I'm going to offer some more input here that hopefully helps give some ideas toward a future BOM rule decision, if there ever is one. My input is only intended to be some suggested points on trying to keep any potential finalized rule as simple as possible. It is also with the assumption that a BOM rule, using the term Builder, will even exist after all of this.
(First, I would agree and also suggest that to accommodate those that have been building new models under the 2010 rule, that for 2011 those same previous rules should be used. This would also allow time for a proper and clear minded decision on whatever the new rule may or may not be.)
With my own deep respect and admiration of what I will call our "Forefathers of Stunt" my thoughts and suggestions are largely a desire to respect, honor and maintain the history of the Stunt event and to those builders and fliers. These guys and the models they built were idolized by many of us, and the reason we became interested in the first place. Personally, I would hate to see the art of truly building and finishing a flying model airplane lost to generations.
Call me old fashioned, but too many good things in our world have been lost to nothing more than whining and foot stomping. That general attitude has become a cancer to America. It needs to stop, it really needs to stop. What makes me so upset about this entire BOM “debate” is that it has become just another example of just that, whining and foot stomping to get ones way.
Obviously many things have evolved and changed in the sport of Control Line competition, but I feel like most of it can be incorporated into an updated rule while maintaining the original intent and integrity of BUILDER of Model if people would just settle down.
I feel the definitions of the historical and common terms that have been tossed around throughout the so-called BOM "debate" are all obvious and known. This is at least to everyone involved except those who choose to play dumb and continue this childish arguing.
Now, on with some ideas. For our purpose here, "construct" means to build, as in BUILDER of model. It does not mean to manufacture like some are trying to say. ARF's, ARC's, most composites and the like are all to some level pre-constructed. This means portions of the airframe have been pre-built. This also means that those same portions were NOT BUILT by the flier, so they would not be considered BOM compliant.
ARF, ARC, pre-covered or not, it does not matter, portions of the models airframe have been PRE-BUILT by someone other than the flier.
In my opinion I feel that the term "Average Kit" has become obsolete and I feel that wording should be taken out altogether. I also say that because these days it just opens up room for argument with the way "kits" have evolved. Taking out that one single term would help things a LOT. There is no longer such a thing as an "Average Kit". I wouldn't even use the word "kit" anywhere, it just opens up things for argument. I also strongly suggest not using any wording that refers to how much time is spent on a model or any part of it. No reason to even mention that, everyone builds at a different rate anyway.
If and when the dust ever settles, any finalized BOM rule needs to refer to the airframe itself. That really is the meat of the whole issue.
"Airframe" can be described as the fuselage(s), wing(s), all flying surfaces, and whatever covering and/or finish is used. If there are composite airframe components used, like those described above and that form any exterior surface of the model, they would have to be molded and/or formed by the flier. Pre-manufactured foam wing cores could be used because they do not directly form the finished exterior surface of the model. (Pre-sheeted, unfinished, foam wing sections could be “Grandfathered” in only on the pretense that they have already been allowed for years.)
In an attempt to clarify, when I mention “composite” I'm primarily talking about molded structures forming any exterior portion of the models airframe that could potentially be used in an unfinished (uncovered or unpainted) state. The skin of a fuselage or wing would be examples of that and also to include any internal structure used within them. I'm not saying those forms of construction or designs couldn't be used, it's just they would just have to be created from the get-go by the flier.
With “composite” I don't mean the purchase and use of coverings such as silkspan, polyspan, monokote or fiberglass etc., that's going over any kind of structure. Any purchased materials used, or construction tasks performed to do with the “Airframe”, would have to be done by the flier who would also be the builder. Performing these tasks would be defining BUILDER OF MODEL in a proper sense.
So no, like some of these guys are exaggerating, they wouldn't have to “grow their own balsa trees” or “make their own covering”.
Additional items and components such as engines and exhausts, control systems, landing gear, wheels and wheelpants, props and spinners, covering and/or paint and hardware items can be termed "Accessories". These are items that can be purchased and used, but have to be installed and/or applied by the flier.
In the end there would only be two things to look at, "Airframe" and "Accessories". Very easy understand, and also easy to define.
Bottom line, people need to read and remember the name of the rule. BUILDER OF MODEL. That term is not hard to figure out, it is simple and easily defined.
People and potential competitors are utterly sick of this “debate” and it’s going to have an even more negative effect if things aren’t resolved soon.
If an agreement can't be reached that maintains true BUILDER requirements at least similar to what I've described above, I would have to agree that the rule just be omitted altogether. That would be a terribly sad day however, and also be a large slap in the face of the modeling history we've created. But people don't seem to care much about history or respect anymore these days. I'm glad I'm not one of them.
Happy Building,
Wayne
Topic: BOM change (Read 19622 times)
