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.
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.
Has anyone ever made a gel coat model.
Kit?
Some R/C guys call ARF's "Kits." LL~ LL~ LL~ They even have "Builds." LL~ LL~ LL~
I don't see any "Kits" in those photos.
I see assembled "Parts." ;D
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.
Even Charles gets it. LOL LL~ LL~ LL~
Derek
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
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 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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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!Yes, they are legal (at least at the GSSC) as they are at the Nats.
Randy Cuberly
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 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
Steve
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.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,,
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
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.
Why do you keep trying to attach Bill to everything negative about the Yatsenko 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
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".
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
Charles,
No Mig influence.
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.
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. ;D 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
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
. . . 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.
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!
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
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
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
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.
Brian. posted are two photos of a Yatsenko Yak Kit that fits the current BOM being used at the GSSC contest????????
Jose Modesto
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.
Steve it's funny but I would also say no to BOM for the Yak kits as the wings are in one piece.
What if the wing are in separate shells,then we can have a conversation.
These shells can also be purchased with OUT any color applied to exterior surfaces.
Jose Modesto
I don't care for this system at all.
If I used component parts, I will still put in six to eight months for my finish. My reward for a mirror finish with mega cockpit detail, perfect cowl and flap fairing fits, panel lines and air-brush detail is a max 15 points?
Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
Bought-Borrowed-Stolen 0 points
Someone said define "build." That will NEVER happen.
% of build scale. No way. The counsel who determines that will be ridiculed by the detractors as the new "sekrit kabul." That job wouldn't be worth the pay at 2x the rate.
I used to really get up about this for many years. Then it dawned on me....the BOM is not in place for me to try to figure out if someone else did or did not build their plane. The rule is in place to tell ME to build MY plane if I want to enter 322. That's it. I dint need someone else to define what building is. I agree it's a loose rule. But that's is also the part of beauty of it.
Did I build my model? I can always answer yes.
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.
First off this discussion is not about what seems fair to me. It is about what the rule states.
The rule is posted below. It addresses your above situation. The rule states you must apply the covering where used.
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.
Does this address your question?
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.
Does this address your question?
Picture of my next model.(http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=32981.0;attach=135686;image)
Here is my interpretation and its shorter. The problem is not the rule its the people trying to get around it.One COULD read that to mean you better make your own control system hardware, fuel tanks, canopies and wheels....just sayin........congrats to those who try to be more specific.
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. with “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model from start to finish. No parts from commercially available RTF or ARF's may be used. 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.
The super short version=Build your own model.Picture of my next model.(http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=32981.0;attach=135686;image)
If anyone wants to carry this to extremes about tanks, props, engines, spinners, landing gear, etc. they do not understand the event and will contribute to its demise.
This looks like the Italian racer that the Tucker Special used for design cues.
I wonder if Bobby Tucker is still alive.
Please high jack the thread as I'm getting fed up with the BOM. It has been abused ever since I started competition.I'm with you John; how's the weather in Kansas?
Right now cold and cloudy. Was going out to watch Dave fly but have a limit on what I can do after treatments.I'm waiting for the dew to get off the grass so I can go mow and edge. Should be in the low/mid 80's today.