BOM discussion from the TT thread

[Randy Powell]

I didn't want to derail the Team Trials thread anymore than it already had been, so I'm posting this in a new topic.

I've said it before. If we decide as a group to do away with the BOM and appearance points, so be it. But it will fundamentally change the event and I personally don't feel it will be for the better. As it is, it requires skill and dedication to be a complete modeler and flyer. Without the BOM rule, it becomes a flying only event. It will go the way of RC where building your own plane is quickly becoming a lost art among most RC flyers (and flyers is what they are, not modelers). Granted, the BOM requires a trait that is fast becoming lost in our society: integrity. But I would like to think that it is a recoverable trait. Just giving in and saying, well, folks are going to cheat anyway so let's just get rid of the rule so they can feel better about themselves is just throwing in the towel. I would like to keep the standard that was set by our predecessors. And that's what it is: a standard.

On another line of thought:

Here's an interesting case. A guy puts together an ARF. He flies it at a contest (without appearance points) and crashes it. The wing is recoverable, but the rest is junk. He takes the wing, repairs it, builds a new fuse and tail from scratch, puts on a nice paint job. Does this meet the "spirit" of BOM? Hmmm. I would say that the guy built more than half of the plane, particularly with the repair to a damaged wing. You could argue it both ways, but in my mind, the guy built the plane and I have no problem with him getting appearance points for it. This just seems common sense. He's demonstrated the requisite skills needed and could have easily built the wing too. It was a matter of convenience. But a lot would argue that this is cheating. I suppose it depends on one's perspective. A lot of guys get sheeted foam wings, build and finish the rest and say they built the plane. Heck, if they built the rest and put on the finish themselves, I think that's enough.

Point of all this is, it can't be monitored or controlled and it's up to the conscious of the person involved. If we have some level of integrity in this event, then it isn't much of a problem. Sure, there will be guys that cheat. So what? It's true of most activities in society. Do we just give in and say let's change the rule so they aren't cheating? Or do we maintain a standard that people aspire to?

Face it, people cheat. They cheat at work, in school and in life. Just because a student cheats on an examine, should we say, gee, let's change the rules so they don't get kicked out of school for this? What are we trying to teach? If we don't have a standard of behavior to aspire to, then what's the point?

OK, soap box over. But it seems silly to me to want to change a rule because some guys decide to cheat.

[Mark Scarborough]

Randy,
I like your perspective. I think that the Pampa stance as I understand it is appropriate. That being, no BOM no appearance points. yes there will be those who stretch the rules to be sure, or even blatantly cheat. I don't think that BOM is in its pure form either enforceable or clearly definable. HOWEVER this is not grounds to eliminate it. I had a conversation with and individual who knows more history of this sport than I. It was enlightening to say the least. I think that if you look at the other venues of control line you will see that there is greater harm ensuing than just a few cheaters.My feeling is that if BOM is totally eliminated for the highest levels of this event you will see that people will have the perception that they can "buy" their way in. MY OPINION ONLY!!! If you eliminate the BOM I really see that it could lead to the demise of our loved event. As for me, I will still endeavour to build and design (steal or copy as appropriate) as it is equally part of my enjoyment regardless of BOM or not. I have an ARF that without it my trips to contests (averaging 400 miles each way) would have been a waste as my primary plane has met untimely damage at each contest. My ARF allows me to practice and to compete though without appearance points. I have no problem with that. I cannot see the benefit of eliminating part of this event that has been there since the inception. Actually I think that there should be appearance points for finishing and building skills presented and ALSO creativity points for originality or as another pointed out to me, Charisma points. I think that would encourage more individualism in the event. I think you cant legislate morality anywhere in life, but you can ENCOURAGE it. So instead of giving up, lets encourage it. foam wings, Lost foam wings, arrow shaft wing jigs, these are all methods of reaching a goal. That goal is building a straight airframe which can then be trimmed to fly well. If you eliminate or try to ,,, the use of sheeted bare balsa wing cores, then next is the jigs? OK if thats a problem then having someone fly your plane to help trim it(which is probably equally a benefit as a prebuilt plane) should be the next thing eliminated. Where are you going to stop? No I think that for the most part, we know whether we are the BOM or not and with rare exceptions I don't think that its a problem. I think this whole argument is merely a 'whipping boy" TO STIR UP HATE AND DISCONTENT. I say leave it as is, the bad boys who cheat will get their Karma returned in kind when the time is right. Lets all just fly, have fun and encourage those who do build, AND those whom don't have the ability or time. We can all live together in one happy world. I say cut the crap and fly, build and share a common love for airplanes and PA.
My two cents worth.

[Bradley Walker]

I think it is interesting that the TT were just won flying technology completely developed with a total absence of a BOM.

[Phil Bare]

Randy, I think that the BOM and appearence points thing should have been done away with years ago, or never been conjured up in the first place for stunt....it has nothing to do with how a plane/pilot flies .........It is my honest opinion that the only thing that should be scored is the manuvers.....and if a modeler wants to compete in an (apperance) event, then perhaps scale would be the logical choice...or maybe even a new event is in order, scale stunt....where there is twenty points available for scale fidelity.. Regards, Phil

[Clint Ormosen]

Randy, I think that the BOM and appearance points thing should have been done away with years ago, or never been conjured up in the first place for stunt....it has nothing to do with how a plane/pilot flies .........It is my honest opinion that the only thing that should be scored is the maneuvers.....and if a modeler wants to compete in an (appearance) event, then perhaps scale would be the logical choice...or maybe even a new event is in order, scale stunt....where there is twenty points available for scale fidelity.. Regards, Phil

Then you obviously don't get the intent of the event in the first place. The scoring included appearance because the intent was to find the best modeler, not the best flyer. Now, just because some of you guys have no intrest it the building aspect of the hobby, you want it to change to suit you. Well, no way, Phil. How do you not see that what you're stating above is complete crap. Let's see, "change the existing event to not include appearance pts, and then all you guys that do want an appearance judged event, such as the one that has existed for 50+ yrs, start a new one?" Most of these stunters don't have anything to do with "scale" anyway. They're just plain pretty.
Why is it such a problem for people to accept the rules for BOM? It's not good enough that there is no rule outlawing ARF/ARC's at contests, that you want to eliminate the pts for those that build and finish their own planes? This is a BUILD AND FLY event. Always has been. And here is where we always get the question, " Why do we have to do it the way it's been done forever?" Well, because that's the event. I believe most modelers like it. The ONLY ones whining about it are the guys that want to compete with ARF's and are bummed about losing out on 20 pts.
By the way, Phil. I'm not what one could consider an "old timer" in this hobby. So I'm not speaking about this from a "fond memories" point of view. I got into stunt because of the pretty planes. I don't think someone should join up for an event and then cry, "Change it to suit me better".

[Randy Powell]

Brad,

I think the Yatshenko did a bit of BOM to come up with the design.

Phil,

Well, everyone has an opinion. Seems to me that most folks that are hot to get rid of the builder of the model have a secondary agenda.

Look, this is a unique event. You don't want to have the hassle of building your own plane, fine. Go fly RC with the buy and fly bunch. Interestingly, I go to the local RC field fairly often. Every plane, every single one of them is a buy and fly. The nicest planes are with the guys that can afford to buy them. They crash and just buy another because they have no idea of how to fix it or in many cases even why or how the thing flies. They have a constant turnover in membership. Guys buy a plane, learns how to fly, sticks around for awhile and then leaves after crashing several. A few guys stick, but not many. There is an old crew that stays around but even those guys gave up building a long time ago. This event was conceived as a modelers event. There are numerous areas where you can buy and fly. We even allow the buy and fly guys to compete. This is one tiny area of model avation. I can't see why some feel they have to change it. You don't like it, so something else.

I'm not stupid. I understand that eventually, the nintendo generation will take this over, though aging if nothing else. Eventually the BOM will go away because there will be enough guys that don't understand the concept or just want to fly and hate being handicapped by the fact that they can't or won't build. The rules will change and we will have an entirely new group flying. Hey, the manufacturers will love it. They will probably make more money and that seems to be the primary drive. It will become like RC where the turnover in people will go up and no one will fly their own planes because either they don't have the ability,  don't have the patience to build them or don't want to spend the time. It will happen. It's endemic in society. Patience, like integrity, will go by the wayside for the "I want it now" bunch. It's a shame, but I recognize could happen eventually.

Welcome to progress.

[Bill Little]

Hi Randy,

Several people, rightly or wrongly, want CLPA to be a "Flying Only" event.  It wasn't this traditionally, but society puts little or no value in tradition anymore.    It has gone the way of things like certain values that the American people built the strongest nation on Earth.  Honesty, Justice, etc., etc., only get lip service in most ares, I know because I have been involved directly with hordes of people in my Education career and have seen the slow decay. Heck, common sense and critical thinking are disappearing, don't believe me?  Teach in a high school for a few years..........

As to the guy who builds a new plane from the left over parts, whether or not he built "50%" is like you and I both know not a part of the BOM.  At least not the way it was traditionally written in the AMA Rule Book.  You built the plane, period.  Not 51% or 75%.......

The BOM will be gone, so I am going to move on and just fly anyway.  Whether I like it or not, it is going to be so.  It hasn't really existed for many years already.  Not as the Rule Book spelled it out.  Personal interpretations lead to all kinds of violations, but who had genitals large enough to call out a "Top Dog" on it anyway?  It started before the fully sheeted wings (which a good friend of mine sorta "pioneered"), so I don't even know why we have bothered to keep it around.  When the "interpretation" of 51% became widely accepted, though not a part of the rule, the BOM was doomed anyway.

I would LOVE to have the BOM, as it was written, to continue to be a part of the CLPA Event, that is the way it started and was intended to be.  But like I said: Times Change!  And it IS partly because so many want it to be a "Flying Only" event.  The age old theory that you not only had to fly, but also become a "modeler" (the mission of the AMA, supposedly), it like so many things.  It's just a change in our times.  It doesn't MATTER at all what the rest of the WORLD, or the know Universe does (if there is some other place out there that flies stunt! LOL!!), we are AMERICANS, and have done it for decades.  In my book the ones that don't like it COULD do something else. Kinda like the guys who "didn't make the cut" for the teams back when we were growing up.  Not like now when EVERYONE makes the team and they create MORE TEAMS to let them play. But then I would miss seeing some of my friends at contests, and I don't want that to happen! LOL!!!!!

So I say, "For God's sake, just do away with it and get on with life!"

[Randy Powell]

Hi Bill,

Yea, I agree. It's interesting that many just don't see what will happen in spite of enormous amounts evidence from other events. One of the things that has kept this event around for more than 50 years is the many skills it takes to be successful at it. And yet, people can't seem to stand it and just have to change it. They see some top level flyer with a beautiful plane that he spent a year building and put a lifetime's accumulation of skills behind and rather than saying, gee, I want to learn to build like that, they say, why can't I just fly a plane that someone else built. I don't want to learn how to do that, I just want what he has NOW!

Like I said, welcome to progress. Certainly points our why our society is in trouble.

[Bob Reeves]

Without stating an opinion, if we want to see what the future will bring without the BOM rule all we need to do is look at FAI Stunt.. It hasn't gone the way Randy says it will go, most still build and pretty airplanes are still a big part of the package. Saying it will go the way of RC doesn't hold much watter.

[Jim Thomerson]

I think the problem with the BOM is that the rule was written years ago and did not track technical developments.  It is not so much that people are intentionally cheating, but rather that they think they are BOM and you don't think so. 

I like lazier cut ribs, but other than that my airplanes are all BOM, original design, plans and an occasional kit.  I do not own, nor care to own an ARF. I'm flying mostly OTS which has no BOM.  I don't see the harm in that event. 

[Dick Fowler]

Without stating an opinion, if we want to see what the future will bring without the BOM rule all we need to do is look at FAI Stunt.. It hasn't gone the way Randy says it will go, most still build and pretty airplanes are still a big part of the package. Saying it will go the way of RC doesn't hold much watter.

Bravo! Bravo!  Well said Bob. I see some very nice owner built airplanes when I visit the local RC field. These RC guys are as good at building airplanes as any Stunt dude. Sorry guys, I see no compelling argument that the elimination of the BOM will spell the end of stunt as we know it.

For those that hang their argument on tradition then I would suggest returning to modeling as done in let say the early 60's and pattern the BOM after that. No prefab airframe parts allowed... period! If you didn't glue it... you didn't build. Paint should also be a part of building requirement.

[Clint Ormosen]

Without stating an opinion, if we want to see what the future will bring without the BOM rule all we need to do is look at FAI Stunt.. It hasn't gone the way Randy says it will go, most still build and pretty airplanes are still a big part of the package. Saying it will go the way of RC doesn't hold much watter.

 This very well may be the case. But, I like the fact that with the BOM, the builder gets credit in the form of points, not just a pat on the back.

[Mark Scarborough]

I wonder aboutthe LONG term affects of people that only fly ARFS if the BOM is revoked. I think that is one of theproblems with RC. Once you get to  acertain point in development of your flying skills, the allure disapates somewhat. Wheras with building you have more facets to keep you engrossed and challenged. Not to say that anyone will reach a point where they cant fly better, but moreover that they will reach that platue where they have somewhat stagnated or the big gains arent there and that is where I feel that the building starts to keep them involved

[Eric Viglione]

I would kinda dig the the BOM myself, if you could ensure me that my stuff wasn't flying against a pro built ship, but ya know, how many times do we have to prove we can build a ship? I mean, I'm over it. Sick to death of the discussion. Any potential newbies come on-line and probably run screaming away from C/L when they see a BOM thread.

At minimum, can't we just get a merit badge and move on? What say you do a photo essay of building a full body stunter, get your merit badge an move on like a good boy scout? The nay sayers won't be able to say the ARF'ers can't build and are not modelers,they will just choose weather or not they want to build any more, once they achieve "builder's merit" status.

I dunno, just tossing out a silly idea that might make both sides of the argument happy. I mean, if we are really being intellectually honest, then this solution should make every one happy, unless it's REALLY all about the points, and the future of modelers / builders is really just a straw mans argument...  

Thoughts?

EricV

[Dennis Adamisin]

I am afraid the Genie is out of the bottle, and the pressure is on to take the EASY way out & eliminate BOM - but that would be a mistake!
 
Considering the history and sustained success of CLPA. I think a solution for salvaging BOM lies in our past. The past I am referring to is 1972 (and before) when Appearance judging included categories for Originality & Realism. These were eliminated because they were the "hardest" to judge. However:
* The intent of Originality category was to raise the bar for aesthetics and experimentation - individuality, NOT PREFAB!
* The intent of the Realism category is to preempt the stunt "thingies" - kind of a counterbalance to the extreme
experimentation for Originality.
 
I am afraid since these were given up we just made it easier for the pre-fabs and professional painters to step in. Around the same time really good foam wings became available (Hunt, Poynter, etc,) and there were (unheeded) rumblings about BOM then too. But then for around $50 as I recall you could have a wing just like _____ used. Before long you could buy stabs too.  You could thus BUY great workmanship (one of the remaining categories).

Within a few years Windy was painting Imron for whoever wanted it - others followed and finish points became moot. Workmanship & Finish can be BOUGHT, and thus runs COUNTER to BOM.
 
For a Back to the Oriental alternative sources: if we had Originality and Realism say worth 5 points apiece while retaining the 20

appearance points available, it WOULD NOT MATTER whether your Oriental came from plans, a kit, an ARC or an ARF. It would

matter if:
* You have the standard "ARF-cote" or dolled it up some. (originality)
* You have the dolled-up ARF-cote or a different $$$cote color scheme (originality, maybe realisim?)
* You put a full cockpit in, or just painted the bubble. (realism)
* You used the stock fiberglass cowl, or added a chin scoop (originality)
* You used the stock landing gear, or added wheel pants or made it a trike (originality
* You built it stock or cut off the flaps (OK, I went too far that time!)

* Is it box-stock with GREAT paint? Terrific! But you max out at little over 10 points. (workmanship & finish)
* etc.


As testimony to the value of Originality and Realism, I would point to the Classic event. I think one that CLPA's rich history is directly responsible for the popularity of Classic as a thriving class. Designs of this era were all designed for Originality and Realism - and that is why the class shows so much diversity and is SO MUCH fun to participate in and watch.
 
Can you imagine us all flying "Classic ARF's" 30 years from now in a "2007 Classic" event? How exciting... (blah)
 
The point is that by restoring Originality and Realism, the BOM would be DRIVEN by the need to do something different and special to earn points, rather than use a pre-fab model. BOM would be driven, not "enforced" by a signed affidavit.

Rules only work for honest people.  The trouble with getting the sworn statements: the scrupulous would never need them, the unscrupulous would sign off no matter what. ...and WHO carries the burden of Proof???

Guess this proves I'm still crazy after all these years...

[John Miller]

Well said Eric.

I also am getting tired of the constant re-hashing of this subject.

Simply put, You and your buddies want to fly ARFS and ARCS, without taking a points hit, sponsor an FAI meet in your area. I'm sure that more than a few of us who prefer to build will attend. Those of us that fly PAMPA classes, will still welcome you, less appearance points, to flt in INT. Adv. and Expert, so what's to lose?

[Phil Bare]

Interesting responses....I started modeling in the early 50s and have done a bit of it all over the years....C/L,, FF, RC, Rubber, jet, TR, Speed....and I have always built my own planes for the most part....never owned an ARF RC plane....designed, built and flew 1/4 scale long befor it was even thought of...I did buy a FS ARF...to get back into CL after some years away from it....It is an interesting concept that only a pampa BOM flyer can be a REAL modeler as put forth by some.....I was always of the impression that most REAL modelers were airplane enthusiests first and formost.and that modeling was just an off shoot of that interest in airplanes....but be that as it may....It is my opinion that BOM has no place in stunt, appearence points are fine as long as there is no bias one way or the other.....Modeling should be an expression of ones talents and interests and flying skills...stunt should be about trimming and flying skills...scale should be about fidelity and building skills...and should be strictly by BOM standards.....The modeler that can build an exceptional stunt plane will be capable of building an exceptional plane of any other catagory....For those of us that are life long airplane enthuesiests and modelers, there will always be that satisfaction of building our own.....and there will always be great builders in every area of the sport..
I think that the one thing that doing away with the BOM for stunt would do for the sport would be to level the playing field some what so as to allow the part time modeler/flyer to compete with the professional modeler/flyers...In full scale aerobatic competition, there is no BOM.......Regards, Phil

[Alan Hahn]

Ok, here's my suggestion.

Since our new AMA champ documented his build (and I believe him), lets have everyone do it for BOM points. In other words, lets see the documented evidence of building the wing (including sheeting a foam wing), fuse, etc, then sanding and finally  the builder actually painting the plane. Heck, maybe it should all be video. Then I have no problem with BOM.

Next you could discuss how the BOM points are given. Maybe shiny shouldn't be so important.

[Clint Ormosen]

Phil, show me one person here that said ONLY PAMPA BOM pilots are real modelers. Stop putting words into peoples mouths.
Gee, I'm so glad you don't feel that building should be an important part of stunt. Many people these days don't. But that's the event. You say all focus on appearance should be in Scale? That doesn't suit me. (sound familiar?) Scale planes look cool, but are boring to fly.
Your definition of a modeler, in my opinion, is skewed. It should include all the aspects of modeling, not just the flying. In fact if you want to get technical, it's only the building that is actually modeling. The rest is just playing with them.
And why do we need to "level the playing field"? The part time modeler (flyer?) shouldn't be as good as the guy that spends a lot more time with them. Would you support a points handicap for less experienced pilots?
Full scale aerobatics doesn't have a BOM? Neither does NASCAR. What's your point.
Phil, your comments seem so self serving. You pull no punches in stating why you think we need to abolish the BOM, yet your reasons boil down to to the fact that it suits you (or whoever your lobbying for) better.

I'm not big on tuned pipe setups. They're kinda pricey and complicated. I think I'll lobby to get rid of the piped stunters because they have an avantage over me.

See how stupid that sounds?

[Randy Powell]

>>It hasn't gone the way Randy says it will go, most still build and pretty airplanes are still a big part of the package. <<

Could be. As I said, it's just my opinion and may be worth about what you paid for it. What will happen will happen. I'm definately with Eric that the BOM needs to be revised if for not other reason than to bring it up to date with technology. I've seen several suggestions that I could certainly go with.

Yes, there are many fine planes that are flown in FAI. And a lot that are buy and fly. Mostly because, I think, that other than the Yatshenko planes, there really isn't anything out there that is competitive with first class, owner built planes ... yet. And there aren't that many flyers that can afford the price tag on the Yatshenko planes. But as I say, I guess we'll see.

I also agree that this has been discussed to death. If Phil or someone has some need to eliminate the BOM, then make a proposal. It probably won't pass now, but eventually it will. I'd certainly be interested in working on a revision of the BOM.

[billbyles]

I think it is interesting that the TT were just won flying technology completely developed with a total absence of a BOM.

...and your point is?  Pretty much of a non-sequitur.

Bill Byles

[billbyles]

...stunt should be about trimming and flying skills...

Well, that would be your opinion only.


...In full scale aerobatic competition, there is no BOM.......Regards, Phil

And your point would be?  As a full-scale aerobatic competitor and CLPA model builder and flyer I do not see how this comment relates to CLPA BOM.

Bill Byles

[Warren Leadbeatter]

Hi guys

I see this topic quite a bit and obviously keep out of it because we fly F2B rules here in Australia.

However, at some of the larger contests, we do acknowledge that there are some masterpieces out there so we have a "Pilots Choice Award" for the "Best Model" which is voted by the pilots and the judges separately to the flying contest.   All models entered in the F2B comp are eligible and obviously the best built plane wins.  There is also a 2nd and 3rd Prize.  We all vote for who we think is 1st, 2nd and 3rd. 3 points for 1st, 2 points for 2nd and 3 points for 3rd. At the end of it the best comes out on top as voted by ALL, not just a few judges.

In this contest, it is posible for an ARF to win however, as most people BOM anyway, the ARFs don't really have a chance.

Just thought I would let you know how we do it here 'down under'.

Cheers

[EddyR]

I wrote this yesterday and it vanished after a few hours so I will try again. I agree with Phil Bare's thoughts on BOM. Someone said "the event was started to find the best modeler". Where did that come from? Ty is correct about "Daddy built" problems.That was a big problem at the 56-58 nats, I was there and saw it. I also saw GMA Nobler and it was sub standard by todays models.Bob Palmer's models had grain showing through the paint job and his taping was very poor.BOM and Appearance are to very different things but they are grouped together. Dennice is correct about bought paint jobs. Finished foam wings have been around for 20+ years.The attitude has been turn your head and don't say anything. Not many years ago $100 would buy you a finished foam wing and tail. Build a body and pay for a paint job and away you went,17-18 points and not much more work than a Nobler ARF. Until the foam wing most people built their own models. I have been at this event since the early 50's and I like the no BOM and Appearance approach that many use now. I attend vintage RC events and the workmanship there is just as good as any stunt ship. Hand built silk and dope finish are the norm. Most people flying the event are older people.If we don't adjust most of the older people like me will be gone and so will the event. I think BOM and Appearance should be used in Classic as the event is a reinvention of  some thing from the past. I wish Old time had BOM also.These are just my thought on the event not any move to do away or add BOM. I have always flown by the rules and can live buy what ever they are. All the flack the last few years about that man in Pennsylvanian and BOM has taken away a lot of joy I once had for the event.
EddyR

[Jim Morris]

Here is my 2c worth.I think they should do away with the BOM rule except for OTS and Classic. Maybe throw in a model show for the pampa classes. Im dont even come close to a front row model,but I do like to build.When I build I use the exact materials and hardware that I want.This might keep the tradition up for the traditional OTS and classic events.

[Bob Reeves]

OK my Opinion... A while back Canada went to FAI rules, I think we should follow Canada except with our skill classes. Makes sense and will better prepair our future world champions. Will eliminate the bickering over BOM and appearance points and bring us in line with the rest of the world.

A good friend of mine says the best compromise is when no one is happy, this should do it 

[Ron Merrill]

IMHO, i am waiting for the day (and i am running out of day light) when BMO and appearance points are gone and flights are judged by video and computers. Then and only then will we be judged on our flying, and that as i recall is what this is about Ron.

[Ted Fancher]

Hi guys

I see this topic quite a bit and obviously keep out of it because we fly F2B rules here in Australia.

However, at some of the larger contests, we do acknowledge that there are some masterpieces out there so we have a "Pilots Choice Award" for the "Best Model" which is voted by the pilots and the judges separately to the flying contest.   All models entered in the F2B comp are eligible and obviously the best built plane wins.  There is also a 2nd and 3rd Prize.  We all vote for who we think is 1st, 2nd and 3rd. 3 points for 1st, 2 points for 2nd and 3 points for 3rd. At the end of it the best comes out on top as voted by ALL, not just a few judges.

In this contest, it is posible for an ARF to win however, as most people BOM anyway, the ARFs don't really have a chance.

Just thought I would let you know how we do it here 'down under'.

Cheers

Warren,

Just to be clear.  Does this mean that the awards go to the "owner of the Model" as opposed to the builder?

Ted

[Ted Fancher]

IMHO, i am waiting for the day (and i am running out of day light) when BMO and appearance points are gone and flights are judged by video and computers. Then and only then will we be judged on our flying, and that as i recall is what this is about Ron.

Ron,

Gotta admit I'm scratching my head trying to figure out where you came up with the above statement regarding what "this is about".

I've got rule books going back all the way to the late 1940s and BOM and Apperance points in CLPA (at one time as many as 80 appearance points, by the way) are part and parcel of every one of them.

Just because you'd like the event to be the way you'd prefer in no way proves that it has ever been that way.

In this case, it never has and, if we're lucky, it never will be.

If you want to see what has happened to CL events that have thrown out the BOM and gone almost completely to buy and fly to compete effectively, check out Combat and FAI Team Race etc. at the Nats.  Or, try to find a contest for either in the US other than the handful of $$$$ meets for the handful of still active combat flyers.

You could hold all the other C/L events at the Nats in a corner of the L-Pad parking lot filled with the cars of competitors and supporters for CLPA, even with (especially with, from my point of view) the continued presence of the evil BOM and Appearance Points.  That's what you call evidence, Ron ... not a personal preference.

If you want to try your hand at crystal balling something in the future, how many people would you expect to show up at a future "nostalgia event" in which only ARFs were eligible.  Think it would knock the current VSC off the list of favorite winter destinations?

Stunt a flying only event?  No way.

Ted

[Mark Scarborough]

"IMHO, i am waiting for the day (and i am running out of day light) when BMO and appearance points are gone and flights are judged by video and computers. Then and only then will we be judged on our flying, and that as i recall is what this is about "


heck at this point then we can just fly it on a computer simulator, then we wont even have to mess with those noisy motors, fuel and support equipment, jeez just think how much cheaper it would be, and travel to those contests, heck you could telecommute to them no more gas money. the WC could be flown from your living room.

Nay how about we keep something REAL like allowing contestants to "present" their flights and not turn it into a sterile event ok?

[Ron Merrill]

Just thought i would take it to the extreme and show how silly the whole argument is. Ron.

[Dick Fowler]

My sense of this BOM subject is that the objections are aimed toward the difficulty in clear definition and enforcement of the rule. I haven't read any comments where a person is advocating the elimination of the BOM rule based on being unfair to the less gifted builder. Are any of you saying you want the BOM rule gone because it's unfair. I'm speaking to the fact that you don't want to have to build your own plane to compete.

[Chris McMillin]

My sense of this BOM subject is that the objections are aimed toward the difficulty in clear definition and enforcement of the rule.


CM; True story, in my mind anyway. The old "Guillows Sticks" kit rule is antiquated and never rewritten as technolgy marched ahead. I just got a JRoberts carrier kit that had the bellcrank equipped with leadouts, full prefabbed skins for the fuse and wings, etc. I think it's a 1960 kit. Foam Flite (Stott's) made sheeted foamers in 1965 and the ED at the Nats (GMA) said they were OK. The rule about the "...average kit..." is pretty old fasioned, even by '60's standards as there were so many innovative kit features in production. Top Flites' Form Flite kits were very pre fabbed. As the '60's came around, there were more and more cottage industry kits with pre-fabbed parts, I had a kit with a pre-built crutch (can't remember the manufacturer, it was a non-issue then, profile though.

The rule wasn't written to keep up with technology, hence the unfathomable "plastic kit" Yatsenko Shark comments, etc. I believe that had the rule evolved with the technology it wouldn't be as big of a deal as a few are making it now.


I haven't read any comments where a person is advocating the elimination of the BOM rule based on being unfair to the less gifted builder.


CM; I have not either. There doesn't seem to be anyone in the lower ranks complaining about their ship not comparing to the experts because they probably realize it takes a bit of time to reach that level of finish one sees in the expert class.


 Are any of you saying you want the BOM rule gone because it's unfair. I'm speaking to the fact that you don't want to have to build your own plane to compete.



There are a lot of people complaining about two points, one that the modelers that are receiveing top points at the Nats are cheaters that don't deserve to be flying because of their cheating, and then that stunt is all about flying and nothing about building.


I believe that if one researchs a bit farther into the BOM history, one finds that the ED at the NATS decided he did not want an event where people bought their way to the top, not because some old fart lost the contest, as Ty has suggested. The difference is huge.


Dick, Thanks for the good questions and clear points. It helps to weed out some of the basics.
(Trying not to be sassy too...)
Chris...

[Bradley Walker]

Brad,

I think the Yatshenko did a bit of BOM to come up with the design.

Of course they did, even without a rule...

Modelers model.

[Clayton Smith]

Ron,

Gotta admit I'm scratching my head trying to figure out where you came up with the above statement regarding what "this is about".

I've got rule books going back all the way to the late 1940s and BOM and Apperance points in CLPA (at one time as many as 80 appearance points, by the way) are part and parcel of every one of them.

Just because you'd like the event to be the way you'd prefer in no way proves that it has ever been that way.

In this case, it never has and, if we're lucky, it never will be.

If you want to see what has happened to CL events that have thrown out the BOM and gone almost completely to buy and fly to compete effectively, check out Combat and FAI Team Race etc. at the Nats.  Or, try to find a contest for either in the US other than the handful of $$$$ meets for the handful of still active combat flyers.

You could hold all the other C/L events at the Nats in a corner of the L-Pad parking lot filled with the cars of competitors and supporters for CLPA, even with (especially with, from my point of view) the continued presence of the evil BOM and Appearance Points.  That's what you call evidence, Ron ... not a personal preference.

If you want to try your hand at crystal balling something in the future, how many people would you expect to show up at a future "nostalgia event" in which only ARFs were eligible.  Think it would knock the current VSC off the list of favorite winter destinations?

Stunt a flying only event?  No way.

Ted

The reasons for the decline of the CL Combat event have nothing to do with who builds the airplane.  The decline is a result of the rules requiring passive engine shutoff devices.  This well intentioned requirement required technology not readily available and the devices too often interfered with the conduct of the event. The FAI Combat event has not had this requirement, however it is expected to be required after next year.  Hopefully the European competitors will develop an economical effective device that can be used in the AMA events. The CLPA community would do well to learn more about shutoff devices as even the infrequent flyaways in stunt events could lead to this kind of regulation.

Clayton Smith

[Randy Powell]

>>My sense of this BOM subject is that the objections are aimed toward the difficulty in clear definition and enforcement of the rule.<<

Well, here's a shock. Dick posted something that I totally agree with. 

I think it would be a very good idea to update the BOM rule. Seems that most of the complaints (not withstanding a few soreheads) is that it isn't well defined and based on technology that was available a lot of moons ago when the curernt rule was written. So I think it's an excellent idea to update it to include some of the stuff available today.

I said it before (and lost the post) that there seems to be 3 camps in this. One wants it the way it is: a builder and flyer event with current rules. One wants it the way it is but with a better definition of what constitutes BOM (there are really the same camp) and the third camp are those that don't like to build and would like to turn this into a buy and fly event. At present, it seems, the folks that want it to be a builder and flyer event seem to be the majority. Probably won't always be that way. Perhaps if the BOM rules are updated so that they make sense to a greater majority, we can stave off the buy and fly folks and keep the event as it is -  a test of the builder and flyer.

Interestingly, under the builder and flyer rules, CLPA has flourshish, gaining more and more people. Seems a good idea to keep it that way and if updating the rules so that they take current technology into account so that more people are satisfied with the rule, all the better. Some will still be unhappy. Oh well, some will always be unhappy.

[Clint Ormosen]

My sense of this BOM subject is that the objections are aimed toward the difficulty in clear definition and enforcement of the rule. I haven't read any comments where a person is advocating the elimination of the BOM rule based on being unfair to the less gifted builder. Are any of you saying you want the BOM rule gone because it's unfair. I'm speaking to the fact that you don't want to have to build your own plane to compete.

Dick, while I agree with most of your post, you probably won't hear many comming right out and saying that the rule is unfair to less gifted builders (or non builders.) But that's exactly why most, not all, anti BOM'ers want it gone. The BOM rule simply interferes with what they want the event to be. Either they hate building, don't build well, or don't have the time to build or whatever. Since they ARE PERFECTLY WELCOME to compete with a ready to go model, I can't see why else someone would vote to abolish the BOM.
I am one of those "less gifted builders", and I still think that it's important to keep the CLPA event a builder/flyer competition.

[Kerry Ewart]

here is a twist to this story.

If Mr Yatshenko came to the us nats and won would he be called "one of those ARF guys" and would he be able to get and appearance points because it is a arf model.

[john e. holliday]

Sorry, but, if you had been following the forums(Stuka Stunt Works,  Ultra Hobbies and this one).  You would have seen pictures and read the story of how Mr. Yatsenko designed the plane, made the molds and is trying to make a living with it.  I would say he would be eligible for the open competition at the US NATS even tho he would probably never win it.  Having never met the man I do not know what kind of flyer he is, but, he understands Precision Aerobatics and designs accordingly.  My 1/2 cents worth.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[RC Storick]

The thing that gets me about the BOM is the only place it is important is Junior Senior and Open "AT THE NATS" The ones who holler the loudest don't fly at the NATS. So unless you are flying at the "NATS" run what you brung! If you ever intend on going to the "NATS' Learn to build!

[John Miller]

The thing that gets me about the BOM is the only place it is important is Junior Senior and Open "AT THE NATS" The ones who holler the loudest don't fly at the NATS. So unless you are flying at the "NATS" run what you brung! If you ever intend on going to the "NATS' Learn to build!

Well said Robert.

Perhaps it's all about trying to get rid of the percieved advantage of those few appearance points they'll miss out on by not building their own. Pilots of equal ability will almost always lose to the one who builds his own.

I would think that applying oneself by all the extra practise flights one can put up while the builder is in the workshop, should even the field.

[RC Storick]

Sorry, but, if you had been following the forums(Stuka Stunt Works,  Ultra Hobbies and this one).  You would have seen pictures and read the story of how Mr. Yatsenko designed the plane, made the molds and is trying to make a living with it.  I would say he would be eligible for the open competition at the US NATS even tho he would probably never win it.  Having never met the man I do not know what kind of flyer he is, but, he understands Precision Aerobatics and designs accordingly.  My 1/2 cents worth.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

Well Doc here is my take. If he flew one of his Planes made in his facotry by others then NO! If he built the plane himself Yes! simple..

SAME AS GMA flying a ARF Nobler

[Bradley Walker]

>>My sense of this BOM subject is that the objections are aimed toward the difficulty in clear definition and enforcement of the rule.<<

Well, here's a shock. Dick posted something that I totally agree with. 

I think it would be a very good idea to update the BOM rule.

To what?

Please tell me.  I want to hear what the update should be.

Keep in mind, of course, that the re-definition is the problem.  any re-definition to include pre-built components will ultimately mean that you will be recieving points for work you did not do.  We debated BOM updates for several years.

That is why we ended up with the opinion that a "partial BOM" is worse than no BOM.  I say, either 100% or nothing.

[Randy Powell]

Hi Brad!

Well, I can think of a couple of things. It should probably be spelled out clearly that using components like control system pieces is OK. You don't have to build your own bellcranks or control horns, etc. Using prefabed fuel tanks is fine. Iron on plastic finish is fine, you don't have to paint. Things like that would not draw complaint from anyone, I don't think. The question is, where do you draw the line? And that's where the discussion has to take place. Is a precut foam wing from a supplier OK? What if it's pre-sheeted? How about other foam components. What about using a prefab CF engine crutch. I can see many areas where a line would have to drawn saying this is OK, that isn't. Right now, it's kinda murky.

I've seen some suggestions posted online a couple of times that seem worthwhile. I mean, you have to be clear about what is OK and what doesn't qualify. It seems that that is the biggest problem with the current rule and a great way to get around it. It's based on what was available when it was written. It's pretty easy to say, hey, this plane was a kit and the rule says a kit is OK. Who knew back then that a "kit" could consist of 5 or 6 prefabricated parts?

So it seems that redefining the rule and being clear about what a "kit" can consist of would be a good idea. No, I'm not suggesting that an ARC qualifies or that if you have someone else build the wing and tail and you build the fuselage and finish that that qualifies. Maybe it does, but I think that a reasonable discussion in which such things are clearly outlined so that someone getting ready to build a plane knows that this is OK and that isn't would be helpful. It's not going to help with those that will simply lie about it. But it doesn't help with that now. There will always be a percentage of folks that will lie about it. Hey, welcome to the world. But I think the vast majority of folks will be honest. That's certainly been true here locally.

[Dick Fowler]

Randy, let me return the shock.... You hit the nail on the head as to why there should be a clear and well defined BOM rule.

Randy..." So it seems that redefining the rule and being clear about what a "kit" can consist of would be a good idea. No, I'm not suggesting that an ARC qualifies or that if you have someone else build the wing and tail and you build the fuselage and finish that that qualifies. Maybe it does, but I think that a reasonable discussion in which such things are clearly outlined so that someone getting ready to build a plane knows that this is OK and that isn't would be helpful. It's not going to help with those that will simply lie about it. But it doesn't help with that now. There will always be a percentage of folks that will lie about it. Hey, welcome to the world. But I think the vast majority of folks will be honest. That's certainly been true here locally."

A clear guideline to all would be the measure of an effectively worded rule. IMHO a person should be able to read the rule know exactly what is acceptable... not have to rely on some rather obtuse "Interpretation".

[Arch Adamisin]

I guess my main concern over these composite models is, who on this forum is qualified to decide what is legal and what is not? How many people commenting about these models have ever carved plugs, made molds and then pulled excellent parts from those molds? I think the point that is being overlooked most is the FACT that it is a lot easier to fly a competitive stunt pattern with a model that is straight and true. Learning to build a model like that takes time and energy.
Since we were not competing in stunt at the time that this composite decision was made, would someone please tell me, did one person make the decision or was it by committee?

     Arch

[John Miller]

 

I can't believe I'm going to say this,,,,

My problem with the BOM interpretation would become critical, if it were to allow, what would basically be "turn key" operations.

Anytime a person could purchase, and it can be done right now, a plane that is completely assembled, even if it's a take apart design, and do nothing more than bolt in an engine, tank, and hook up the lines, it would definitely not be, in anyway considered a "kit". You can purchase a cased airplane, that is so complete, it has even been test flown, and basic trimmed.  Same goes for purchasing another pilots used airplane, or having one built by another builder. None of these should be considered a kit, or a BOM qualified plane.

Now, considering the current ARF's and ARC's.

I believe that the state of kits, in the entire hobby, has progressed to the point that a many of them are close to, if not in fact, ARF's and ARC's.

So, where does that leave me, a supporter of BOM?

OK, components are components. how they are tied together, in my opinion is where the skill needs to be applied. Let me illustrate my thinking on this subject of installing components.

There have always been several axioms decreed by the stunt Gods as sacrosanct when it comes to the aircraft, and these are. 1.Build only as strong as needed. 2,Keep the weight under control. 3,Straight is great, meaning that proper alignment is crucial. and 4.use a dependable, reliable, and correct power package.

Of the above axioms, we've found that many pilots over build, and get away with it. They also have shown that with proper setup and power, an overweight porker can still bring it home. It's also apparent that what is considered dependable, reliable, or correct, in the choice of power, is also not set in stone. Of the 4 axioms noted above, we're left with straight, proper alignment.

So, in my current thinking, an ARC, and quite possibly, an ARF won't be any good, no matter the quality of the "kits", if they are sloppily assembled. Badly assembled components make for poor flying planes.

Properly assembled components, regardless of where they came from, can become outstanding planes.

Does it make a difference that the components come in a "KIT"?

Until the advent of real ARC's and ARF's in CLPA, it was a common, and regular occurrence to purchase components and assemble them into a design. Many of these were considered "Scratch Built," Or even "Original" designs.

The components, such as prebuilt engine crutches, framed up built up, or salvaged wings, foam wings complete to the point that sometimes the flaps were even installed, as well as stabs and elevator cores, only, or sheeted.

Having said all the above, I would prefer that it would be necessary to do a lot more of the work to qualify for BOM, but the facts are that a creeping acceptance of components has taken place, and been accepted, under the current rule. I can see where some, whom I feel are only asking for codification, perhaps to defray future criticism, are now asking to either rewrite the rule, in light of what has become common practise, or eliminating it altogether as unenforceable.

I'm not sure that the rule is unenforceable, but it is confusing due to the issues cited above.

There are several possible solutions, in my opinion, that would serve.

One would be to go to FAI rules and let the argument go. The problem seems to be that under FAI, we would lose some of the control over our own events to a committee based overseas. Americans being what we are, that's a difficult pill to swallow, esp. since the event was born here.

Drop BOM completely from US CLPA events, along with appearance points.

While this would please some, it would not please the majority of US competitors. Another area of concern is with the National Championship. This is the only contest where not being the BOM, will not allow you to compete. Anyone can compete with any airplane under PAMPA classes, sans appearance points. It makes me question the motives of some anti BOMers. Do they want to drop BOM, or simply get rid of the appearance points so they can compete without the hit of loss of a few appearance points.

We could leave it all as it is, and continually have this conversation. In my opinion this is the worst suggestion of them all.

We could rewrite the rule. It could be quite simple, and I offer the following.

A. Builder of the model requirements shall be considered completed when the following has occurred.

The pilot shall have assembled and aligned the components.

Components are defined as:
Motor crutch, wing, whether built up, or foam, sheeted or not, Stab and elevator, either built up or foam, sheeted or not. Control system, individual or assembled parts. Gear, pre-bent or ready to mount. Movable control surfaces may be shaped and ready to install. Basic fuselage may be ready to accept components.

Edit> Components may be purchased or built by the builder.

Assembled and aligned are defined as;

The installation of accepted components in proper alignment as to maintain a safe flying plane.

B. Appearance points:

A total of 40 points to be possible.

Appearance points when used, shall be awarded based on the following points.

Planes eligible for AP's must conform to the requirements for BOM.

Originality: points given for presenting a new, or modified design, showing original thinking and, or, execution. Available points, 1-20.

Workmanship: Points given for quality and good workmanship exhibited by the builder.   Available points, 1-20.


Now, you've noticed that I suggested 40 appearance points. This is an arbitrary number, but I like the concept of rewarding Originality with an equal amount of points as are given for construction.

If the above seems reasonable, let the powers that be in PAMPA know, and we can make a proposal for a rule change.

(Yeah, Randy, I'm finding it hard to believe I also said that. Something needs to be done, and we have to end this constant BOM discussion. Expanding the appearace points allows for more latitude, and reward those who still are modelors, even when building and ARF, or ARC.)

[Randy Powell]

Arch,

I think that's the point. There was no decision. It just sort of happened like a lot of thing.

My only point was that an amended rule be proposed (and I'm talking to some folks about that right now) and that it be presented for discussion and presentation to the AMA. I think reasonable people can come up with a compromise that includes the largest percentage of folks. Some will not like it no matter what is done, but again, that's true as it is. At least with a clearly defined rule, the interpretation goes out of it at least to some extent.

Look, no matter what is done, some will be unhappy. If I were a builder of prefabrication planes and someone proposed a rule that excluded my product, I wouldn't be very happy. I'm sure a lot of ARC and ARF builders would be unhappy (even though nothing excludes them from flying in PAMPA events). But if we are to maintain the integrity of the event and keep it as a builder and flier event, then some sort of compromise has to be made and a clear rule written. It's not a concern to me directly. I design and build my own stuff. There is no question in my mind that I am the BOM of all my own stuff. But were I new to the event, I'd want an unambiguous rule that says, this is OK and that isn't.

Just my thoughts on it.

edit after John's post

John,

Well, that would be the idea. I still don't think that an ARF should be awarded appearance points, but that is a bias coming from a builder, I guess. I've seen guys rework an ARC, building a real cowl and doing some stylish modifications and putting a very nice finish on them. While it doesn't thrill me to award them appearance points, I could, I suppose, go along with that.

<Man, I can't believe I said that>

[Mark Scarborough]

I think one tac to take would be to disect the time involved in building a top level stunter from naked balsa sticks to a finishe airplane. Break it down into percentagesper stage. Randy of building a plane what percentage of the time is alignment and assembley? Finish? Its a hard thing to quantify but I think that if it were examined one would find that alignment and finish comprise the greatest share of the time IMHO. Not to say that fabrication and assemble are any less important. I was speaking to a respected member of our community the other day,I will let him jump in if he wants, His suggestion was to break the points down different. something along the lines of 0 to 10 if its an arc and you did a great job assembling, and adding trim. 5 - 15 for an ARC again depending on how you trimmed and finished it and then 10 to 20 if its a scratch built. On the surface it really sounds workable. HOWEVER in retrospect, it really doesnt address the key point and problem as I ssee it here. That being defining what constitutes an ARC~ARF~ or scratch built. In an ideal world, someone who designs and innovates, Randy comes to mind, should be rewarded for stepping outside the box. whereas someone who builds a box stock impact is exhibiting craftsmanship but are they really being creative? (um added PW asside since he did desingn it) Personally I think if it were divided into Creativity points and craftsmanship points it would become a mute point. If you do an ARC or ARF there is NO creativity points however you still have craftsmanship points if you really did a good job. If on the other hand you designed and or scratch built the beast your owndarnself, then you also vie for Creativity points. Again, this is dependent upon the honesty of the individual in question so is not a "perfect" system.

[Randy Powell]

Mark,

It's not that hard. 30% fabricating parts (though I then to fabricate darn near everything), 30% in assembly and what I look at as detail work (bulding cowls, putting in goodies like exhaust scoops and the like) and 40% on finish. On average, I have 250-300 hours in from plan to flying.