely. Kudos!  

Do I see Mig-3 influence? Stringers and no wing attachment yet? I would like to think so.  

That is an absolute unusual project and deserves placement in a Build Thread.

I hope there will be progress photos?

Nice work!!

Charles

[Tom Niebuhr]

Charles,
No Mig influence.

[Avaiojet]

Charles,
No Mig influence.

Tom,

I see. What prompted you to use stringers?

Those are stringers?

Charles