stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: RC Storick on April 12, 2011, 10:31:51 AM
-
Because the Contest Board Procedures were not followed when the BOM rule was changed for the 2005 rulebook, the AMA has changed the BOM rule to the way it appeared prior to that 2005 rulebook. The specific references to the interpretation for CL Precision Aerobatics have been removed.
This can be seen on page 10 on the AMA website at
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2011-2012General3.pdf
This is not a joke. It is real.
If you have constructive comments, try sharing them with your District representative on the Aerobatics Contest Board.
Keith Trostle
Chairman
Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board
http://www.livecountdown.com/countdownclock/countdown.aspx?id=29258
Current Rule
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.
My wording
6. Builder of Model: The CD shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has completely “constructed‟ the model(s) he or she uses in competition. “Constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model starting with the construction of the airframe ,covering and finish. Models which are completely prefabricated and require only some assembly and the use of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition. Materials and design for the aircraft may be obtained from any source, including kits. In the case of rubber-powered models (excluding Indoor duration models), commercially available balsa, plastic, and hardwood propellers may be used.The builder-of-the-model rule applies to every AMA event unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event.
There has been may proposals in the past that have failed and I just figured out why. When you write a BOM proposal keep in mind you are not only writing it for CLPA you are writing it for all facet's of this hobby that uses the BOM.
-
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2011-2012General3.pdf
' “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.'
I would have thought that there'd be quite a gap between "average kit" and "prefabricated and require only a few minutes of unskilled effort"
Almost any model aircraft takes more than a few minutes of unskilled effort to put together. I suppose the covering comes on top of the "more than a few minutes"?
-
Terrific......
Now, let's define the "average kit".
-
Terrific......
Now, let's define the "average kit".
Something that takes more than a few minutes of unskilled effort to put together, as it says in the next sentence?
-
this is so easy. the first sentence says it all..The CD shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has completely constructed the model(s) he uses in competition it doesn't say you have to grow trees make covering other sort of nonsense that will be dreamed up
-
When the term "average kit" was first used for defining BOM, it was probably a "print-wood" kit. The "average kit", in the model flying world today, is probably an ARF. If we are going to keep BOM, then something like Sparky's definition needs to be implemented. Otherwise, throw it out; make PA a complete flying event and keep BOM for the scale folks. S?P
-
When the term "average kit" was first used for defining BOM, it was probably a "print-wood" kit. The "average kit", in the model flying world today, is probably an ARF. If we are going to keep BOM, then something like Sparky's definition needs to be implemented. Otherwise, throw it out; make PA a complete flying event and keep BOM for the scale folks. S?
Fred, and others
that statement is the beauty of how it is written, it is fluid as written to keep up with status quo of todays kits. The big issue with all this is that people dont trust people. WE need to exhibit integrity, and honesty. for craps sake, its a damn hobby, not a lively hood. If you compete against me and cheat, thats YOUR loss, its not like it takes the mustard off my hotdogs or anything. Yeah I like to compete in a fair playing feild, who doesnt. but you cannot legislate morality, its been tried, but it doesnt work. Let consience be your guide. If you think you built it and it meets BOM, then so be it.
-
Yup....with 4 or 6 outfits manufacturing ARFs or ARCs in fairly substantial quantities, I would wager that the "average kit" is NOT a pile of balsa, or even a pile of laser cut balsa pieces...
That was the flaw in 2005.....and still needs addressing....
-
Yup....with 4 or 6 outfits manufacturing ARFs or ARCs in fairly substantial quantities, I would wager that the "average kit" is NOT a pile of balsa, or even a pile of laser cut balsa pieces...
That was the flaw in 2005.....and still needs addressing....
It will be! There is no avarage kit. So we will have to lay it out.
-
Yup....with 4 or 6 outfits manufacturing ARFs or ARCs in fairly substantial quantities, I would wager that the "average kit" is NOT a pile of balsa, or even a pile of laser cut balsa pieces...
That was the flaw in 2005.....and still needs addressing....
No, the flaw was the AMA being afraid of a tiny bunch of loudmouths in 2005 and actually paying attention to them. ARFS and ARCS *are not kits* and do not figure into this discussion.
ARF and the "loophole" ARCs/uncovered ARFs that a few created and then commercially exploited were handled perfectly well by the rules before 2005 (for the previous 30 YEARS) and there was no need to change anything. They have NO PLACE flying for national championships. So, finally, someone noticed that the loathsome "interpretation" from 2005 was invalid, as we had claimed from the instant we heard about it.
I would also note that the continual, endless, bleating about "accessibility" falls apart when you see that it only matters at the Nationals. You guys have been using this bogus populist approach only because you know if you actually said it was all about selling tiny numbers of extremely expensive models to those with the money to do it for use in one contest a year NO ONE WOULD CARE.
The bottom line - you want to compete with the big boys, *build your own damn airplane*.
Brett
-
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2011-2012General3.pdf
Almost any model aircraft takes more than a few minutes of unskilled effort to put together. I suppose the covering comes on top of the "more than a few minutes"?
The covering amounts to the easiest part of building. Not only that, but nearly the coup de gras in my mind! And just when you think the playing field becomes level....they change the rules. Change....gotta love that word in the PC world we live in today. Making rules and changing rules creates more jobs, and keeps out the criminal element. Anybody can fly a C/L plane, but you hafta be a lifer to build a C/L plane that actually flies well without flying apart. At least that's what I told my 10 yr old daughter as we built her stuntin .19 Ringmaster. LL~
-
I like what Mark says! Yes, I build all my own, from the ground up. If someone comes to a contest with an obviously RTF (or nearly so), and masquerades as BOM, I will sit back and enjoy the sarcasm that the others should (and will) heap upon that person. I might even join in!
Floyd
-
I like what Mark says! Yes, I build all my own, from the ground up. If someone comes to a contest with an obviously RTF (or nearly so), and masquerades as BOM, I will sit back and enjoy the sarcasm that the others should (and will) heap upon that person. I might even join in!
Floyd
What if they snatch the factory covering off and put their own on? Or...just cover over it? :!
-
Maybe an x-ray requirement is necessary to see inside and check each part for it's carbon signature! LL~
-
>>WE need to exhibit integrity, and honesty. for craps sake, its a damn hobby, not a lively hood<<
Well, and there's the rub. If I were manufacturing completed planes, ARCs, ARFS or even completed components such as sheeted and finished wings with the purpose of selling them to competitors, I would certainly be arguing vociferously to have them seen as legal in the event. Why not? I have a vested interest in their legality. If they are ruled as illegal, I lose sales. But as Brett says, we are talking about one contest; the National Championships. I can buy an ARF, whether a high end unit or a mass produced one, and go to my local contest and fly it. No problem, I just don't get the appearance points bonus. BFD. But for me to argue endlessly about making such things legal for the Nats, I'd have to have a vested interest.
And I can't see how limiting such things from competition at the Nats is going to have any effect at all in participation at the local level. Does some guy (or kid for that matter) that just wants to check out CL and maybe try a local contest going to give a rip about what's legal at the National Championships?
-
Does some guy (or kid for that matter) that just wants to check out CL and maybe try a local contest going to give a rip about what's legal at the National Championships?
Did Tiger Woods want to be in the PGA? H^^
-
If I were CD concerned about BOM, I would post a legible copy of the rule, and have each flier sign a sheet answering the question "Did you build your model?" _____Yes or ______No. I would accept the flier's opinion and that would be that. I think a flier knowingly lying would be very rare. Is an $8 plaque worth being known among the modeling community as a cheat and liar?
-
Brett: Have you been to a hobby shop in the past 10 years? These
days in the world of model airplanes an ARF/ARC IS the average kit.
An ARF/ARC is a kit. It is different than what was a kit 30+ years ago,
but it is a kit.
I agree with Fred, throw it out. I could care less if the guy next to me,
before me, behind me, whatever built his plane or not. I flat out don't
give a crap. I just want to do my best to try to outfly him/her. I don't
care if he thinks my plane looks great or not. I don't care if his/her
plane looks great or not. I don't care if he/she built, bought, stole, or
abracadabred their plane. Yes, I do enjoy checking out all the great looking
planes at the Nats, VSC, etc. And, BOM or not, there will always be
beautiful planes at these contests.
Those who enjoy building or designing and building their own planes always
will and having BOM or not having a BOM rule will not take that pleasure
away from them. I enjoy building (hate finishing) and probably always will,
so BOM or no BOM I will continue to build.
Later, Steve
-
Its hard for this thread NOT to turn into another bom argument.
However : To crown the national Champion; You need to be all things to all men - before and after. John Stiles mentioned Golf about Tiger woods - Look at all the traditions of Augusta Golf :
Traditional Sunday Pin locations
Butlers Cabin.
Rays creek
Magnolia Lane
What the caddies have to wear
The Green jacket.
These are all traditions - they help keep the integrity of the event - the mystique of that ONE special event - No different to wimbledon tennis having to wear White.
There was no outrage over insisting that everyone do these thins for all tournaments, you dont wear white at every tennis event- you dont have a green jacket for every golf win - it would lessen the importance of that one event.
Why cant people understand the traditions of the National Championship - and whats involved in crowning someone a NATS winner.
To quote Brett : you want to compete with the big boys, *build your own damn airplane*
Its for only one event - one Special event dont try to demean or water it down - keep the tradition alive.
-------
I will sight an example of what can occur when people make stupid choices in regards to Stunt events :
We have a flying contest locally that has/had alot of history behind it - The trophy was 1st presented in 1947 - so for 64 years its been presented as one of the premier stunt events in our calender. Reading down the list of Names is a who's who of Flying locally. Everyone had their name plaque engraved on the base- and the base had grown and grown and grown. It has always been a Stunt event - you fly the pattern as is the modern interpretation of it as the times dictate, with modern equipment ect.
I have won it a few times in the past and have been proud to have my name engraved along side those greats.
The idiots running the club decided to change the event to a Vintage stunt event only - Changing it from Open to OTS - When I enquired as to why - the reasoning was " Well in the late 40's early 50's we didnt fly the modern pattern with modern planes we flew vintage planes and a Vintage pattern.. HB~>
My logic was lost on them - In Early 40's / 50's they flew what was considered MODERN...... The event has always been about what is here and now.
I no longer fly in the event because its lost its meaning - the guys in the 70's who flew and won with modern pattern and modern designs, and the 80's and 90's and 2000's all did so with modern power and modern interpreation of the pattern. So for the last 40 years....... yet we go back in time and fly it as presented when it was 1st conceived and try to recreate that with some flawed logic about - " We so and so in 1948 flew this design to this pattern" Its pointless and has now lessened the event - watered down the history.....
RUINED IT.. I will not fly in that contest now as a result of these actions...
My point is : You dont want to mess with History, dont lessen the acheivements of those before you - dont destroy tradition, and dont let small minded people who dont know what the essence of the event - Control the destiny of the event.
-
Brett, Mark and Randy have collectively nailed it all right on the head. Also, as Sparky reminds everyone, "average kit" is no longer a useful or applicable term where BOM is being discussed. This really is such an easy topic to resolve that it is pathetic and embarrassing that it's gone on for so long.
The "B" in BOM means BUILD. There is a significant difference between building and assembling.
ARC's, ARF's and Composite models are largely assembled by the owner, arriving at your doorstep in varying stages of pre-assembly and sold with the intention of requiring a lot less actual construction from start to finish. Most of them have 50% or more of the construction done when you open the box. That is where the terms for those models comes from.
A Kit or even a scratchbuilt model are a lot alike. They each require complete construction from the very beginning, including covering and all finishing as necessary. These models require the definition of BUILDING by the owner. Everyone knows these things, those who continue to argue it need to quit being a bunch of babies and playing dumb.
-
Lets use this? This way there is nothing to guess.
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. “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model starting with the construction of the airframe ,covering and finish. Models which are completely prefabricated and require only some assembly and the use 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.
-
Its hard for this thread NOT to turn into another bom argument.
To quote Brett : you want to compete with the big boys, *build your own damn airplane*
That's what it boils down to....the "BIG BOYS" and exclusive clique that you can't belong to without you were born there. Anybody else is a newby....a wanna-be....like the evolution of the C/L kits available today. So if you want to be a big boy you hafta cut down your own trees like they did, and only use what they say you can use....or you won't cut the mustard. Well, I don't golf, and I don't race nascars and I don't belong to a clique or a fraternity of greek letters, in order to be a C/L modeler. So you won't see me being laughed down at any "Big Boy" events, thank you very much. But I'm as good as I want to be, and that's what matters to me.....not looking down my nose at wannabes. 8)
-
That's what it boils down to....the "BIG BOYS" and exclusive clique that you can't belong to without you were born there. Anybody else is a newby....a wanna-be....like the evolution of the C/L kits available today. So if you want to be a big boy you hafta cut down your own trees like they did, and only use what they say you can use....or you won't cut the mustard. Well, I don't golf, and I don't race nascars and I don't belong to a clique or a fraternity of greek letters, in order to be a C/L modeler. So you won't see me being laughed down at any "Big Boy" events, thank you very much. But I'm as good as I want to be, and that's what matters to me.....not looking down my nose at wannabes. 8)
John, your post makes no sense. None of todays top modelers were "born" into anything. And nobody said you have to cut down your own trees either. Every last one of the top pilots got there the same way. Practice practice practice, and that's it! But YES, to be a "BIG BOY" at the NATS does require that you build your own model, just like they did, and just like the pilots that came before them, ect. It's not an exclusive clique. Anyone that puts in the time and effort is a welcome member. I don't feel like I've ever been looked down upon by any of them. If you don't want to be one of them, fine. No reason to bag their accomplishments though.
-
Someone mentioned Golf about Tiger woods - :
My name isn't someone.....it's John, or Stiles, or Mr. Stiles.
-
Probably some of use would loose interest with out the BOM rule.
I know I would. Next on the list is Speed or Scale.
If you can not meet the requirement of the BOM then learn how to build.
When the hobby/sport was much bigger than today I think all events required BOM. It worked.
We did cheat in combat and if someone ran out of airplanes others would loan them airplanes and
this is a disadvantage for the borrower, flying and airplane for the first time and also in a match.
If it was left up to me ALL events at all contest including R/C would be BOM.
No BOM would elevate us to the level of' playing with toys'.
David
out grew toys at age 6
-
John, your post makes no sense. None of todays top modelers were "born" into anything.
Maybe not, but here's something you can understand: Role models lead by example, not attitudes. When you go around puffing yourself up as a "TOP" anything, it puts everyone watching your example at a somewhat mental dis-advantage. Mentors are what keeps hobbies like this alive, not egos. If you actually want to perpetuate the sport, you do good to have humility, and encourage anything or anyone trying to be a part of the bigger picture. The young folks have a very hard road ahead of them, now.....and as the world evolves, so will C/L...or it will disappear completely. I've noticed attitudes from day one that I joined this site.....and personally, it bothers me, except that I also notice those who encourage....and it is they that keep me coming back. C/L is as much about flying as it is about building....some folks are not able to build their own planes.....is it the presumption that if you are handi-capped, you cannot compete in BOM? I don't think anybody has that opinion. I just believe with all my heart that this hobby got to 2011 because we go out of our way to recruit new people.
-
Well I am willing to help anyone learn to build and fly and hopfully do a good enough job as a teacher that they do
better than I.
John
Your not very far North of me if you need some help holler. The work bench will be empty and available soon. #^
David
-
Well I am willing to help anyone learn to build and fly and hopfully do a good enough job as a teacher that they do
better than I.
John
Your not very far North of me if you need some help holler. The work bench will be empty and available soon. #^
David
Don't sweat me, WD....I can scrape by....my handicap is more prohibitive of my ability to fly. I have a gizmo that helps me build fairly straight planes, but I know a bunch of vets who never will be able to build a plane. They are hyper sensitive about their condition, and need a whale of a lot of encouragement. I guess I'm super-sensitive. P/S I'd never say to one of them: You can't compete in this event because you didn't build your own plane.
-
Maybe not, but here's something you can understand: Role models lead by example, not attitudes. When you go around puffing yourself up as a "TOP" anything, it puts everyone watching your example at a somewhat mental dis-advantage. Mentors are what keeps hobbies like this alive, not egos. If you actually want to perpetuate the sport, you do good to have humility, and encourage anything or anyone trying to be a part of the bigger picture. The young folks have a very hard road ahead of them, now.....and as the world evolves, so will C/L...or it will disappear completely. I've noticed attitudes from day one that I joined this site.....and personally, it bothers me, except that I also notice those who encourage....and it is they that keep me coming back. C/L is as much about flying as it is about building....some folks are not able to build their own planes.....is it the presumption that if you are handi-capped, you cannot compete in BOM? I don't think anybody has that opinion. I just believe with all my heart that this hobby got to 2011 because we go out of our way to recruit new people.
OK, I agree with some of that. I just don't see anyone puffing themselves up. I do see serious frustration going on with some pilots and it's perfectly understandable with all this hubbub about the BOM. Some of the best modelers in the world show up to the same contests I do. In fact, I'm gong to name drop here, David Fitzgerald is at most of them. You will never meet a more humble champion in you life. He is the epitome of helpful and friendly to ALL modelers. If he's not a role model, I don't know who would be. And he's just one of several I could name. There might be a couple of folks here that rub you the wrong way, but those types are the exception, not the rule.
Also, I'm not sure about your handicapped comment. Do mean physically disabled or just not in-the-know? Because if it's the latter, that can be remedied by instruction and yes, I would expect someone to learn it before entering the NATS. Sorry if that seems exclusive but I'm just not from the "we must all be equal" school of thought.
-
Don't sweat me, WD....I can scrape by....my handicap is more prohibitive of my ability to fly. I have a gizmo that helps me build fairly straight planes, but I know a bunch of vets who never will be able to build a plane. They are hyper sensitive about their condition, and need a whale of a lot of encouragement. I guess I'm super-sensitive. P/S I'd never say to one of them: You can't compete in this event because you didn't build your own plane.
In fact, here's the Ringmaster Flashback, the first one of it's kind ever built....I posted a picture here and had 113 views and not a single comment. I built this plane from scratch with nothing except a plan sent to me by Larry Marx.
-
Sorry John - time to get real and not tote around phrases....
" When you go around puffing yourself up as a "TOP" anything, it puts everyone watching your example at a somewhat mental dis-advantage "....................................
"not looking down my nose at wannabes"
"I've noticed attitudes from day one that I joined this site.....and personally, it bothers me"
"exclusive clique that you can't belong to"
I'm not going to put myself in the Catagory of "top anything" but I do fly open and I do plan to make (or try make) Top20 : I don't do any of the above, and I don't know or nor can I site any "top 20" flier to have done the above, its a pitty you feel that way. I've come from the bottom and gotten further up the ladder with hard work, determination and practice.
I can tell you for a FACT : I emailed Dave Fitzgerald about some advice just after the worlds and I got a very detailed reply, very prompt. I'm certainly not in the mix of top10 Worlds ( Did place inside top 50 )
Clint Ormosen Said " I'm gong to name drop here, David Fitzgerald is at most of them. You will never meet a more humble champion in you life. He is the epitome of helpful and friendly to ALL modelers. If he's not a role model, I don't know who would be. "
I can give you countless examples of Conversations with other top american fliers I've had where I have requested information and have NEVER felt that I was being laughed nor looked down upon. Heck when I was in the initial phase of trying to replicate the enormous feat of Paul walker and the B17 project, I asked several questions of Paul, Howard Rush, Brett buck, all whom were involved in the project. Never ONCE did any of them say " Kid you dont work for Boeing, your not a Rocket scientist, your not 10 times Nats Champion - dont bite off more than you can chew... dont bother. " I did however get great advice, lots of pointers and most of all ENCOURAGEMENT. Without any of their input would the project have been a success.
I do however think that saying things like "When you go around puffing yourself up" implies something that is not true.
People whom have won, have also won the right to walk and talk proud.
-
Sorry John - time to get real and not tote around phrases....
" When you go around puffing yourself up as a "TOP" anything, it puts everyone watching your example at a somewhat mental dis-advantage "....................................
"not looking down my nose at wannabes"
"I've noticed attitudes from day one that I joined this site.....and personally, it bothers me"
"exclusive clique that you can't belong to"
Can I have your autograph?
I'm not going to put myself in the Catagory of "top anything" but I do fly open and I do plan to make (or try make) Top20 : I don't do any of the above, and I don't know or nor can I site any "top 20" flier to have done the above, its a pitty you feel that way. I've come from the bottom and gotten further up the ladder with hard work, determination and practice.
I can tell you for a FACT : I emailed Dave Fitzgerald about some advice just after the worlds and I got a very detailed reply, very prompt. I'm certainly not in the mix of top10 Worlds ( Did place inside top 50 )
Clint Ormosen Said " I'm gong to name drop here, David Fitzgerald is at most of them. You will never meet a more humble champion in you life. He is the epitome of helpful and friendly to ALL modelers. If he's not a role model, I don't know who would be. "
I can give you countless examples of Conversations with other top american fliers I've had where I have requested information and have NEVER felt that I was being laughed nor looked down upon. Heck when I was in the initial phase of trying to replicate the enormous feat of Paul walker and the B17 project, I asked several questions of Paul, Howard Rush, Brett buck, all whom were involved in the project. Never ONCE did any of them say " Kid you dont work for Boeing, your not a Rocket scientist, your not 10 times Nats Champion - dont bite off more than you can chew... dont bother. " I did however get great advice, lots of pointers and most of all ENCOURAGEMENT. Without any of their input would the project have been a success.
I do however think that saying things like "When you go around puffing yourself up" implies something that is not true.
People whom have won, have also won the right to walk and talk proud.
Can I have your autograph?
-
Quote John Stiles "Can I have your Autograph "
Pointless post mate..
Your comment reminds me of something :
In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it. Jon Elster calls this pattern "adaptive preference formation"
or
Sour Grapes...
-
Man, some people wouldn't be happy if you ran them over with a solid gold Ferrari. Mr. Stiles, lighten up.
-
In fact, here's the Ringmaster Flashback, the first one of it's kind ever built....I posted a picture here and had 113 views and not a single comment. I built this plane from scratch with nothing except a plan sent to me by Larry Marx.
WOW!
Getting 113 people to look at a Ring Master would seem to me darn good John. Doubt I would have had 50 veiws.
Takes time to type responses and that can = building or flying time and that's what the majority of us are ate up with. Then add circular arguments like the BOM rule.....
Guess what I am trying to say is this online stuff causes strange social ahhh... predicaments.
Sometime feel ignored, sometimes harassed, so forth. As in life some do it intentionally, some due to lack of communication skills( Guilty here)
All part of life, run with it as the B.S. don't matter. It don't mean nuthin.
Build, fly, Help who you can when you can and hope for the best from others.
So thats a good looking airplane with a different look to it.
Hows it fly?
These Vet's you speak of, Nam?
David
-
Wow Randy!
A solid Gold Ferrari would be HEAVY!
I'd be pissed if you ran me over with one. LL~
David
-
Well the NATS is going to be interesting this year. Too bad I won't be there. Clint did some name dropping and the name he dropped pointed out a broken spar to me one year. Another one came up to me at VSC this year on the Monday practice day and gave me a big hug. It was none other than Bobby Hunt. I guess I have never thought of how well know I am, even tho the demented poodle gets all the attention. Even at the NATS one year when I was getting ready for a Classic flight a young lad came up to me with a copy of Model Aviation. He was wanting my autograph. Me an older farm boy trying to have fun. Yes I made his day and signed the book/magazine. When the book about the history of model planes was being sold at VSC that year. I was a kid again running around getting autographs of some of the modelers. Another thrill was the year I tried to get each and every competitor and their plane in the digital camera.
Now that I am off track. The BOM is the lock on your house. It is only good for the honest people. H^^
-
Has anyone see a cored wing in a avevage kit. How about lost foam wing. Like it says no more Prefabrication than the amount used in a average kit. Cored I think would be prefab if you did not do it your self. I think you should be able to use these cores, but I can see now if you like something or use something that will be ok. Don't know if any body remember's that sig made a clam shell mustang, and kits with fiberglass fuse, I have on in the box. The rule did not say control line kits, just average kit. I would think than if you can show a kit of 20 years ago had something in it the would be average.
-
Re; Cored wings :
"and require only a few minutes of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded"
Even Bob Hunt couldn't do this..
-
Has anyone see a cored wing in a avevage kit. How about lost foam wing. Like it says no more Prefabrication than the amount used in a average kit. Cored I think would be prefab if you did not do it your self. I think you should be able to use these cores, but I can see now if you like something or use something that will be ok. Don't know if any body remember's that sig made a clam shell mustang, and kits with fiberglass fuse, I have on in the box. The rule did not say control line kits, just average kit. I would think than if you can show a kit of 20 years ago had something in it the would be average.
Cored wings? Sure, all the time. But not lost foam wings.
What Sig Mustang used a clamshell fuse? The KwikBuilt R/C version?
-
"conststructed" The model ( He) uses in competion, including the covering where uses. See nothing in here about females. Look like to me Jose Modesto wings would be ok takes more than min to put together, and they dont need covering. So covering is not used so thats ok. I think we need to know what Prefabrication meen, Is laser cut ok, there were no laser cutting when this rule was wrote. Like I said there were fiberglass fuse's many years and it took a lot of work to put in bulk head plywood stiffners and it took a lot of work getting it ready for paint. Just Trying to pick this a part. Like I said I think bob's should be able to be used, But can anyone tell me what average kit something like them were in. Average, just useing the words in the rules.
-
Good job Clint. Thats the one. Has anyone seen the Kit that Bob Smith, the glue guy, It did not have any balsa in it at all. Clam shell fiberglass over foam.
-
Just went and got the box top kit price 129.00, and it's says that it was the most popular airplane in the finals at the 1974 nats. Nothing new in this hobby just better.
-
SIG Mustang control line Stunt KIT
Built one of these in 1973 or so.
Foam wing with balsa sheeting. I think the sheeting was already done in the rough.
The top of the fuselage was molded ABS that cracked, sagged from paint or something went wrong.Long time ago...
Currently hanging in the shop is another SIG Mustang built by someone else and some refinishing done by me.
The fuselage top on this one is molded Nylon. Same foam wing. ABS cowl.
Now back to being run over by cars.....By my own car and I wasn't even driving that day! HB~>
Didn't hurt at all.
-
Current Rule
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.
I see people going into another emotional argument on what they feel is a legal starting point in the classes where the rule is applied. There is no need for that because the rule clearly states what is not allowed (my bolding in the quote).
- IF covering is used, it must be done by the contestant. So, if covering is not needed...
- Putting the aircraft together must take more than a few minutes. It does not say more than a few hours, days, weeks or months.
-
Because the Contest Board Procedures were not followed when the BOM rule was changed for the 2005 rulebook, the AMA has changed the BOM rule to the way it appeared prior to that 2005 rulebook. The specific references to the interpretation for CL Precision Aerobatics have been removed.
This can be seen on page 10 on the AMA website at
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2011-2012General3.pdf
This is not a joke. It is real.
If you have constructive comments, try sharing them with your District representative on the Aerobatics Contest Board.
Keith Trostle
Chairman
Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board
Whoa,,, stop right there.
I have read this whole thread and I have failed to see anyone point out the fact that out rulebook was just changed right under our noses with absolutely no publication, no explanation prior to, no voting procedure, nothing....and this is all just A OK? Are you kidding me?
Maybe the proper rule procedure wasnt followed in 2005 but once that language was put in the rule book and publicized it became the rule. Now it is just changed out of cycle. This is not a safety issue what so ever and should not need to be changed out of cycle. So what if there is a big flap on the net about it, well, there always has been.
Are you are saying the rule in place was illegally put in place and is now null and void and never should have been in there in the first place s lets just take it out? That is how it reads. Then that would lead one to believe that the contests under those rules should be null and void as well, is that what this is saying?
And if this was so easy to get done then why on earth did it take nearly 6 years to get it done?
Who is able to make sweeping changes to the rulebook with the lift of a finger without any notice to the modeling community?
I would like the details in the changes, why who when and where. I would think the rest of you would want them too.
-
There are no average kits anymore. Anything,any material,any method Can be used as long as its done by the entrant. This is not a team effort.
It can be carved,molded,machined,pressed,stamped,Glued,bolted,slot locked,paper machete as long as the flier did it. What is so hard to understand?
Here is my suggestion. Next rule cycle vote in a BOM (or not) that fits. If your elected officials don't vote the constituents voice vote them out! Too many cooks in the kitchen make bad soup.
Just remember it has worked under the BOM rule very well and we are the biggest control line event at the NATS as is.
-
It can be carved,molded,machined,pressed,stamped,Glued,bolted,slot locked,paper machete as long as the flier did it. What is so hard to understand?
I am not quite sure how the rule that you and I have quoted should be interpreted.
What you say now is not included in the text of that rule. I think I've quoted enough times the part about "a few minutes".
As you say, there are no average kits. A typical ARF "kit" is excluded, because it already has the final covering applied. A typical ARC would certainly be enough work to satisfy what the TEXT of the rule asks for. "TEXT", not an idea that I have in my head about what it should say.
I certainly agree that you need a better definition for BOM, if you want to keep BOM. This one is open to too many interpretations.
-
Am I the only one who can understand this part?
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,
You do NOT completely construct a ARC or a ARF or a RTF
Why is this so hard to get? Its kind of like the insertion of only a few minits to construct. Takes me twice as long to use the restroom. Also if you dont fly at the NATS it has ZERO effect on you.
-
There are those that hold that glueing is what makes a "kit".....
-
There are those that hold that glueing is what makes a "kit".....
I've glued my fingers together. Does that make me a kit?
-
Am I the only one who can understand this part?
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,
You do NOT completely construct a ARC or a ARF or a RTF
Why is this so hard to get? Its kind of like the insertion of only a few minits to construct. Takes me twice as long to use the restroom. Also if you dont fly at the NATS it has ZERO effect on you.
The rule does not specify the starting point for the "construction work". It just says it must take more than a few minutes of unskilled labor to get the aircraft in flying order.
The average kit does not exist, remember.
I could spend at least 10 minutes putting the wheels on an ARF. That is more than a few. The wheels come separately, perhaps because they wouldn't fit in a tidy box otherwise.
You need a better rule ;)
-
The rule does not specify the starting point for the "construction work". It just says it must take more than a few minutes of unskilled labor to get the aircraft in flying order.
The average kit does not exist, remember.
I could spend at least 10 minutes putting the wheels on an ARF. That is more than a few. The wheels come separately, perhaps because they wouldn't fit in a tidy box otherwise.
You need a better rule ;)
It's only a few people who wish to make this harder than it is that contest this wording. It's not rocket science.
-
If it is not rocket science, how come it was so hard in the thread for defining "the average kit"?
It is really simple in the rule: the "Construction" must require some skill or patience to put the aircraft together and it has to take more than a few minutes.
-
If it is not rocket science, how come it was so hard in the thread for defining "the average kit"?
It is really simple in the rule: the "Construction" must require some skill or patience to put the aircraft together and it has to take more than a few minutes.
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,
I am sure its being worked on for the rule book lawyers.
We need to strike the wording average kit cause there is none. My question is why is it so hard to understand that you must construct your own airplane? Now if anyone has some constructive wording please put it up. But questioning the wording we allready have will NOT change a thing!
-
If it is not rocket science, how come it was so hard in the thread for defining "the average kit"?
Yes, the problem may be defining an average kit, but the real problem is that everyone involved knows exactly what qualifies as an average kit but some feel they must nit pick the wording to death. Even in the R/C world, everyone knows the difference in a kit and an ARF. Pick up a Tower Hobbies mag. and it will not take long to find the kit section and the ARF section. Please people, act like you have a little common sense!
-
I believe that there has to be a better definition. "I know one when I see one" is a dog that don't hunt.
And the argument that "it only matters in one contest a year" is absurd...the BOM is a basic AMA rule that governs ALL AMA contests (unless the CD/ED specifies elsewise).
-
Hey Derek :
I know you're in the middle of making a reasonable effort to assure yourself that you completely “constructed‟ the model you will use 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. Im sure you know that commercially available balsa, plastic, and hardwood propellers may be used. Materials and design may be obtained from any source, including kits. ~>
Hows it shaping up ? In paint yet? ;D
Its so simple people..... You build it you can bring..
-
I believe that there has to be a better definition. "I know one when I see one" is a dog that don't hunt.
And the argument that "it only matters in one contest a year" is absurd...the BOM is a basic AMA rule that governs ALL AMA contests (unless the CD/ED specifies elsewise).
All contests all over the country are run under PAMPA rules and you can fly what you bring and if the have appearance points you take the hit. That's your choice.
-
Hey Derek :
I know you're in the middle of making a reasonable effort to assure yourself that you completely “constructed‟ the model you will use 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. Im sure you know that commercially available balsa, plastic, and hardwood propellers may be used. Materials and design may be obtained from any source, including kits. ~>
Hows it shaping up ? In paint yet? ;D
Its so simple people..... You build it you can bring..
Yes, the paint work is going on as we speak. There is a lot of detail on this one and it is taking some time to complete. I hope that it will be ready for the Nats. If not I will use the Worlds plane, it flies really good.
-
>>I've glued my fingers together. Does that make me a kit?<<
ARC maybe? LL~
-
So how do we make every one happy so the sport/hobby prospers?
Lets give everyone what they want
We should keep the BOM
We should let ARFs compete.
ARF,ARC,RTF, Aperance points max 20
BOM appearance points 100(200?) Max.
WHAT!? I cant win with a RTF at an appearance point disadvantage!
Correct(?) So now that your competing go build a BOM and go after the 100 points!
Just thinking out loud HB~>
David
Flies BOM and ARF/ARC
-
You all have a good time. I will not be competing at the Nats. My model is no longer legal.
Chris...
-
"All contests all over the country are run under PAMPA rules and you can fly what you bring and if the have appearance points you take the hit. That's your choice"
Come on Spark....you know better..... PAMPA has rules for OTS (which they recently screwed up) and Classic, but the rules for Precision Aerobatics are AMA rules....the "PAMPA Skill Classes" were made official in 1999......
A rule that cannot be concisely defined sucks....
-
A rule that cannot be concisely defined sucks....
Pretty defined to me. Build your own airplane and use what ever materials you want. As long as you are doing the work.
-
How about design your own model for open, most of the nat winners do I think. Has any one won with someone else's design. Make harder rules as the classes go up. I hope the BOM stays, but I hope the ama gets this worked out. Why cant they name the kits that are ok and whats not. People send a kit in and make there case that it should be ok. The way you buy it is the way it has to be build no adding to or taking away that would be a average kit, that passes the AMA.
-
Current Rule:
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.
If BOM is to remain a rule, AMA Stunt probably needs it's own specific wording. Beginner class to be exempt.
Here it is:
New rule?:
Builder of Model: The CD shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has completely “constructed‟ the entire model used in competition, including all construction, fabrication, installation of mechanical components, and all covering and finish where used. “Construction” and "Fabrication" is to be only interpreted as the actions required to complete said model and to begin with no pre-fabrication, pre-assembly, pre-installation, or covering and/or finish work unless these tasks were also performed by the flier. Models which use any pre-constructed, pre-fabricated, pre-installed or pre-finished structure, components or finish other than those created by the flier shall be excluded from competition. Materials and design may be obtained from any source of the builder/fliers choice. This builder-of-the-model "BOM" rule as described applies specifically to the AMA Stunt event unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event.
Cut and dried. D>K
-
Good luck getting that passed! ^-^
Bob Hunt
-
No hard feelings here, just a suggestion on the way it should be keeping in mind the original intent and history of the event and it's participants who knew and/or know how to build models. I just figure the word "Builder" must be in there for a reason. :)
-
How about design your own model for open, most of the nat winners do I think. Has any one won with someone else's design.
Yes, Orestes has and there probably been others. H^^
-
OK, here's a thought.........
Current Rule:
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.
Now, for CLPA, how about the following:
New Rule:
6. Builder of Model: Pertaining to the Age Group Classes, J/S/O, of AMA competition in Control Line Stunt (CLPA), the "competitor" shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that he/she has completely “constructed‟ the model(s) he/she uses in competition, including the covering where used, with “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model to flying stage. The final "finish" must be applied by the competitor whether it be "paint" materials or any other "covering" such as "iron ons". No items used in construction will be allowed which have a final "finish" (which is the basis for Appearance Points being awarded) already applied when obtained for construction of the model(s). Any components which are in a "raw", unfinished state are allowed. An example would be a pre-sheeted foam core wing where the balsa sheeting has no materials applied to the exterior of the sheeting.
Models which are completely prefabricated and require only a minimum of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition. Materials and design may be obtained from any source, including kits. The builder-of-the-model rule applies to every AMA Age Group event in the Control Line "Stunt" (CLPA) classifications.
The CD/ED of any contest outside of the NATS in the Age Group classes may use this rule to ascertain whether or not Appearance Points can be awarded to models submitted by each competitor as deemed by the Builder of the Model rule, if applied. Such rules must be announced in all communications for the contest if the BOM is instituted, and AP will be awarded.
The entering of a model under this rule, by the competitor, is understood to be a statement by the competitor that the model meets the standards for the Builder of the Model Rule.
The "target group" is the people who will enter the NATS in the age group classes, mainly because that is where the rule is really brought into play. Added is the statement that the CD/ED can use the rule if they wish to apply the BOM in local contests where Skill Classes, commonly referred to as PAMPA classes, are generally used.
Gone is the reference to "average kit", which is too difficult to define, IMHO. The pilot now simply states that he is the BOM, just like the statement that is signed at the NATS. If that isn't good enough, then we don't have the quality people which we believe we have participating in this event. Many have strongly advanced the premise that the character of the competitors involved is basically beyond reproach, so this writing would leave the "burden of proof" on the competitor's character. Nothing is left ambiguous, at least as far as I see it, and nothing is really left for argument.
Do I see the possibility of "cheating"? Sure, but it can happen regardless of how any rule is written, and I believe that it is not now, nor will it be, as rampant as some would suggest. It does disallow the "pre-builts" and ARF's, at least in theory. A competitor knows what he/she has and if he/she feels strongly enough that he/she must cheat then it is on that person. Having a bought, built, and finished model, or an ARF, does not guarantee anyone being even competitive as we all well know.
Big Bear
-
OK, here's a thought.........
Now, for CLPA, how about the following:
New Rule:
6. Builder of Model: Pertaining to the Age Group Classes, J/S/O, of AMA competition in Control Line Stunt (CLPA), the "competitor" shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that he/she has completely “constructed‟ the model(s) he/she uses in competition, including the covering where used, with “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model to flying stage. The final "finish" must be applied by the competitor whether it be "paint" materials or any other "covering" such as "iron ons". No items used in construction will be allowed which have a final "finish" (gel coat) (which is the basis for Appearance Points being awarded) already applied when obtained for construction of the model(s). Any components which are in a "raw", unfinished state are allowed. An example would be a pre-sheeted foam core wing where the balsa sheeting has no materials applied to the exterior of the sheeting.
Models which are completely prefabricated and require only a minimum of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition. Materials and design may be obtained from any source, including kits. The builder-of-the-model rule applies to every AMA Age Group event in the Control Line "Stunt" (CLPA) classifications.
The CD/ED of any contest outside of the NATS in the Age Group classes may use this rule to ascertain whether or not Appearance Points can be awarded to models submitted by each competitor as deemed by the Builder of the Model rule, if applied. Such rules must be announced in all communications for the contest if the BOM is instituted, and AP will be awarded.
The entering of a model under this rule, by the competitor, is understood to be a statement by the competitor that the model meets the standards for the Builder of the Model Rule.
The "target group" is the people who will enter the NATS in the age group classes, mainly because that is where the rule is really brought into play. Added is the statement that the CD/ED can use the rule if they wish to apply the BOM in local contests where Skill Classes, commonly referred to as PAMPA classes, are generally used.
Gone is the reference to "average kit", which is too difficult to define, IMHO. The pilot now simply states that he is the BOM, just like the statement that is signed at the NATS. If that isn't good enough, then we don't have the quality people which we believe we have participating in this event. Many have strongly advanced the premise that the character of the competitors involved is basically beyond reproach, so this writing would leave the "burden of proof" on the competitor's character. Nothing is left ambiguous, at least as far as I see it, and nothing is really left for argument.
Do I see the possibility of "cheating"? Sure, but it can happen regardless of how any rule is written, and I believe that it is not now, nor will it be, as rampant as some would suggest. It does disallow the "pre-builts" and ARF's, at least in theory. A competitor knows what he/she has and if he/she feels strongly enough that he/she must cheat then it is on that person. Having a bought, built, and finished model, or an ARF, does not guarantee anyone being even competitive as we all well know.
Big Bear
outstanding! H^^
-
It does disallow the "pre-builts" and ARF's, at least in theory.
It does disallow ARFs but I am not sure where your wording would put an ARC, "component kit" or, for that matter, a molded airframe that does not have a finish and requires skilled work to get everything aligned and installed.
(no comment on where it should put them)
-
6. Builder of Model: Pertaining to the Age Group Classes, J/S/O, of AMA competition in Control Line Stunt (CLPA), the "competitor" shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that he/she has completely “constructed‟ the model(s) he/she uses in competition, including the covering where used, with “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model to flying stage. The final "finish" must be applied by the competitor whether it be "paint" materials or any other "covering" such as "iron ons"(No Gel coat). No items used in construction will be allowed which have a final "finish" (which is the basis for Appearance Points being awarded) already applied when obtained for construction of the model(s). Any components which are in a "raw", unfinished state are allowed. An example would be a pre-sheeted foam core wing where the balsa sheeting has no materials applied to the exterior of the sheeting.
Models which are completely prefabricated and require only a minimum of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition. Materials and design may be obtained from any source, including kits. The builder-of-the-model rule applies to every AMA Age Group event in the Control Line "Stunt" (CLPA) classifications.
The CD/ED of any contest outside of the NATS in the Age Group classes may use this rule to ascertain whether or not Appearance Points can be awarded to models submitted by each competitor as deemed by the Builder of the Model rule, if applied. Such rules must be announced in all communications for the contest if the BOM is instituted, and AP will be awarded.
The entering of a model under this rule, by the competitor, is understood to be a statement by the competitor that the model meets the standards for the Builder of the Model Rule.
Big Bear
Yes its good and does dis allow the planes with gel coat finish. One thing I would like to see is the proposals posted here or SSW for all to see before a back door vote.
-
Does the term "Big Boys" as used above to mean the "elites of the stunt world", mean roughly what "Washington ruling elites" means in the real world where real people actually live..............inquiring minds would like to know?............ ??? n1 D>K H^^
-
Does the term "Big Boys" as used above to mean the "elites of the stunt world", mean roughly what "Washington ruling elites" means in the real world where real people actually live
No, it doesn't mean that at all, which was covered at length in previous posts.
-
It does disallow ARFs but I am not sure where your wording would put an ARC, "component kit" or, for that matter, a molded airframe that does not have a finish and requires skilled work to get everything aligned and installed.
(no comment on where it should put them)
Those are covered.
Any "component" that is in the "raw" stage is allowed. An ARC that has no "finish" applied to the components would be allowed. A molded airframe that is in the "raw" stage (no gel coat, primer, or any other type of "finish" applied) is legal. Those are in use and have been used for years. When Appearance judging is conducted, the "finish" is the main part being judged. Construction and overall appearance of the finish is paramount. So, the finish, in its entirety, must be applied by the builder. Commercially obtained molded fiberglass parts have been allowed for many years, which has included fuselages, etc..
-
This cant be used. You have write a general rule. The bom is in the general section of the rule book for all aeromodeling contest held under the ama. This is way to cl stunt specific. Besides the new rule should only specify what exactly has to built and nothing else period. There should be no referrences what so ever to any type of techniques used. You want a rule that will stand the test time? Remove all mentioms of techniques and what is not allowed.
What has been done to the rulebook as of late concerning bom is an absolute travisty. Maybe the int was put in wrong but it shouldnt be removed the wrong way either. Two wrongs dont make a right. That this was completed in secret with no prior publication just proves once again we are subject to the whims of few.
This is so sad.
-
This cant be used. You have write a general rule. The bom is in the general section of the rule book for all aeromodeling contest held under the ama. This is way to cl stunt specific. Besides the new rule should only specify what exactly has to built and nothing else period. There should be no referrences what so ever to any type of techniques used. You want a rule that will stand the test time? Remove all mentioms of techniques and what is not allowed.
What has been done to the rulebook as of late concerning bom is an absolute travisty. Maybe the int was put in wrong but it shouldnt be removed the wrong way either. Two wrongs dont make a right. That this was completed in secret with no prior publication just proves once again we are subject to the whims of few.
This is so sad.
Like when it was insterted?
-
Not sure if this post will help anything but here it is for the information.
This is a picture of the SIG P-51.
As stated in another post this one has a molded nylon top shell. The Nylon part is about 1/3rd of the fuselage volume
And probably 70% of its weight. Foam wing. I did not build this airplane but did refinish the 'Nylon' section.
The bottom scoop and part of bottom of fuselage is also nylon.
In early 70s I built one (Sig P-51)and if memory is working that kit came with ABS moldings in place of the nylon and the wing was sheeted(?) When the Aero Gloss Dope wrinkled/shrunk the ABS it was given to another flier.
David
-
This is a TopFlight kit from late 60s/early 70s.
This is P-40 Semi Scale Stunter( thats what the box says!)
Has a molded Balsa fuselage.
TF also produced a Hurricane of same.
GEL Coat:
Unless something has changed in whats available why would anyone want Gel Coat?
Heavy and brittle. at least what I used was. Has other problems like 'gatoring' if applied to thin in the mold.
The polyester resin will penetrate and attack the surface when not thick enough.
Epoxy resin might change all the above.
When I built race car bodies in the 30 to 40lb range for complete CanAm bodywork( surface area of Camaro?)
I did not use gelcoat. Mainly to save weight. Did have pin holes to fill...
-
All I can get is one pic per post?
Molded Balsa 1/2 Shells
-
Fully legal.
-
Just supplying what little info I can Robert.
We need to be careful with what ever wording we use and now days ARF is the average kit.
I personally hope to see wording that allows me to buy a lost foam wing to go with the molded balsa FW190A fuselage
after the missed lines in form are corrected and molds made for some of the other parts. And Time ~^
David
-
Robert.....as I see it, ALL are "fully legal".....
UNLESS
Someone ponies up the c-note to protest, and the c/l people at the Nats decide to actually follow and uphold the rules (from history, highly unlikely)......you're not the "decider".....
-
Like when it was insterted?
Like I said Robert, two wrongs dont make a right. You know this to be true.
If it were put in there wrong/illegal. Where was the explanation stating as much prior to your change?
The problem here is that our event was run under said interpretation for 5.5 years. This sets a precedent.
Much like many state that skinned foam wings are legal under current BOM because GMA allowed them back in the 60s. That set a precedent across the even that is still followed today some 40 years later. If it applies to that then it applies here.
The simple fact that this was done in secret with no publication and explanation prior to the change being made is just flat out wrong. No two ways around that. Doing things behind closed doors has been the gripe of many over the years. I thought that was finally going away in recent years. I guess I was mistaken.
Just remember, you may have gotten what you want with this move this time but there will be a time when the secret behind closed door dealings on the rule book will not be in your favor. That is why this kind of thing cannot happen. It sets a precedent for making changes on the fly.
To be clear I have no problem with the change itself. Just the manner it which it was handled. I know many others who feel the very same way. It is these kinds of actions that tend to drive them off and beat them down.
I will not stay silent on this issue each time it comes up. I love this event and our rules cycle is one of the things that keeps its integrity intact.
-
Yes its good and does dis allow the planes with gel coat finish. One thing I would like to see is the proposals posted here or SSW for all to see before a back door vote.
Why does it say "No Gel Coat"
If I pull a mold there is a good chance it will have Gel Coat on it. This makes no sense what so ever.
-
I agree however it was backdoored 5 years ago and now its fixed. As far as a rule change I will abide by what ever majority rules are and I expect others to do the same.
-
Why does it say "No Gel Coat"
If I pull a mold there is a good chance it will have Gel Coat on it. This makes no sense what so ever.
Colored Gel coat is the finish. Ask a fiberglass person. You are refering to mold release wax.
-
Colored Gel coat is the finish. Ask a fiberglass person.
HELLO I know this I use the stuff!!!
Why cant I use Gel Coat when I build my plane? That rule reads that way. It isnt clear.
-
You If YOU are doing it YOU can do anything. If YOU are selling it to someone it can not be finished in Gel coat
-
Since the BOM is in the general section of the rulebook for the entire AMA I wrote a general a while back. I paired it way down, what do you all think.
Builder Of the Model
Contestants who enter their models in contests where the Builder Of the Model rule is in use must follow the specifics below.
Methods used to construct the model are not described and open to any and all forms of available technology as long as the contestant is the one using the technology to build the parts and plane.
In order to be considered the Builder Of the Model the contestant must build the major components of his/her model. A list of parts that have to be built by the contestant are found below.
FOAM WINGS WHERE USED MUST BE SHEETED AND FINISHED BY THE BUILDER
BUILT UP WINGS
FUSELAGE
STABILIZERS
ELEVATORS
FLAPS
RUDDERS
TOP and BOTTOM BLOCKS SANDED OR MOLDED
The contestant must be the one who completes the final construction of the model into one piece.
Where take apart hardware is use the builder must also be the one who installs and sets the alignment of said hardware.
COVERING WHERE APPLICABLE MUST BE APPLIED BY THE BUILDER.
100% OF THE FINISH MUST BE APPLIED BY THE BUILDER, THIS INCLUDES FINAL CLEAR COAT WHERE APPLICABLE.
Methods used to finish the model are not described and open to any and all forms of available products as long as the contestant is the one applying the finish to the plane.
Contestants may receive help during any phase of the building and or finishing of the model. As long as the contestant is doing the work and the help received is in a support and or teaching role.
[/color=blue]
-
Its good it allows anyone to use anything and I am OK with this. It does not allow someone to buy a airplane already finished. Gel Coat
As I have stated I have no issue with anyone doing or using anything as long as they are the ones doing it. CnC'd, carved,Molded,built up,fiberglass,carbon etc. Make it out of paper machate who cares but the person entering it better be the one who did it.
-
I agree however it was backdoored 5 years ago and now its fixed. As far as a rule change I will abide by what ever majority rules are and I expect others to do the same.
If you agreed with me this would have been published prior to the change and some form of official ruling from the ama would have been issued with reasons etc....
Was the entire contest board consulted on this issue prior to the change??
-
If you agreed with me this would have been published prior to the change and some form of official ruling from the ama would have been issued with reasons etc....
Was the entire contest board consulted on this issue prior to the change??
How would I know? I posted what Keith posted I have no seat in the contest board nor am I on their email list so I don't have a clue what they are doing.
-
Doug
from your post on parts the 'Builder' must make.
TOP and BOTTOM BLOCKS SANDED OR MOLDED.
This would make the Sig P-51 illegal.
Possibly the T.F. P-40 and Hurricane as well.
See post 79, 80 and 81
David
Trying to avoid open cans of worms, with out success. HB~>
-
We are never going to make everyone happy. Thats just life.
-
We are never going to make everyone happy. Thats just life.
I agree with that statement!
We do need to know what directions we can go in building 'Legal' airplanes.
A box full of molded parts gel coat or no, balsa, glass or cardboard is a kit.
A box with pre covered and finished parts(wing,fuse,tail) is not.
My understanding is Gel Coats original intended purpose was to protect the glass and polyester resin from UV and other such stuff. Model airplanes and race cars expose levels are low enough to make it not necessary.
It also eliminates the pin hole problems( from air bubbles)
-
I agree with that statement!
We do need to know what directions we can go in building 'Legal' airplanes.
A box full of molded parts gel coat or no, balsa, glass or cardboard is a kit.
A box with pre covered and finished parts(wing,fuse,tail) is not.
My understanding is Gel Coats original intended purpose was to protect the glass and polyester resin from UV and other such stuff. Model airplanes and race cars expose levels are low enough to make it not necessary.
It also eliminates the pin hole problems( from air bubbles)
Mold release agent sprayed in mold. Gel coat sprayed in mold. Glass layed down when pulled from mold Gel coat is the finish
-
Mold release agent sprayed in mold. Gel coat sprayed in mold. Glass layed down when pulled from mold Gel coat is the finish
Yes and no
The methods in use when I was doing 'glass work'
Mold release wax was hand applied and polished. Gives good slick finish ready to use when finish gel coat is use.
(molds are usually finished in 'tooling gel coat')
PVA mold release is a spray on plastic wrap like material. Leaves a textured finish that needs sanding and painting with or with out gel coat. water soluble so humidity can play games with it.
My preference would be no gel coat and vacuum bagging of the part. I think this will remove the trapped air bubbles
and remove excess resins for better weight to strength ratio.
This should produce a slick(using the wax method) pin hole free surface ready to wet sand and paint.
Never tried it so not sure.
A clear glass finis might be cool? ???
David
-
Doug
from your post on parts the 'Builder' must make.
TOP and BOTTOM BLOCKS SANDED OR MOLDED.
This would make the Sig P-51 illegal.
Possibly the T.F. P-40 and Hurricane as well.
See post 79, 80 and 81
David
Trying to avoid open cans of worms, with out success. HB~>
Yes it would. It can be easily taken out. But then the whole starts over again. It would be easy to add in a line about mass produced kits with pre molded parts. Such as TF G nobler and others. Mass produced meaning very large quantity available to the public. Not off shoot runs of 20-100 once and never to be seen again. Sig TF Sterling and other big ones were out there for everyone.
No we wont make everyone happy that is for sure.
But if you want this a building event as wells as a flying event then make it one. I cant tell you the last time I saw a Sig Mustang kit on the shelves.
It would be even easier to write a grandfather clause for these types of models.
Either way it can be delt with.
-
I agree with that statement!
We do need to know what directions we can go in building 'Legal' airplanes.
A box full of molded parts gel coat or no, balsa, glass or cardboard is a kit.
A box with pre covered and finished parts(wing,fuse,tail) is not.
My understanding is Gel Coats original intended purpose was to protect the glass and polyester resin from UV and other such stuff. Model airplanes and race cars expose levels are low enough to make it not necessary.
It also eliminates the pin hole problems( from air bubbles)
The rules should not direct you what is legal building. Simply because all the building is legal as long as you are the one doing it.
It is that simple. It really is that simple....
One you put in there one single legal scenario you have trapped yourself into describing all legal scenarios. That cant be done and it makes the rule exclusive instead of inclusive.
If this rule is rewritten and scenarios are put in place then we are right back where we started only with different wording. And as soon as new technology finds its way into our sport the rule wont allow it because it is not described as legal.
The rule only needs to say what has to be built NOT HOW. Keep that in mind and the rule is actually very easy to write and pretty small and direct.
-
Yes and no
The methods in use when I was doing 'glass work'
Mold release wax was hand applied and polished. Gives good slick finish ready to use when finish gel coat is use.
(molds are usually finished in 'tooling gel coat')
PVA mold release is a spray on plastic wrap like material. Leaves a textured finish that needs sanding and painting with or with out gel coat. water soluble so humidity can play games with it.
My preference would be no gel coat and vacuum bagging of the part. I think this will remove the trapped air bubbles
and remove excess resins for better weight to strength ratio.
This should produce a slick(using the wax method) pin hole free surface ready to wet sand and paint.
Never tried it so not sure.
A clear glass finis might be cool? ???
David
W.D.,
I have pulled a few using this method. It took a few tries to get what I outlined below. I worked with gel coat with a friend. I wouldnt use that stuff again.
Polished with release wax. Nice and slick after that.
Then I sprayed in PVA with high pressure on a top feed touch up gun. Worked pretty good.
Down goes glass, put in a controlled amount of epoxy spread it all around.
Then I put in bleeder cloth, the cloth is like a one way valve and it absorbs all the epoxy.
In the bag for 24 hours.
After that was done I had a very thin skin sitting in the mold. I very carefully pulled the bleeder cloth so as not to pull the part out of the mold. Now there is almost no epoxy in the skin.
Next I use a controlled amount of epoxy and spread it over the back of the skin while it is in the mold.
In goes the 1/16 balsa layer
Then a layer of glass
Then just a tiny bit more epoxy spread onto the glasss.
Add a bleeder cloth on top of that and back into the bag for 24 more hours.
After that is done I pull the cloth off and trim away the excess. It slides out of the mold with almost no effort. Wash it off with water and clean away all the PVA. The outer skin glass was a 1oz crows feet weave and had very little if any pin holes. The inner glass was standard hobby glass .75 oz.
I did all this twice.
Then using thin CA I glued the two shells together. Each shell is full length and the tip shape is there as well. Inside was the line slider and BC mount top and bottom. Once glued together I put down once coat of primer and sanded almost all off and it went to color. It was nice. It was susceptible to crushing if you squeezed it. It was totally hollow no inner structure. I think the total weight with primer was 13oz.
I flew it in a large Saito 72 profile for a long time. It worked really well.
I never went back to it as I needed to make a new mold as this one has a small wave in it that I cant fill out.
I may try it again one day.
Sure did learn alot doing. And it was fun. It was a complete female mold made from half foam cores that I cut myself. Then i sheeted them and glued them to a really nice flat piece of hardwood. Built a fence around it and mixed up truckloads of epoxy with filler and molded it. The back filled it with "other" stuff. Spray in foam and other items to keep it sturdy. The male mold was toasted afterward but i still have female.
It was fun. That was back when I had more time to mess with that stuff. :)!
-
Doug, your BOM rule as written seems to be a workable one. I would vote for something like that. As far as making a couple of defunct kits illegal, if it happens that someone actually wanted to fly one of those, it wouldn't be hard to make them BOM compliant. My SIG Mustang has no ABS parts used at all and only the plastic part is the canopy. Anyone could do the same to any plane.
Well done Sir.
-
Since the BOM is in the general section of the rulebook for the entire AMA I wrote a general a while back. I paired it way down, what do you all think.
Builder Of the Model
Contestants who enter their models in contests where the Builder Of the Model rule is in use must follow the specifics below.
Methods used to construct the model are not described and open to any and all forms of available technology as long as the contestant is the one using the technology to build the parts and plane.
In order to be considered the Builder Of the Model the contestant must build the major components of his/her model. A list of parts that have to be built by the contestant are found below.
FOAM WINGS WHERE USED MUST BE SHEETED AND FINISHED BY THE BUILDER
BUILT UP WINGS
FUSELAGE
STABILIZERS
ELEVATORS
FLAPS
RUDDERS
TOP and BOTTOM BLOCKS SANDED OR MOLDED
The contestant must be the one who completes the final construction of the model into one piece.
Where take apart hardware is use the builder must also be the one who installs and sets the alignment of said hardware.
COVERING WHERE APPLICABLE MUST BE APPLIED BY THE BUILDER.
100% OF THE FINISH MUST BE APPLIED BY THE BUILDER, THIS INCLUDES FINAL CLEAR COAT WHERE APPLICABLE.
Methods used to finish the model are not described and open to any and all forms of available products as long as the contestant is the one applying the finish to the plane.
Contestants may receive help during any phase of the building and or finishing of the model. As long as the contestant is doing the work and the help received is in a support and or teaching role.
[/color=blue]
Hi Doug,
I could live with that, and I do expect to return to the NATS to fly before i leave this rock.
However, pre sheeted foam wings have been "legal" for at least 40 years. I do not see where we need to turn back the clock that far. ;D
Cmponents have become th enorm for many fliers, and we have not revolted against that so I would feel fine with there allowance.
The knee jerk reaction from 2005 (??) was wrong IMHO, but it was done and has been the "rule" for the recent years. That ruling should not have been made (again, my own opinion) but it was done, evidently, to stave off possible protests, and was not in the best interest of the event, long term.
Bill
-
I'm going to contact my PAPA district rep about this tyo see if PAMPA has any plans concerning this matter.
-
However, this issue continues to consume an amazing amount of time and effort that would be much better devoted to building and (and/or) flying model airplanes. I'm beyond sick of it, I'm numb and couldn't possibly care any more.
Argue amongst yourselves.
L.
"I am not young enough to know everything." -Oscar Wilde
-
I just don't get it. With only one event where this matters, why are so many opinions? This is "ONE" event. There are 100's of PA contest all over the USA. This (NATS) is a traditional contest. BUILD your own plane and stop trying to circumvent the rules. Use anything that is molded as long as it is built by you. This is beyond common sense. It is bordering on being a senile argument. I want to see beautiful aircraft built by the pilots themselves. When I see the photos or the actual aircraft in real time, I am in awe at the capabilities of the builder. I see also beautiful planes that are worth a lot since they are pre-made. But (in my opinion), they do not impress me as much. I am capable of painting a beautiful aircraft (NOT FLYING) if it only needs paint and sanding. I AM NOT capable of finishing a 20 AP points balsa, silk and dope masterpiece nor starting/making a CF wing/fuse. That is art and craftsmanship by itself.
We must create a separate class where any aircraft is accepted and concentrate on the flying. Perhaps an UNLIMITED class, only restricted by safety and engine size is necessary.
Let's try and keep everyone updated to technology and able to fly C/L.
Best,
Rafael
-
Those "hundreds of contests" are all governed by the AMA rule book....
-
Those "hundreds of contests" are all governed by the AMA rule book....
But this ONE contest is the only one that flies JSO. So if your flying beginner,intermediate,advanced or expert it just don't matter. But heck if there is another JSO contest let me know where?
What I find funny is not one person has voted for last years BOM on the poll. So it must have been really great right?
-
It DOES matter in other contests Sparky. If you are penalized so many "pretty points" that it is virtually impossible to win. So why even enter? And they wonder why fewer and fewer new fliers partake of the stunt event.
Bigiron
-
It DOES matter in other contests Sparky. If you are penalized so many "pretty points" that it is virtually impossible to win. So why even enter? And they wonder why fewer and fewer new fliers partake of the stunt event.
Bigiron
Thats done at the local event. I dont know many contests here in the midwest but one ,our contest that has apperince points. So talk to local CDs no need to change the NATS. Seems to me its getting bigger
Or build
-
Doesn't seem to make a lot of difference here. Attendance has actually increased a bit over the past couple of years. The weather has more effect on attendance.
-
Those "hundreds of contests" are all governed by the AMA rule book....
I do not specifically follow each contest (PA) on each state but many contests do list that "no BOM" rule on their requirements and allow the participant to fly. There is the PAMPA rule that lets you fly but no points will be awarded for AP. AMA only says that if the contest is to have any modifications, it should be posted in advance. And it lets a consensus majority decide the rule deviation at the site! ABSURD!! HB~> HB~> n~ How would you like to travel 1000 miles to a contest that advertises no BOM will be enforced and when you get there, the majority doesn't let you fly because you showed up with a TF SCORE? That is absurd and it doesn't promote participation in the hobby. HB~>
From the AMA...
"...Contests advertised to the public and to model aviation clubs as AMA-approved events must be sanctioned by the AMA. Potential contestants must be assured that the AMA Competition Regulations will apply. Because AMA Sanctions exist to promote national standards, each Contest Director shall enforce the AMA Competition Regulations as written for Class A-AAAAA competitions unless overriding concerns about safety, adverse weather, dangerous terrain, or other serious issues dictate otherwise. Proposed deviations from the AMA rules must be detailed as part of the pre-contest sanction request. Such changes will be reviewed by the Technical Director for, 1) possible safety or procedural concern, 2) determination of whether the deviations will be allowed, and 3) which sanction status, „A” or “C” will be assigned. IF additional guidance is needed or in the case of an appeal, the Contest Board Coordinator and the Contest Board Chairman for the event(s) in question will be included in the decision process. The details for AMA sanctioned contests to be conducted with rules deviations must be announced in advance (e.g. by advertisement in Model Aviation; club newsletter; flyers; etc) and, if possible, by notice directed to clubs (e.g., by the Internet; FAX; etc). The intent should be to inform as many potential contestants as possible before travel, especially out-of-towners. Rules deviations either announced in advance of contests or by necessity first announced just prior to the competitions due to immediate concerns, must not be arbitrary, involve personal bias, or unnecessarily violate the competitive tone and historical integrity of any event. AMA CDs should recognize that modelers are willing to deal with reasonable hardships in order to compete under long-accepted traditional rules. Therefore, the consensus opinion of a majority of contestants involved should be considered regarding rules deviations announced on site.
-
What is the average for appearance points at a contest? How many get 20 points at a local contest or even a regional. The most I have ever gotten was 12 and thought the judge was veryl generous, but I wasn't going to tell him tho. VD~
-
What is the average for appearance points at a contest? How many get 20 points at a local contest or even a regional. The most I have ever gotten was 12 and thought the judge was veryl generous, but I wasn't going to tell him tho. VD~
HI Doc,
I have no idea what the AP range is anymore at local meets.
It has literally been YEARS since I attended a local event that used AP. I believe the last ones I went to with AP was King Orange and Brodak in 2003. We haven't used it at Huntersville or Marietta for years. As for local contests I gave up on AP a long time ago, and do not care if local meets do not use BOM/AP. I cannot remember what I got at Brodak but I did get 17 or 18 at Flushing Meadows when I went there, and finished 2nd to Windy and one of his Spitfires in Concours. By the time I got to Brodak's, the same plane was 7 years old.......... ;D
-
What is the average for appearance points at a contest? How many get 20 points at a local contest or even a regional. The most I have ever gotten was 12
Hi Doc, maybe you shoulda cut off your ear and glued it to the plane. I'll never find out, because I don't have enough Monet to buy Degas to make the Van Gogh LL~
-
In Tulsa we have been using Marvin's idea of assigning appearance points depending on the amount of building the pilot did. It has been working very well and have had no complaints from anyone. I still do not understand why the whole stunt community isn't embracing this idea. It eliminates all the BOM controversy and we have proven it works.
Bought-Borrowed-Stolen 0 points
ARF 1-10 points
ARC or prebuilt parts 5-15 points
Kit/Scratch built 10-20 points
The guy that uses a pre-built wing automatically leaves 5 points on the table no matter how well the airplane is finished. Yes it is possible for a kit-built to score less than an ARC but it has to be pretty bad and the ARC has to be pretty good. If they both show the same quality in fit and finish the scratch/kit receives an automatic 5 point advantage.
SoapBoxOn... This whole thing reminds me of the on-going controversy on Open Carry of Firearms we have going here in Oklahoma. The ones that say all or nothing are most likely to get nothing. It would be better and we might actually get something accomplished if everyone was willing to compromise a little and meet in the middle. SoapBoxOff....
-
Problem is it is a very small minority who squeaks the loudest. If it were the majority something might happen. Did you notice Minority?? less than 10%
-
I like Marvin's proposal...did when it first was published about a year ago. A scenario: If BOM points were eliminated a few new folks may start competing. A few old folks would drop AMA stunt and specialize in Classic and Nostalgia where building efforts are still appreciated and rewarded. Many of the new folks would find that even without the handicap of not getting appearance points...they still don't win. They would drop out and go back to R/C helicopters or whatever...attendance in AMA stunt would drop to an all time low and people would wonder what went wrong. Ok, not just a scenario, a prediction. 8)
-
Problem is it is a very small minority who squeaks the loudest. If it were the majority something might happen. Did you notice Minority?? less than 10%
Problem really is that only a small portion of the actual stunt community participates in these on-line discussions and votes in your poles. Your results sure don't agree with what I have heard talking face to face with contest entrants. Both ends of the controversy have a few real loud squeakers but most are somewhere in the middle. A good benchmark is to look at how many ARC's and pre-built wings have been sold. Which position do you think the guy that buys and ARC or built wing will take. We have been operating under don't ask don't tell for so long I believe the actual majority is afraid to say anything.
-
I like Marvin's proposal...did when it first was published about a year ago. A scenario: If BOM points were eliminated a few new folks may start competing. A few old folks would drop AMA stunt and specialize in Classic and Nostalgia where building efforts are still appreciated and rewarded. Many of the new folks would find that even without the handicap of not getting appearance points...they still don't win. They would drop out and go back to R/C helicopters or whatever...attendance in AMA stunt would drop to an all time low and people would wonder what went wrong. Ok, not just a scenario, a prediction. 8)
Again from what I have heard face to face most do not want to eliminate the BOM they just want the BS to stop. Marvin's idea would stop the BS and be inclusive instead of exclusive. The only real argument I've heard against it is something about the Walker Cup which is kinda ironic as we all know Jim Walker invented the ARF and the cup flyoff doesn't include pretty points.
-
That's not what the PAMPA poll produced. My polls mean nothing but PAMPA's are a good indicator. I can name all the ones on one hand (well maybe two). Also I dont have a problem with Marvins rule.
-
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
-
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
Well said!
-
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.
Well, there ya go, and that's how things evolve. Now, from "covering" we have added "construction of airframe"! Those old forefathers didn't start building their planes with all this in mind. Respecting their building skills is all well and good, but the "hobby" is a far cry from what it was back then. A bunch of restrictive rules have been added since then. And who says every one of those "founding fathers" of yore, built their own planes? I can't believe that! In fact, I'll lay odds on it that some builders were building "flying surfaces(wings)" for other not-so-skilled builders. And then's when the rule making began. D>K
-
Well, there ya go, and that's how things evolve. Now, from "covering" we have added "construction of airframe"! Those old forefathers didn't start building their planes with all this in mind. Respecting their building skills is all well and good, but the "hobby" is a far cry from what it was back then. A bunch of restrictive rules have been added since then. And who says every one of those "founding fathers" of yore, built their own planes? I can't believe that! In fact, I'll lay odds on it that some builders were building "flying surfaces(wings)" for other not-so-skilled builders. And then's when the rule making began. D>K
Well, I have found that most people at the "higher level" of competition build their own planes simply because they don't trust anyone else to do it the way they want it done. Think what you want, but I am certain that the people I concider to be the "forefathers" of this event did build their own planes. They had to do more construction than we do now because a lot of the things we use were not available then.
Where do you get your info?
Derek Barry
-
This is all about doing away with the BOM.
-
This is all about doing away with the BOM.
I don't think it is, I think it's all about stopping the bickering and as a last resort doing away with BOM would do that. However we do know that the majority is actually in favor of some form of BOM rule even the ones that would like to see pre-built componets legal.
-
I can remember a recent rule change to take away pattern points. Hum they are back now. get my drift?
-
Whatever is done about the BOM it had better go through the normal rules change cycle....this crap about changing it mid-stream is in violation of AMA rules.
I am fairly certain that you will see the AMA revert to the 2005 BOM ruling......what they did in going to the pre 2005 rule was WAY outside the bounds and guidelines that the AMA sets forth for non-safety changes.......
-
Actually, the ruling that Kaluf got through in 2005 is a good rule.....it allows ARCs and aircraft constructed of pre-built components to be flown but dis-allows ARFs. Further it stresses the import of "finish"...
The issue is that Bill chose to enforce the rule as written, and he was neutered by the AMA, who pointed out that the ED couldn't disqualify entries unless they were protested....
The 2005 ruling allows the two or three dozen folks that supply various components (including unfinished airframes) to continue, but excludes "finishing".....what's not to love?
-
Really, Rich?
-
Whatever is done about the BOM it had better go through the normal rules change cycle....this crap about changing it mid-stream is in violation of AMA rules.
(Clip)
Hi Rich.
Just to clarify what you wrote above.
The AMA Contest Board Procedures do allow for several categories or types of "Off Cycle Proposals" including provisions for "Urgent Proposals" that can be completed in about a 60 day process, then published and made official. That is what is going on right now regarding a soon to be completed action to clarify the handle issue that started at the Nats last year. That is still an option being considered by the Aerobatics Contest Board regarding the changed BOM rule in the general section of the AMA rulebook.
Thank you for your interest and concern.
Keith Trostle
-
Thanks, Keith....
I interpret those rule changes that can be completed in 60 days that are NOT safety or governing an entirely new realm (like steam powered stunters).
\Interpretations are NOT part of the interpertation as I read it....
Changes to the BOM should be brought through the regular rules cycle....
-
Like they did to us in 05? On the spot under the pavilion?
-
Somebody said some where that AMA doesn't change things over night. I remember the 70 Glenview Nats when they made a ruling that the pilot could not start his own engine in combat. My last NATS combat competition.
-
As I read it if the airframe does not come in a kit you can't use it. The way it allways go if the cd likes it, it ok and if not to bad. If past practice ok than it ok for everything. People have tomake up there mind on what they want. Then and only than enforce the rules to the letter.
-
It doesnt matter how we word it. Someone will argue the points. Its really simple. Build your own plane.
I hear all the time, I have not time. One less Hr a day watching TV and in no time you will have built a airplane.
-
Somebody said some where that AMA doesn't change things over night. I remember the 70 Glenview Nats when they made a ruling that the pilot could not start his own engine in combat. My last NATS combat competition.
I don't remember that one. I thought it was a pretty good contest.
-
Robert this is a great site, I'm to old for j&s and never fly in the open. I would just like see younger people get in to CL. Get them hooked and then move them up to be great builders and flyers. The closest Field to me is over 70 miles from my house. I found a rc club that will let me fly that is 20 miles away. My brother and I are trying to get a club together. Two people makes a small club. I see all Kinds of young people in the old photo's posted. The last contest pic posted show people that Know the words to the same songs that I know. I dont want to see bom go away, just like to see a progression of the rules as the classes go up. I dont have all the answer's, but do we do to make this great sport grow.
-
I don't remember that one. I thought it was a pretty good contest.
I remember it very well. My Brother Bob had a camper on a 1/2 ton pickup. The four of us stayed in it on one of short runways on base with other campers. Our first year in Goodyear Racing and I was also flying Carrier. Had to cover the engine on my plane when Duke Fox came over to say hi and then admit to him I was running a different brand of fuel. If I remember right you guys were busy in the work hanger covering and straightening your planes for competition. That was also the first year I seen John Ballard. He stood out because of some of his antics. Great man once you get to know him. My Brother also got to help a jet speed team during one of their runs. Enough got to go to work. H^^
-
Safety issues may cause virtually instant rules changes, per the Competition Regulations.
-
Just a thought.. When the 2005 interpretation went through one rules change cycle and remained in the rules, it then became official by default. Taking it out now without going through the proper process of a rule change is wrong and should be corrected.
-
Now explain that to the AMA powers that are now in. VD~
-
Now explain that to the AMA powers that are now in. VD~
Just sent this email to Greg Hahn.
Hi Greg,
I am one that believes the recent rule change in Control Line Builder Of The model was wrong and against AMA policy. I believe when the 2005 interpretation went through one rules change cycle and remained in the rules, it then became official by default. Taking it out now without going through the proper process of a rule change is wrong, blatantly against AMA policy and should be corrected.
Regards,
Bob Reeves, AMA # 57676
-
This is incredible. How can this discussion continue to go on? I stopped reading all this two weeks ago and had hoped it would die by now. I have little to say on this subject. But I can compare it to the national debt problem. This discussion going on and on and no where at all shows me how the congress can be so poorly managing the country. So long live CLPA. Long live BOM or Non Bom. Will someone please address nose weight and tip weight and hinging as I do not understand the relationship. Thanks
-
LL~ LL~ LL~ TY you cracked me up!!!!!!!! But I do believe it is incest LOL ;D ;D ;D
-
Well you guys that were worried about your new plane being legal, you now have no worries. It seems that the AMA has rescended a bit. They are going with what we had last year. So if it was legal last year it will be legal this year. But, we now have to come up with something that will please the masses. By the way we will have to thank Keith Trostle for all the work he has done to get this done. H^^
-
Wayne, fwiw I agree with you. John, I'm clueless!
Going back to '53, the "average kit" was/is/as meant to be is a box of wood with some pieces cut/crushed/dug out with plans to make an airplane. This is the same thing that is bought from Brodak or RSM. Everybody knows this. To say someone doesn't is idiotic. The only thing hard about this whole BOM "problem" is the lawyers. But then it depends upon what your definition of "is" is. Everyone knows what the BOM is, both its original design and intent. The only thing that has changed in the entire hobby/sport is prefabrication. The question is whether we want to allow prefabricated parts/planes to compete.
When I found I was able to stand long enough to fly a CL plane for an entire flight, I jumped back into it with both feet. When I crashed my only model, I was offered one with which to go to a contest. I protested thinking I had to have built the plane myself in order to compete and was advised that beginners were not subject to the BOM. I bought the plane and then competed. I'm still in beginner, flying a combination of self built, OPs and arfs. If I ever get out of beginner, I guess all my planes will be self built. I think BOM should be kept. In beginner, it doesn't affect me. If I progress, it will. That sure won't keep me from building and flying. If one thinks that way, imho they weren't really interested to begin with. The only reason I haven't progressed is that I can't fly more than 6 flights in a day. Then I am in major pain for a couple of days. But then it's worth it. And no, I'm not handicapped. I'm just a half a crip.
Most contests I've attended had BOM/appearance points for, at least, advanced and expert, possibly also for intermediate. I've never heard any complaining.
I think we should "kill all the lawyers" and get back to what this hobby/sport is all about. After all, everybody knows what happens when you cry in your beer!
Bob
-
I'm just a little fish in the midst of all you bigger and more knowledgable fish and simply say that Mr.Roland's analogy is absolutely perfect. It is about tradition and all the things Mr. Rowland stated. A long line of champions paid the price through much dedication, ingenuity, very hard work, and rigidly adhering to long established rules to accomplish the goal of being the best. Then Brett Buck plainly and bluntly tells it like it is, "You build the damn plane." You two fellas "made my day" with your views on this issue.
Doug
-
Brett: Have you been to a hobby shop in the past 10 years? These
days in the world of model airplanes an ARF/ARC IS the average kit.
An ARF/ARC is a kit. It is different than what was a kit 30+ years ago,
but it is a kit.
And my fondest hope is that *we prevent C/L into turning into the nightmare that sport R/C has become". Forget stunt for a minute, and forget the fact that what you are talking about has nothing to do with R/C competition and thus bears absolutely not at all on what we are talking about
What you see as the forward face of RC is a group of eternal beginners and duffers who care no more about RC than they would about playing frisbee in the back yard. To them, it's just another easy way to kill a Sunday afternoon. they buy one ARF trainer or park flier after another, fly it until they crash, and get another. They don't have any dedication, and the market you are talking about depends entirely on continually creating new guys, because after 6 months or so, the participants get bored with it, and move on to something else. So the entire industry is servicing the rank beginner crowd, and are required to continually market to that crowd. So you see an "Airplane Store" approach.
That is as diametrically opposed to NATs championship competition in C/L stunt as could possibly be imagined. It's absolutely anathema to what we are doing, and it's exactly what I am trying to *prevent* - because taken to the same extreme, it utterly and completely destroys one of the last healthy events *in all of modeling*. It's already greatly diminished R/C competition, just look at the numbers for a current NATs R/C entrants compared to the mid-70s (before ARFS'R'US approach took over). You speculate that such a change would be an improvement, I think otherwise, but there's no getting around the fact that it would completely change the event.
BTW, everyone is focusing on the "average kit" part, and ignoring the "prefabrication" part. The entire idea is to limit the prefabrication. ARFs and ARCs *are not kits*, but the problem is that the level of prefabrication is excessive and that is the part that is the real bone of contention.
Brett
-
What you see as the forward face of RC is a group of eternal beginners and duffers who care no more about RC than they would about playing frisbee in the back yard. To them, it's just another easy way to kill a Sunday afternoon. they buy one ARF trainer or park flier after another, fly it until they crash, and get another. They don't have any dedication, and the market you are talking about depends entirely on continually creating new guys, because after 6 months or so, the participants get bored with it, and move on to something else. So the entire industry is servicing the rank beginner crowd, and are required to continually market to that crowd. So you see an "Airplane Store" approach.
This is exactly the conversation I had with the LHS. They state that at least 2/3 of their customers are first timers, only interested in an ARF, and then maybe buy a second one a week later. After that, they're not to be seen in the store ever again. The other 1/3 of customers are long time builder/fliers.