BOM Proposal

[Randy Powell]

OK, here is the proposal that me, Marvin Denny and a few others have been working on. The concept is Marvin's and I think it gets the general idea across pretty well. Please try not to just fire off complaints or explain to us why you're sure it won't work. If you have a constructive comment, we'd love to hear it. If you're just going to gripe, start your own gripe thread.

The idea here was to try to please the most people while still maintaining the spirit of the event. It should give an avenue to those that are just starting out a way to get some points at the beginning and more as they move from ARFs to building their own planes. It also only minimally handcaps those that prefer to just fly pre-builts or use a lot of pre-assembled components. I already know that some will not like it and will complain about various elements, but at least it's a rule that tries to be inclusive. No rule in this area will be complete. There is just no way to foresee every circumstance. But hopefully by the time this rule is submitted for consideration, enough elements will be included to cover most contingencies. The rest will have to be left up to the CD at a contest to determine.

It still relies on folks being honest, but at least they will know what the parameters are. I'm sure it's not perfect and you can certainly "rules lawyer" the thing to death by nit-picking details, but the point here is to propose a concept and get feedback. We would like to hear constructive opinions.

Have at it.

Proposed Change to Current Builder of the Model rule.
 
It is proposed that the current Builder of the Model rule be changed to acknowledge the efforts of those building currently available Almost Ready to Fly and Almost Ready to Cover aircraft along with those that use substantially pre-constructed components while still giving consideration to those that build and finish from scratch.
 
Final determination of the status of an aircraft shall be the responsibility of the Contest Director. Such decisions are final. If an aircraft is entered that is available as an ARF or ARC, but built from plans by the builder, documentation such as pictorial of construction or other proof that builder constructed the model from scratch should be submitted to the Contest Director prior to the competition.
 
It is proposed that the Builder of the model rule be broken into three categories.
 
1)     ARF Aircraft, 1-10 points available
 
Qualified is any aircraft that comes to the builder as pre-constructed and finished components so that it can be assembled, ready to fly, in a matter of a few hours. This would include planes that come pre-covered (where used) with Mylar or other plastic finish. Determination of overall quality of completed plane will take into account alignment, airworthiness and final presentation as will changes in the basic design including added components such as wheel pants, changes in fuselage profile and other additions that add to the creativeness and individuality of the aircraft.
 
2)     ARC Aircraft, 5-15 points available
 
Qualified is any aircraft that is constructed from preassembled but unfinished components in a complete “kit” or an aircraft that is constructed completely or partially from preassembled components. Included would be aircraft that are considered ARC or Almost Ready to Cover. Also included in this category are aircraft that are partially constructed by the builder but use pre-assembled components such as wings or fuselages from other suppliers. As a minimal example, if a builder buys a completed foam core wing that has been sheeted with leading edge and trailing edge, wing tips and coupled flaps but otherwise constructs the remaining aircraft, it would be considered to fall into this category. Consideration in the final appearance score should take into account the fact that some parts were constructed by the builder. It should also take into account originality and creativeness.
     
3)     Scratch or Kit built Aircraft  10-20 points available
 
This will include any aircraft that is either designed and built, built from plans or built from a kit and completely constructed and finished by the builder. A kit, in this case, is defined as including precut, pre-molded or formed parts that have very little no pre-construction or pre-assembly. An exception may include such items a control system, machined spar or similar components that are pre-cut and pre-fitted but not permanently assembled. Such kit parts must be entirely assembled and aligned by the builder. Such aircraft should be identified by the builder as being entirely constructed by the builder including assembly, alignment of components and finish of the aircraft. As with all categories, the workmanship and final appearance will be considered in scoring.
 

[Bill Little]

Hi Randy,

I can live with it.  I feel it is more explicit than the present rule.

A question (not a complaint! ):  is there a provision for a "bought" model?  One that the pilot has really only hooked up the lines to?

Thanks to you, Marvin, and the others for this effort.

Bill <><

[Andrew Borgogna]

It is a rules change that I can certainly live with.  It gives fair credit where credit is due.
Andy

[Mike Foley]

  While the contentions are good I think it complicates things more.  I would leave the current "AMA" rule in effect. ARFS = no appearance points.

[Alan Hahn]

My complaint is that it penalizes the poor guy who, let's say, builds a Oriental kit. If it already exists, how does he document he built it?
I still say that if one needs documentation, then everyone   should provide it. Nice smiling pictures of your face as you glue a rib on or vacuum bag the wing.
But before you think I am complaining too much (and I am!  ), I know your hearts are in the right place about the rule.

[Bob Reeves]

I am in the process of applying for CD status and thought when I first started reading and thinking from a CD's point of view.. Man this is going to complicate the whole process.. However after reading the entire proposal it wouldn't really be that bad, at least thats my first take.

As far as bought airplanes complete and ready to fly.. The pilot didn't do anything but maybe install an engine and make a few trim changes to suite his flying style so I would have to say no points.

As much as I am an advocate of eliminating appearance points alltogether this just might be the best compromise.

[Marvin Denny]

  That is correct ---  borrowed or bought RTF except perhaps installing an engine,tank, and wheels--- 0 points.  Likw wise,  If I builsthe Fuselage and tail feathers but buy a prebuilt wing--- automatic  ARC status. 5 to 15 possible points.

  Bigiron

[Randy Powell]

Bill,

Good point. Adding a note that a bought plane with no construction at all equals no points would be something to add. I thought about it, but thought it was self-evident. But as you say, it should be specified.

As far at the kit built plane that is also an ARF; It shouldn't be too hard to take one picture of the thing while you're building it. At least around here, we always know you built what. I would think that just a statement that "I built it" would be enough unless someone challenged it. And that would likely only happen at really big contests where everyone didn't already all ready know everyone. Could be that that section could use different wording.

[EddyR]

Randy as you have it a ARC could still get 5 points more than the guy who spends months building a model but has a poor finish. The finish is where all the points come from. I am not griping or complaining about your idea just pointing out a discrepancy that has come up before.My great flying 10 year old scratch built get 10 points and the new shinny ARC gets 15 points. It is easy to say well that won't happen but most judging gives the highest points to the clean shiny plane. Just something for you to think about.
Ed

[Bob Reeves]

Randy as you have it a ARC could still get 5 points more than the guy who spends months building a model but has a poor finish. The finish is where all the points come from. I am not griping or complaining about your idea just pointing out a discrepancy that has come up before.My great flying 10 year old scratch built get 10 points and the new shinny ARC gets 15 points. It is easy to say well that won't happen but most judging gives the highest points to the clean shiny plane. Just something for you to think about.
Ed

Could happen and probably will but as it stands with the rules in place now the ARC could very well get 10 to 12 more points than the scratch built.

[Randy Cuberly]

Randy and Marvin,
This is a well thought out and sensible proposal.  It may not be perfect but it eliminates most of the items of contention in the current rule.  In other words it seems to me to be a perfect compromise.
There are always those who are unwilling to compromise anything, but I sincerely believe most stunt fliers will support this.
You guys have my support and sincere "Thanks" for the effort.

Randy Cuberly

[RC Storick]

There will still be some guys who will take a ARF nobler for example and fix the cowl and rudder, cover it and paint it and say its a green box?

[Shultzie]

Hummm!
Just say for an example, if I could obtain a stunt model that has won a track record first place wins...or maybe, even a world cup, trimmed to perfection that includes a specially tweaked engine, etc.
Take a can of primer...then paint it battleship grey.

How many points could I then glean if I chose to enter  and fly with this model?

Would I or should I get points for my effort, especially if it is a beeeeeeeeeuuuuuteeeeeful flawless pale shade of  artisical' grey?  Uhhhh???
Just razzzin and jazzin

[john e. holliday]

I have one question,  did it get in before the deaqd line?  Last time I checked there were no CL proposals or our elustrious tech person didn't have them in the computor yet.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[Randy Powell]

>>There will still be some guys who will take a ARF nobler for example and fix the cowl and rudder, cover it and paint it and say its a green box?<<

Sparky,

Well, as I noted, it certainly doesn't stop people from lying. It is hoped that folks, with a reasonable rule, will be honest. But I'm sure there will be folks that will take advantage. There always are.

To be clear, if I had my way, we would have only kit and scratch built planes and still have 40 appearance points. But as it turns out, I don't have my own way and am not likely to get it. I don't see the point of butting heads over this any longer. And it's true that guys that do something should receive some acknowledgement of their  efforts. At least with this sort of system, there is both an acknowledgement of their efforts and a path to get more points if as they improve along with not handicapping those that chose not to build as badly. As with most compromises, no one gets what they want, but everybody get something.

And Don, for you and your gray plane? No Points!!   

[Balsa Butcher]

Yes, I can live with this one.  Now, I had better go out and take a picture of my kit built Smoothie before I got too far along

[Clint Ormosen]

*big sigh* Oh all right. I guess if the ARF/ARC flyers just have to get something, then I guess I can support this proposal.







I still think they should get a big fat zero.

[Tom Weedon]

Just drop the whole issue, NO BOM RULE, NO APPEARANCE POINTS, period!

R/C pattern did it many years ago and still today, pattern planes are some of the most beautiful airplanes at any flying field. Pattern flyer's still take great pride in their planes, however, today, almost 3/4 of all Pattern planes at a contest are ARF's or purchased used airplanes.

This is a new age in the hobby. Those that continue to yearn for the "Good Old Days" of balsa, tissue, and dope are going to be continually disappointed. GET OVER IT! You can't change it so don't try. You are loosing the struggle.    If you keep the outdated BOM rule, you will hurt the future growth of C/L Sport and Stunt.

As for me, I like to build my airplanes (R/C and C/L), but that is my personal preference and I don't believe that I have the right to shove it down someone else's throat. 

Tom Weedon

[Bradley Walker]

I am in the process of applying for CD status and thought when I first started reading and thinking from a CD's point of view.. Man this is going to complicate the whole process..

Yes, it is.

Now you are going to have the element of proof, which is messy.  This is where the current BOM started going off the tracks.  No one wants to see half the field get protested (and it possibly stick).  That's just no fun.

Not to mention that you are saying that half of the Top 20 at the Nats are going to be willing to start the contest 5-10 point down?  There are many in that group that have not built a wing in decades.

I would rather the current BOM stay in place and everyone just try to get as many points as they can by applying paint jobs.

Also, this proposal is darn near exactly the same as Keith Trostle's from like, 4 years ago.

[Bradley Walker]

Just drop the whole issue, NO BOM RULE, NO APPEARANCE POINTS, period!

R/C pattern did it many years ago and still today, pattern planes are some of the most beautiful airplanes at any flying field. Pattern flyer's still take great pride in their planes, however, today, almost 3/4 of all Pattern planes at a contest are ARF's or purchased used airplanes.

Tom, you do not realize that control line stunt flying is the exception to every rule in model flying, and that any success in other modeling areas will simply not apply to stunt flying, because it is so truly unique and special.

Tom, it won't do any good to bring up all of these types of modeling that are BOOMING sans BOM.  You know like pylon, pattern, IMAC, helicopters, etc (not to mention the entire stunt world outside the USA).  You know that control line combat died because of the loss of the BOM, not because all of the fliers retired after they got a little long in the tooth---combat is a young man's game after all.  I read it all the time on the Internet!!!  It must be true!!!

Tom, I think the truth is that most stunt fliers are completely uninformed what is going on in modeling outside of our little group (it sounds like you are not), and they have no interest whatsoever from gleaning anything from anyone else (especially the evil RC fliers).  I know, I have tried that tact several times, very few seem interested.

[SteveMoon]

Randy: You have presented a well thought out proposal here.
But, I think it is just too complicated. While this proposal sounds
logical today, how will it be in 10 years? We need to be simplifying
things.

That is why I have already sent in a rules proposal that says: Builder
of the Model rule does not apply to Control Line Precision Aerobatics.
I really feel that this is the only way forward for this event. And, I see
this as just a first step. The ultimate goal should be for us to go to
FAI F2B scoring and rules like the rest of the world.

For me, personally, the 'spirit' of this event is going out and flying.
The only reason I have ever built a CL plane is to go out and fly it, and
try to get better at flying (or just have fun while flying). The 'spirit' of
cutting my fingers to shreds while carving a block, or breathing in 948 llbs.
of balsa dust, or burning my eyes with CyA, or gluing my fingers together,
or sanding my fingertips off, or.........etc., etc., just plain escapes me.
All that is meaningless to me.

Later, Steve

[RC Storick]

There are many things to consider on this topic and rule change. I for one am for the spirit of the event, which was building and flying a model aircraft. The building part came into affect when dads were building their kids airplanes. However there was still cheating going on. This rule is hard to enforce TRUE but the benefits of the rule are overwhelming to me. It teaches so many things that can be used later on in life. Most guys who build can fix their own car. Most guys who make there own controls can weld. Most guys who build can make there own Kitchen cabinets. So an on so forth.

Would it not be a shame to let these things slip by our youth? The dumbing down of America is already in affect. Just look at the tests kids take today. Most graduate with substandard knowledge.

Flame away if you must but I am for a more strict BOM..

EDIT: If there is no BOM , The guy with the most money wins!! and practice time..

[ptg]

Every time some one asks me what I think about BOM they are surprised with the answer.  “It’s a rule that’s past its time and prime intent”.  Let everybody who can fly, fly and be judged on the flight performance alone.

Now I will go into my Studio/shop and obsess on every little detail of the new plane.  Immediately after it is finished (2 weeks) I will carefully cut a bunch of parts for a bold venture into electric flight and carefully fit each piece.  Followed by sanding, filling, sanding, masking, painting, sanding, rubbing, polishing and then finally flying.  No plans to change how thing get done around here. 

While I truly admire good craftsmanship and those who practice it, I simply say no BOM, let’s go fly!

Incidentally, every time I take a trip to the paint store or order balsa it is difficult to understand how spending more money could buy me a better airplane!.

Cheers 

[Bradley Walker]

Every time some one asks me what I think about BOM they are surprised with the answer.  “It’s a rule that’s past its time and prime intent”.  Let everybody who can fly, fly and be judged on the flight performance alone.

Now I will go into my Studio/shop and obsess on every little detail of the new plane.  Immediately after it is finished (2 weeks) I will carefully cut a bunch of parts for a bold venture into electric flight and carefully fit each piece.  Followed by sanding, filling, sanding, masking, painting, sanding, rubbing, polishing and then finally flying.  No plans to change how thing get done around here. 

As I posted here previously, this is the current state of many of the fliers competing under current FAI rules.  My friend Brian eather is great example.  He flies FAI and builds every single stick of his planes.  Not to mention props, pipes, mufflers, etc.  BOM has never had any effect on his desire to express himself through his workmanship.  The two issues simply have no correlation whatsoever.   In fact, he had a Shark, Retro, etc and SOLD it all because he thought HIS MODELS WERE BETTER!!!

[Bob Zambelli]

Robert - well said!!! Best response yet. 

Bob Z.

[Bradley Walker]

Would it not be a shame to let these things slip by our youth? The dumbing down of America is already in affect. Just look at the tests kids take today. Most graduate with substandard knowledge.

Do you believe that the entire rest of the world flying under FAI are "dumbed down"?

[Andrew Borgogna]

"There will still be some guys who will take a ARF nobler for example and fix the cowl and rudder, cover it and paint it and say it’s a green box?"

No doubt that this statement can come true.  My opinion on cheaters is the only person who really looses when a person cheats is the cheater himself.  If someone wants to look at a trophy they won by cheating their friends so be it.  I won't loose any sleep over it.  In fact I believe we should simply ask the question "Did you build it? And just trust the person to answer honestly."  Weird, I know but this is model airplanes not world politics.  ARF/Arcs’ are here to stay, I saw it happen in R/C and it is happening in control line.  I also believe "effort" regardless of how small should be rewarded in a manner commensurate with the amount of effort.  It seems to me this compromise does exactly that.
Andy

[Keith Spriggs]

Robert - well said!!! Best response yet. 

Bob Z.

I agree. Even though any rules will never affect me personally I think there is a much larger picture here. Those of us who know the joy of creativity whether it be art, music, poetry or model airplanes want everyone to be exposed to to that joy. Some will embrace it some will not. That is not the important thing. BOM rule "leads the horse to water". The skillful flying of a model is something entirely separate from the creativity part. That in itself is worthy of acknowledgment. I think anyone that is able to excel in both fields of endeavor should certainly receive acknowledgment for both.

[Ken Deboy]

Just drop the whole issue, NO BOM RULE, NO APPEARANCE POINTS, period!

R/C pattern did it many years ago and still today, pattern planes are some of the most beautiful airplanes at any flying field. Pattern flyer's still take great pride in their planes, however, today, almost 3/4 of all Pattern planes at a contest are ARF's or purchased used airplanes.

This is a new age in the hobby. Those that continue to yearn for the "Good Old Days" of balsa, tissue, and dope are going to be continually disappointed. GET OVER IT! You can't change it so don't try. You are loosing the struggle.    If you keep the outdated BOM rule, you will hurt the future growth of C/L Sport and Stunt.

As for me, I like to build my airplanes (R/C and C/L), but that is my personal preference and I don't believe that I have the right to shove it down someone else's throat. 

Tom Weedon

Uhmm... then you mean about 1/4 of the fliers at Pattern contests take great pride in their airplanes? As far as shoving something down someone's throat, I don't see haow the proposed rule does any such thing. EVERYONE gets to fly, including the ARC/ARF fliers, and they even can qualify for appearance points. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, it is conceivable that an ARC could even end up with more appearance points than a scratch built airplane. Could you please explain how this is "forcing" anyting on anybody?

cheers,
Ken

[Randy Powell]

I appreciate that some don't have any problem with changing the event to something else. The example of RC pattern planes was made. I've spent considerable time talking with RC pattern pilots and it's true that 90% are ARFs or contracted airframes. The thing I think is funny is most of the guys I've talked to, while really good pilots, don't really have a clue of how the plane is built or why it works. They just know it works. That's fine, I guess.

And those that say they just want a flying event will probably get it eventually. This event was conceived as a test of the skill and ability of a person in building, finishing and flying a plane. Many argue that it should be narrowed to just a test of the flyer. Hey, if enough people feel that way, then that is what will happen.  

I often tell RC guys I know that I don't fly RC anymore because I don't particularly like video games (which to me is what RC flying is). If I want to play a video game, I'll fire up Freelancer or Flyboys and have at it. It's cheaper and easier than bothering to buy an RC plane and have to put up with weather, flying site hassles and frequency checks to get the same effect. The local RC club recently had a resurgence and for awhile had many new (and young) members. The advent of 3D flying that can be done anywhere (including a driveway for the little electric jobs)  fostered a boom in local membership. But as with a lot of stuff, the shine wears off pretty quickly and while a couple of months ago they had a big climb in membership, 90% of those folks have moved on to the next big thing. They are back down to the base membership (about 40 guys) with 2 or 3 people that stuck.

I suspect that CL will go the same route. Actually putting in effort to build and fly a plane will be replaced by a transient population of folks trying it out and moving on. That's cool, I guess. Maybe a few will stick for awhile.

Steve and Brad are right to an extent. The event is moving to a buy and fly thing. I don't much care what "the rest of the world" is doing. I'm told that the rest of the world in toto is less flyers than those flying CL in the U.S. But, whatever.

The thought here was to perhaps encourage folks that buy and fly to think about building. But that presupposes they have some interest. Maybe it works, maybe not. I'm tired of fighting over this. The folks that can't see the benefit of the event as it is probably never will. They simply have a different mindset. To those of us that learned this way, the benefit is so obvious that it's like trying to explain to someone why having oxygen in the atmosphere is a good thing.

The thing about proving you built a plane that is available as an ARF was an afterthought. As far as I'm concerned, just saying "I built it" is good enough for me. I tend to trust someone's word until it's demonstrated to me that they can't be trusted.

>>Not to mention that you are saying that half of the Top 20 at the Nats are going to be willing to start the contest 5-10 point down? <<

That's interesting. I know that Ted, Paul, Brett, Billy and Dave all build their own stuff. Completely. Hmmm....

[RC Storick]

Do you believe that the entire rest of the world flying under FAI are "dumbed down"?

No just the US

[Doug Moon]

Would it not be a shame to let these things slip by our youth? The dumbing down of America is already in affect. Just look at the tests kids take today. Most graduate with substandard knowledge.


EDIT:

This drives me nuts when people say this.  You are a Harley mechanic, I am Loan Officer, other people here are engineers and so on.  How are you going to know that MOST graduate with substandard knowledge?  My wife works as a teacher at this time.  I can tell you the kids today learn higher levels of math at a younger age every year.  They are required to have more credits to graduate and 7 periods is the norm.  Kids today are just like any other kids, to the older generation they appear to not care and have horrible clothing choices.  BUT They are just as smart as they always have been.  Maybe not as wise but just as smart.  

Example, my daughter is 3 years 9 months old.  She can point and click, drag and drop, surf the net to her favorite Seasame street website, operate a DVD player from the front panel or the remote, operate a VCR from the front panel or the remote, (those are all self taught by the way) not to mention say her ABCs, Count to 20, spell her name and her younger sister's name, knows our street address, count to 10 in Spanish, and on and on.  

Bottom line is kids and people alike are either creative and take pride in making something with thier hands or they get the satisfaction elsewhere.  I have an ART degree and love being creative.  My wife has no such interest.  That doesnt make her or anyone else less, just different.  

I dont know where I am going with this but the kids are less educated now idea is just simply not true.

[Doug Moon]

An This event was conceived as a test of the skill and ability of a person in building, finishing and flying a plane. Many argue that it should be narrowed to just a test of the flyer.

Well when it was created there really werent many options.  If you wanted to fly a model plane you had to build it. 

[frank carlisle]

Randy, your proposal is pretty much along the same lines I've been thinking. If a guy shows up with any plane at all he should get some points for it. Your system is fine.

It would be great if guys could all get into building.

[RC Storick]

I dont know where I am going with this but the kids are less educated now idea is just simply not true.

This is off tract on the BOM but,

I dont know where you live but the bigger US citys graduate kids from high schoool who can't even read.

If you dont think so read here-->http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/reading_facts.html

[Randy Powell]

I don't really want to get into the benefits of BOM or any other arguments about this. This was a proposal to create a rule that is more inclusive and takes into account changes in technology, not debate whether we should have the rule.

Brief rant~~~
I always find it interesting that folks want to recreate the event in the image that makes them happy. As has been pointed out, there are many, many other modeling areas where buy and fly is the rule and only a few care about building planes. Why not do those events if you don't like or see the point of building? Why try to change this one? Those are rhetorical questions.
end of rant

Point is, this thread was posted to allow folks here to review a proposal to improve (hopefully) the BOM rule and appearance points. As I said, those that don't see the benefits of a BOM rule at this point will never see them and never agree. That's fine, they don't have to. If you have some constructive suggestions apart from get rid of the BOM, that's great. We already pretty much know what everyone's stance is on having a BOM. I would point out that most of the people that authored this rule are proponents of  80 appearance points with the original 4 categories and a much more restrictive rule. We are trying to compromise in an effort to be as inclusive as possible. Be nice if folks at the other end of the argument could do the same.

[Marvin Denny]

I have one question,  did it get in before the deaqd line?  Last time I checked there were no CL proposals or our elustrious tech person didn't have them in the computor yet.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

  It was supposed to Doc---  Randi Gifford was the one that was going to send it in.-  Whether or not she got it in in time, I don't know.  I personally didn't want it to go in this cycle as I thought it needed some more "exposure"  like this thread is giving it  so I (we) could get a little better clarified wording.  But Randi wanted to get it in THIS cycle.  I told her to go ahead and try.  She would be the one to give the true word.

  I am pleasantly pleased that we are getting some feedback on this.  If you remember, a couple of years ago I put this very same suggestion before BOTH  Bradly walker's board AND SSW  and got absolutely NO feedback---n either PRO nor CON.  Only thing I got was your comment to "submit a proposal"  I don't do that without feeling out the community as we did here.

  Bigiron   Out of commission for an undetermined period of time.

[Randy Powell]

Marvin,

Looks like you need to go B your own M.   

[Bill Little]

Hi Marvin,

I appreciate the efforts that y'all have put in to this proposal.  It is inclusive of basically everyone, and does in some sense maintain the pirit of the BOM.

As to what the rest of the World does, I think Randy P. hit it on the head.  IMHO, there are more stunt fliers in the US than the rest of the World combined.  We need to address what is in the best interest of building and promoting the CLPA event in the US.  There are but a hand full of pilots that are really serious about flying the the World Championships, and when you reach that level, BOM is a nonissue.

But, it IS an issue at the local level where a guy is starting out.  I am in the camp that says a Beginner will stick longer if he has to actually do some building of a model.  It goes hand in hand.  The interest generated by building, or even assembling, a model will go along with the actual flying. 

Your proposal gives everyone a chance to pick up SOME points except those that buy a RTF, and, afterall, NO ONE IS EXCLUDED BELOW THE NATS LEVEL FROM FLYING ANYTHING! (the ALL CAPS are for those who STILL cannot grasp that fact)

[Eric Viglione]

I've said this before, I'll say it again as it could be pertinent here:

I'm all for keeping a BOM as long as it's NOT included in the flight scores. Keep the Concourse DE Elegance a separate event that requires a BOM, and use your rating system and rule that you came up with would be fine with me with a little tweaking.

To make it fair, to qualify for the Concourse Event, the plane must fly at least one round in competition with full pattern points. This means to enter the Concourse Event, that it can't just be a static display, you have to enter BOTH events to enter your plane in the Concourse Event, so it has to perform reasonably well also.

Coming to the NATs and being 5 to 7 points down every day, every round of the event because you show up with a 13 pointer just doesn't seem right either, just because it wasn't the appearance judges cup of tea. Especially when the Appearance judging is so subjective. It has been proven you can be on the 2nd or 3rd row for years, and show up with the same ship and end up front row ... Why those points should be included in every single flight is beyond me.

I think this would still encourage those that are inclined to build and attempt super duper finishes. A "Win/Win" instead of "everyone looses", right?

Hey, you asked for opinions...

EricV

[Bradley Walker]

Steve and Brad are right to an extent. The event is moving to a buy and fly thing. I don't much care what "the rest of the world" is doing. I'm told that the rest of the world in toto is less flyers than those flying CL in the U.S. But, whatever.

Really...I would be interested to know where they would get that number.  It would be interesting since there were 30 guys from BRAZIL alone that attended the Nats.  Brazil is a little country.

I think this is an assumption, and a bad one. 

The Aussie Nats was NOT SMALL and that is just ONE country.  There are HUGE number of CL stunt fliers in Japan, and a growing number in China and throughout Asia.  Not to mention all of Europe (which is pretty big), Canada, etc

The truth of the matter is that the US stunt population is SHRINKING every single day.  This is due to the fact that the CL stunt population is largely first generation Baby Boomers...

Even if we did outnumber the rest of the world at one time, this ratio will not last into the next decade.

[Doug Moon]

This is off tract on the BOM but,

I dont know where you live but the bigger US citys graduate kids from high schoool who can't even read.

If you dont think so read here-->http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/reading_facts.html

Looks pretty stagnant here.  I have made it throught he whole thing yet but here are some numbers published on the site above, from 1999.

The 1999 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) long-term reading assessment found that:

Average reading scores for 9 year olds increased during the 1970s. Since 1980, there has been no further improvement in scores; however, the average score in 1999 was higher than in 1971.
Average reading scores for 13 year olds increased during the 1970s. Since 1980, scores have fluctuated; however, the average score in 1999 was higher than in 1971.
Average reading scores for 17 year olds from 1984 to 1992 were higher than in 1971. A slight increase in average scores between 1971 and 1999 was not statistically significant.

[Bob Reeves]

Yes, it is.

Now you are going to have the element of proof, which is messy.  This is where the current BOM started going off the tracks.  No one wants to see half the field get protested (and it possibly stick).  That's just no fun.

Not to mention that you are saying that half of the Top 20 at the Nats are going to be willing to start the contest 5-10 point down?  There are many in that group that have not built a wing in decades.

I would rather the current BOM stay in place and everyone just try to get as many points as they can by applying paint jobs.

Also, this proposal is darn near exactly the same as Keith Trostle's from like, 4 years ago.

I would buy a "yes" to "did you build it" why fret over it.

Bottom line is the one(s) that have the power are not ready to completely give up on the BOM rule and I don't see it happening in the near future. Given the options this proposal is an excellent compromise and it just might make it through the funnel.

[Randy Powell]

Doug,

>>Average reading scores for 9 year olds increased during the 1970s. Since 1980, there has been no further improvement in scores; however, the average score in 1999 was higher than in 1971.
Average reading scores for 13 year olds increased during the 1970s. Since 1980, scores have fluctuated; however, the average score in 1999 was higher than in 1971.
Average reading scores for 17 year olds from 1984 to 1992 were higher than in 1971. A slight increase in average scores between 1971 and 1999 was not statistically significant.<<

While this IS off the point, try making those same comparisons to kids in the 1950s. It's not pretty. It gets worse if you go back to the 1930s.

[Shultzie]

Hummmmmmmmm?

Uhhhh? How do we figure in the BOM on this one. AM I GUILT RIDDED! NO WAY!

Maaaaaaaaany years ago. A friend of mine had purchased a Skylark kit. He and his son started the fuselage...built part of stab and elevators...

but the wing was never built.

I had a beautiful old Bob Hunt wing that I bought from another friend that I modifed and put the skylark wing flaps  and then assembled all the pieces.

Built the rest up...but then had to move to another apartment, so I gave the model in bare balsa to my friend Parsons....who blew on a thick coat of primer and had carefully sanded it down all ready for paint.
He gave it back to me....I sanded it out and put on two coats of thinned  Aerogloss white and added the trim detail...but because I wanted to try out tha new toxic a 2 part Emeron top coat...
I had another modeler  friend who worked as a truck painter blow on the  clear coat.

It came back, OOOH SO PURTY BUT OOOOH SO HEAVEEEE'RN' HELL in a hand basket and never was a really competitive stunt model.

I then flew that lead-sled model for a while...gave it to a friend just before he left for the nats because he didn't think he would finish  his beautiful modifed Novi 4 with the V tail in time for the nats which I had carefully built and was virtually ready for covering and finishing.
Hummm?
Anyhoo....he and his Dad managed to finished the Novi in time....and he gave the lead sled to someone else? Where? Who? When??? Who cares?

I don't know if that purty old piece of crap ever recieved appearence points or ever flew in ccompettiton anywhere.
That old Skylark ended up in the hands of another modeler friend  who sadly blew his own beautiful old Nobler all over the field just before the first contest of the year at Eugene Ore.

Where or where did all those old models or modelers go...gone to balsa dust...everyone as the song says:
Bottom line:
 (When I think back...most of the folks flew these models with little qualms about who so ever built these models and most the most part....
JUST MAYBE...IN THE BOTTOM END..WHO REALLY GIVES OR GAVE A RIP ABOUT HOW THAT MODEL ENDED UP FLYING IN COMPETITON.

MOST OF THE TIME...THESE OLD HAND ME DOWNS...LOOKED HORRIFIC ANYHOO AND PERHAPS DIDN'T DESERVE MANY APPEARENCE POINTS TO BEGIN WITH...

AT LEAST THEY CONTINUED TO HELP FOLKS CONTINUE TO FLY COMPETITON.

Personally...I alway looked at competition stunt flying as a SPORT and NOT A HOBBY-HORSE BEAUTY CONTEST.
Give out the purty hardware for the purdeeeist' model...and then lets just GO FLY STUNT!
HOPEFULLY, IN THE END...
MAY THE BEST FLYER WIN THE EVENT

[Marvin Denny]

I'm all for keeping a BOM as long as it's NOT included in the flight scores. Keep the
Hey, you asked for opinions...

EricV
[/quote]

   Thanks Eric  that is what I am looking for---  people's opinions.  Your's is appreciated just as much as the others.

  Bigiron  aka  Marvin Denny

[Bradley Walker]

I definitely agree with there being a Concours trophy.   I would like that to be separated if it came down to it.

I think the Concours should be pilots choice and not judged.

[Keith Spriggs]

Would it not be a shame to let these things slip by our youth? The dumbing down of America is already in affect. Just look at the tests kids take today. Most graduate with substandard knowledge.

I let this speak for itself. Other subjects are similar.


Source http://mwhodges.home.att.net/new_96_report.htm#pictures

[Norm Faith Jr.]

Just drop the whole issue, NO BOM RULE, NO APPEARANCE POINTS, period!

R/C pattern did it many years ago and still today, pattern planes are some of the most beautiful airplanes at any flying field. Pattern flyer's still take great pride in their planes, however, today, almost 3/4 of all Pattern planes at a contest are ARF's or purchased used airplanes.

This is a new age in the hobby. Those that continue to yearn for the "Good Old Days" of balsa, tissue, and dope are going to be continually disappointed. GET OVER IT! You can't change it so don't try. You are loosing the struggle.    If you keep the outdated BOM rule, you will hurt the future growth of C/L Sport and Stunt.

As for me, I like to build my airplanes (R/C and C/L), but that is my personal preference and I don't believe that I have the right to shove it down someone else's throat. 

Tom Weedon


Tough stand you have there...As for me? I'm almost ready to boycott contests that don't have BOM. It's as simple as the nose on your face...you didn't build it; no points...no problem. Let your flying expertise put you in the winner's circle...again no problem with me. Another approach??? Start your own ARF/ARC competition. BTW I own two of them and enjoy flying them...it was expected from the date of purchase...NO APPEARENCE POINTS!!!
Norm

[Doug Moon]

Wow I really didnt know this about the placing of our kids education as opposed to other nations.  I knew we were always behind and we always will be to a certain extent.  Not trying to make excuses here but in TX we have a very growing problem of having to teach school in spanish and english then get the spanish speakers up to speed with the english speakers.  That can slow the whole thing down alot and it does.  I think the multi language issue is rearing its ugly head.  Also another angle is this.  If the schools show significant improvement then the govt funding goes away.  Funny how that works.  If a program sucks keep throwing money at it.  That is good thinking.

Oh well.  I guess I was wrong.  But I do know when I graduated high school the least amount of math needed was geometry.  I took it my Jr year.  Now most kids in my area have that done by 8th or 9th grade.