Author Topic: BOM change (Read 19693 times)

Derek Barry · « **Reply #50 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:14:28 AM »

Quote from: peabody on April 13, 2011, 05:09:33 AM

There are those that hold that glueing is what makes a "kit".....

I've glued my fingers together. Does that make me a kit?

PerttiMe · « **Reply #51 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:27:50 AM »

Quote from: Robert Storick on April 13, 2011, 04:34:51 AM

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

RC Storick · « **Reply #52 on:** April 13, 2011, 05:33:52 AM »

Quote from: PerttiMe on April 13, 2011, 05:27:50 AM

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.

PerttiMe · « **Reply #53 on:** April 13, 2011, 06:55:01 AM »

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.

RC Storick · « **Reply #54 on:** April 13, 2011, 07:04:50 AM »

Quote from: PerttiMe on April 13, 2011, 06:55:01 AM

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!

Derek Barry · « **Reply #55 on:** April 13, 2011, 07:39:30 AM »

Quote from: PerttiMe on April 13, 2011, 06:55:01 AM

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!

peabody · « **Reply #56 on:** April 13, 2011, 08:09:30 AM »

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).

PJ Rowland · « **Reply #57 on:** April 13, 2011, 08:19:45 AM »

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?

Its so simple people..... You build it you can bring..

RC Storick · « **Reply #58 on:** April 13, 2011, 08:34:56 AM »

Quote from: peabody on April 13, 2011, 08:09:30 AM

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.

Derek Barry · « **Reply #59 on:** April 13, 2011, 08:42:25 AM »

Quote from: PJ Rowland on April 13, 2011, 08:19:45 AM

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?

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.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #60 on:** April 13, 2011, 09:51:18 AM »

>>I've glued my fingers together. Does that make me a kit?<<

ARC maybe?

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #61 on:** April 13, 2011, 01:05:57 PM »

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

David
Flies BOM and ARF/ARC

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #62 on:** April 13, 2011, 02:28:59 PM »

You all have a good time. I will not be competing at the Nats. My model is no longer legal.
Chris...

peabody · « **Reply #63 on:** April 13, 2011, 02:41:56 PM »

"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....

RC Storick · « **Reply #64 on:** April 13, 2011, 03:53:29 PM »

Quote from: peabody on April 13, 2011, 02:41:56 PM

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.

Steve Hines · « **Reply #65 on:** April 13, 2011, 04:22:11 PM »

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.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #66 on:** April 13, 2011, 08:00:13 PM »

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.

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #67 on:** April 13, 2011, 08:03:40 PM »

Good luck getting that passed!

Bob Hunt

wwwarbird · « **Reply #68 on:** April 13, 2011, 08:26:09 PM »

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.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #69 on:** April 14, 2011, 08:43:42 AM »

Quote from: Steve Hines on April 13, 2011, 04:22:11 PM

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.

Bill Little · « **Reply #70 on:** April 14, 2011, 11:49:41 PM »

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

John Stiles · « **Reply #71 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:37:56 AM »

Quote from: Bill Little on April 14, 2011, 11:49:41 PM

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!

PerttiMe · « **Reply #72 on:** April 15, 2011, 06:26:04 AM »

Quote from: Bill Little on April 14, 2011, 11:49:41 PM

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)

RC Storick · « **Reply #73 on:** April 15, 2011, 07:14:35 AM »

Quote from: John Stiles on April 15, 2011, 05:37:56 AM

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.

Terrence Durrill · « **Reply #74 on:** April 15, 2011, 07:51:17 AM »

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?............

Clint Ormosen · « **Reply #75 on:** April 15, 2011, 08:54:32 AM »

Quote from: Terrence Durrill on April 15, 2011, 07:51:17 AM

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.

Bill Little · « **Reply #76 on:** April 15, 2011, 12:23:48 PM »

Quote from: PerttiMe on April 15, 2011, 06:26:04 AM

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..

Doug Moon · « **Reply #77 on:** April 15, 2011, 01:45:44 PM »

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.

RC Storick · « **Reply #78 on:** April 15, 2011, 02:06:20 PM »

Quote from: Doug Moon on April 15, 2011, 01:45:44 PM

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?

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #79 on:** April 15, 2011, 02:08:55 PM »

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

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #80 on:** April 15, 2011, 02:18:05 PM »

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...

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #81 on:** April 15, 2011, 02:20:38 PM »

All I can get is one pic per post?

Molded Balsa 1/2 Shells

RC Storick · « **Reply #82 on:** April 15, 2011, 02:22:00 PM »

Fully legal.

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #83 on:** April 15, 2011, 02:42:34 PM »

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

peabody · « **Reply #84 on:** April 15, 2011, 03:09:39 PM »

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".....

Doug Moon · « **Reply #85 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:42:21 PM »

Quote from: Robert Storick on April 15, 2011, 02:06:20 PM

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.

Doug Moon · « **Reply #86 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:44:33 PM »

Quote from: Robert Storick on April 15, 2011, 07:14:35 AM

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.

RC Storick · « **Reply #87 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:45:28 PM »

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.

RC Storick · « **Reply #88 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:46:33 PM »

Quote from: Doug Moon on April 15, 2011, 05:44:33 PM

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.

Doug Moon · « **Reply #89 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:47:49 PM »

Quote from: Robert Storick on April 15, 2011, 05:46:33 PM

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.

RC Storick · « **Reply #90 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:49:11 PM »

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

Doug Moon · « **Reply #91 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:49:32 PM »

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]

RC Storick · « **Reply #92 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:51:13 PM »

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.

Doug Moon · « **Reply #93 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:51:48 PM »

Quote from: Robert Storick on April 15, 2011, 05:45:28 PM

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??

RC Storick · « **Reply #94 on:** April 15, 2011, 05:55:06 PM »

Quote from: Doug Moon on April 15, 2011, 05:51:48 PM

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.

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #95 on:** April 15, 2011, 06:10:17 PM »

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.

RC Storick · « **Reply #96 on:** April 15, 2011, 06:15:36 PM »

We are never going to make everyone happy. Thats just life.

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #97 on:** April 15, 2011, 06:25:04 PM »

Quote from: Robert Storick on April 15, 2011, 06:15:36 PM

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)

RC Storick · « **Reply #98 on:** April 15, 2011, 06:26:59 PM »

Quote from: W.D. Roland on April 15, 2011, 06:25:04 PM

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

W.D. Roland · « **Reply #99 on:** April 15, 2011, 06:56:13 PM »

Quote from: Robert Storick on April 15, 2011, 06:26:59 PM

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