Brodak Fues Kits

[Dennis Moritz]

Take your Vector 40 ARC or similar Brodak ARC, tamper with the controls some, build the fues kit. Cover, assemble and paint. BOM qualified. Shazam. A duffer special. Get some appearance points at the NATs or -- at the Big B fun fest for that matter. You'll be doing what some of our accomplished and famous do. Doing it for a lot less bucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Motorman]

blank

[Dennis Moritz]

For all that work you could just build a kit. What are you saving, framing the wing?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dennis Moritz]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Building a straight swept back leading edge wing is tricky. Perhaps not for you. Fues is a piece of cake. At the NATs looks as tho some top fliers forego the wing build. Purchasing sheeted foam. Ask them why.

Cheap ARCs and ARFs got many folks flying stunt. Got many folks flying competition stunt. For years ARCs qualified for appearance points at the NATs and elsewhere. Three years ago ARCs were ruled a no no. Took me a while to understand this simple inexpensive work around. Fues kit is 20 dollars.

[Randy Cuberly]

Building a straight swept back leading edge wing is tricky. Perhaps not for you. Fues is a piece of cake. At the NATs looks as tho some top fliers forego the wing build. Purchasing sheeted foam. Ask them why.

Cheap ARCs and ARFs got many folks flying stunt. Got many folks flying competition stunt. For years ARCs qualified for appearance points at the NATs and elsewhere. Three years ago ARCs were ruled a no no. Took me a while to understand this simple inexpensive work around.

Dennis,
While I don't have personally have a problem with what you're doing I would point out the obvious.

There is a significant difference between buying two halves of a sheeted foam wing that must be joined and properly aligned and have the control system installed in that process and (as you said) fiddling the control system.

Of course there is always "a way around rules".  Some are just a little more questionable than others!

I wonder...how is one to know if the fuselage was built from your kit or one just used the one that came with the ARC?   The whole premise seems more than a bit "SILLY"!   Both, I admit on your part and the rules "committee".

It's not often that I find myself agreeing with Motorman but in this case I think He has a very good point!

One could also make a point that cutting and sheeting foam is a very special process that requires equipment and space that the average modeler may not have whereas framing a wing is something that any modeler could probably do on his kitchen table if necessary...In fact in the past I did several like that!

Question is:  When is a "Workaround" cheating and when is it not?

Just say'n...of course. 

Randy Cuberly

[Dennis Moritz]

 If you follow the rules it’s not cheating. Obviously. Actually, it took me out, when I realized some high finishing Open fliers had their wings prefabbed. BOM qualifying took on a different meaning. Aligning two sheeted wing half’s, installing bell crank, gluing on beautifully carved tips (carved by someone else) not that much. Alignment using foam cradles. Also not that much.

It’s wise to redo ARC controls in any case. Early ARCs controls, in particular, had different ways of coming apart. ARCs would be better served if most center sheeting was left off to be glued in after controls are set up.

I can build a wing that’s ok. Time and time invested in building a model are considerations. Going after 5 foot bottoms, practicing all the difficult tricks, flying in changeable wind conditions and so forth and so forth— given my flying skills, it makes sense for me to get in the air without a big investment of time or money  in my model. I like legit competition as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dennis Moritz]

Wow. Later. My content has just disappeared. Before it was sent. iPad.

It’s not cheating if you follow the rules. Obviously. Be back. More to say.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dennis Moritz]

When you follow the rules. Obviously. It's not cheating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Randy Cuberly]

— given my flying skills, it makes sense for me to get in the air without a big investment of time or money  in my model. I like legit competition as well.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So in other words YOU believe in just a flying competition!  Seems that's where most of you eastern types are!

That's OK with Me.   BUT!  I believe a National modeling Champion should be a modeling champion also!

I believe in ARF's also.  They make great practice airplanes...but not for National competition! 

Best of luck!

Randy Cuberly

[jose modesto]

In support of Dennis. His approach is BOM compliant.
The current BOM allows one of two components to be built by others
(Ie: wing or fuse. Must be built by the flyer)
That means that I can have a fully built wing as long as the flyers installs the controls

The rule also allows  that the flaps,stab,elevator,fin cowl can be built by others
(Note you must install the horn for the stab)

You build the Fuse

Most important features of the current BOM
1) install controls
2) align model
3) finish model
Jose modesto

[Randy Cuberly]

In support of Dennis. His approach is BOM compliant.
The current BOM allows one of two components to be built by others
(Ie: wing or fuse. Must be built by the flyer)
That means that I can have a fully built wing as long as the flyers installs the controls

The rule also allows  that the flaps,stab,elevator,fin cowl can be built by others
(Note you must install the horn for the stab)

You build the Fuse

Most important features of the current BOM
1) install controls
2) align model
3) finish model
Jose modesto

Hi Jose,
Yeah, I'm well aware of the rules.  I just think they SUCK!

Pick up the latest copy of Model Aviation.  Do you have to wonder why it's like that?  It sucks too!

I'm just voicing my obviously minority opinion.  It's in vogue these days to voice minority opinions...maybe I'll start kneeling at contests during the pilots meeting...   (just kidding)!

Randy Cuberly

[Dennis Moritz]

Given the current BOM definition, a prefab foam wing and an ARC wing are equally compliant as long as the controls are installed by the builder. It would make sense that some on the West Coast have used prefab foam wings in competition. Randy would be consistent, if he ranted at both approaches. Equally.

Using an ARC wing, plus ARC flaps and tail surfaces, cuts costs and saves a lot of time. A fues kit is cheap and expedites the build.

[Dan McEntee]

 For years ARCs qualified for appearance points at the NATs and elsewhere. Three years ago ARCs were ruled a no no. Took me a while to understand this simple inexpensive work around. Fues kit is 20 dollars.
[/quote]

    I do not think that ARC models were allowed "for years", as you put it . It was drubbed in at a NATS and was in effect maybe one more year before it was declared an illegal and incorrectly instigated rule. It has been discussed here in great length many times.
   It is entirely possible to really screw up a fuselage also, no matter how cheap it is. It needs to be a straight and true and aligned with the wing for a good flying model, no matter where the wing came from. One component won't make you airplane a world beater. If you can build a fuselage, you should be able to build the wing just as well.
   Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[Brent Williams]

This discussion seems to be heading into the highly partisan world of BOM politics.

Hopefully this example can be looked at without generating ire.  Note that this method of putting together a competitive ship from good outsourced components has been lauded as a perfectly acceptable practice in years past by those who are typically on the very pro-BOM side of the isle.

See the example of Paul Ferrell's "Rhapsody in Blue."  To summarize the story, Paul needed a top performing model in a small amount of time.  With the help, advice and mentoring on this project from literally the best in the hobby, ie, Ted Fancher, Brett Buck, Dave Fitzgerald, Paul Walker, Jim Aron and others, Paul procured the sheeted foam Imitation wing and stab from Bob Hunt, and the Trivial Pursuit body kit from RSM.  After assembling and finishing the components, Paul had a very nice, competitive ship with which he placed very well in both FAI and PAMPA competition. 

This sounds pretty much like the motive of the original post.  Where's the problem?

https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/ted-fancher/
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=311933
https://pampa.bureaugravity.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/SN_Magazine_JUL_AUG_2010.pdf

[Dennis Moritz]

For years ARCs qualified for appearance points at the NATs and elsewhere. Three years ago ARCs were ruled a no no. Took me a while to understand this simple inexpensive work around. Fues kit is 20 dollars.


    I do not think that ARC models were allowed "for years", as you put it . It was drubbed in at a NATS and was in effect maybe one more year before it was declared an illegal and incorrectly instigated rule. It has been discussed here in great length many times.
   It is entirely possible to really screw up a fuselage also, no matter how cheap it is. It needs to be a straight and true and aligned with the wing for a good flying model, no matter where the wing came from. One component won't make you airplane a world beater. If you can build a fuselage, you should be able to build the wing just as well.
   Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

I am outlining a way to comply with the BOM rules in a way that is time efficient and reasonable in cost. Seems to me this is a useful option. As far as the "spirit" of the event, an ARC wing is identical in concept to the long accepted option of buying planked foam wings. If you've a problem with one you should have a problem with both.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan McEntee]

If you follow the rules it’s not cheating. Obviously. Actually, it took me out, when I realized some high finishing Open fliers had their wings prefabbed. BOM qualifying took on a different meaning. Aligning two sheeted wing half’s, installing bell crank, gluing on beautifully carved tips (carved by someone else) not that much. Alignment using foam cradles. Also not that much.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

   Well to quote Forrest Gump, If you come this far, why not go all the way!  Why not tell us which "high finishing Open fliers" are using some one else's completely finished wings? And you probably haven't ever finished off a set of sheeted foam wings. To do it correctly (to make a "high finishing" Open class model) takes as much work and care as building an open bay wing.   And certainly more work that taking a ARC wing and "fiddle " with the controls. If it were "not all that much" like you say, you would be doing it, wouldn't you? I'll agree that you have an acceptable way of meeting the rule. And it is really nothing new. Models have been published that the authors have said they used a wing from a crashed model and such go back quite a while. Just don't make it out like most of the top ten fliers don't build their airplanes and using an ARC wing will be a walk in the park.  As Randy has pointed out, and I reiterate, finishing off a set of sheeted foam wings takes a lot of work and care and certainly not "identical" to using a built ARC wing that just needs covering. You don't even need to bring the controls into the picture.
    Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee
   

[wwwarbird]

 I've never heard of a "Fues". 

[Dennis Moritz]

Brent Williams makes sense.

[Randy Cuberly]

I've never heard of a "Fues". 

UUhhhhhhhh...Is that what you light to set off a stick of dynamite...Boom!!!  Guess I'm sorry I got involved in this mess.  I just hate to hear someone skimming rules and sound like they are just making things easier!

Frankly I don't care what they do, but why do they always have to sound like they think they have done something GREAT by skirting the rules.

I admit I use sheeted foam wings from Mr. Hunt sometimes because they are much better than what I could cut.  I simply do not have the building space or equipment anymore to accomplish it!  However they are just two wing halves and take a lot of work to align, assemble, reinforce, install controls and finish.  In fact it probably takes more work than to build a wing on my Adjusto Jig from a kit.  Most of the ARC wings I've seen are not built up to my standards and I would not consider using them in a competition airplane!  A few do fly fairly well!

I know a lot of Top Competitors and they do NOT use the methods suggested by Mr. Moritz.  Nor do I believe they would.

Given that I do not care if others choose to do so.  I would however be a bit wrankled if they told me how clever they were by doing it!

I fly in the upper middle area of expert scores or Bottom of the top if you wish and am no threat to win unless all the guys in the top area stayed home, and I do not believe that ARCs or ARF's are any threat there even if they get appearance scores.  Unless of course Paul or David flew them... (Fat Chance).

Randy Cuberly

[Dennis Moritz]

Bob Hunt makes great stuff. ARC wings in no way compare. What is it with you guys? What you and the folks in your circle do is fine. Anyone who deviates gets a rant. I'm describing a way to make a model that qualifies for appearance points. Not a world beater. A practical approach for someone like myself, an Advanced flier, mid pack on a good day. I have built wings and planes, scratch built and from kits, will continue to do so. I like building, actually. At the moment my skill level in building and flying makes the approach I describe a useful way to build some of the competition planes I will fly. Others may find this approach useful.

[Skip Chernoff]

 Yo big "D" I get your point.You're just suggesting another way of skinning the cat. I enjoyed reading your "posting" with an empty box. It allowed my mind to wander momentarily into "other" stuff not normally related to stunt.... I drifted off to a deserted island where I found myself alone with three of my favorite (most beautiful) starlets of my youth. Racquel Welch, Sophia Loren, and Kim Novak. They all wanted me,but I had to make a choice. Just as I was about to take one by the hand and find a secluded spot.....I noticed Randy's post out of the corner of my eye and found myself back on Stunthanger with a bunch of old farts like myself fighting over the same old same old......

So tell me big "D", who would have been your choice Welch ,Loren,or Novak?.....and Randy (leave big "D" alone,he's a playwright,you know he's not eating the same Cheerios you are.....LOL......PhillySkip (Yes of the illustrious PhillyFliers or is that PhillyFlyers?) Our hats say one thing our shirts another...go figure.

[Dennis Moritz]

Loren.

“Our hats say one thing our shirts say another.” Yeah.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Randy Cuberly]

With all three of those Beauties at hand, why on earth would you make a choice...Personally I'd keep them all!

Mom always said I was a greedy KID!  In fact if it was my dream I'd add Elizabeth Taylor to the mix...Hmm guess I might be a little greedy!

Incidentally, I'm an Opera singer.  Or more correctly Was!  I eat all kinds of Cheerios.  Need them now to stay regular. 

Randy Cuberly

[Larry Wilks]

Hey Dennis,  So Brodak sells these $20.00 Fuselage Kits you talked about in this post?
I'm  thinking you call and tell them what model you want and they cut the parts?
Funny, no body asked that question. 

[Ted Fancher]

I've never heard of a "Fues". 

Thank you, Wayne!

Ted

[Dennis Moritz]

Yes. I was told they do it all the time. Even tho it's not mentioned on the website. I had an ARC Vector 40 wing hanging up in my shop. The controls had been taken out rewired, reconfigured and reinstalled. I planned to order the plans build a fuse, assemble the rest, cover and finish. The resulting model would comply with the current rules defining BOM. On a whim I asked about a fuse kit. Great. They make them. Twenty dollars sounded cheap to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rich gorrill]

If I remember right Racquel was the HOTTEST, Kim was the SEXIEST and Sophia talked funny, but that was a long time ago Skip. Nice to take a trip down memory lane once and awhile. who cares about airplanes,

[john e. holliday]

If this is a fuselage kit and not prebuilt you have no worries except to post pictures of the build.  I know one guy that was accused of competing with a prebuilt plane for the Walker Cup, but he had proof and witnesses of his build.

[Brett Buck]

This discussion seems to be heading into the highly partisan world of BOM politics.

Hopefully this example can be looked at without generating ire.  Note that this method of putting together a competitive ship from good outsourced components has been lauded as a perfectly acceptable practice in years past by those who are typically on the very pro-BOM side of the isle.

See the example of Paul Ferrell's "Rhapsody in Blue."  To summarize the story, Paul needed a top performing model in a small amount of time.  With the help, advice and mentoring on this project from literally the best in the hobby, ie, Ted Fancher, Brett Buck, Dave Fitzgerald, Paul Walker, Jim Aron and others, Paul procured the sheeted foam Imitation wing and stab from Bob Hunt, and the Trivial Pursuit body kit from RSM.  After assembling and finishing the components, Paul had a very nice, competitive ship with which he placed very well in both FAI and PAMPA competition. 

This sounds pretty much like the motive of the original post.  Where's the problem?

   There is no problem. And using a fuselage kit and building an airplane with it is clearly permitted and no one would say boo.

     But having no problem doesn't serve their purposes, so they created one. The idea that using a pre-sheeted foam wing constituted cheating was/is a strawman argument invented in the mid-90's by the anti-modeling crowd in order to make the claim that "everyone was cheating".  The only time this ever came up as a rules issue is when we were trying to come up with a new, detailed rule for BOM, in order to make it more clear. We (Eric Viglione, actually) came up with something else that has a carve-out to permit it.

      Virtually everything ever said by the anti-modeling group is distorted, spin doctored, or outright false, in order to make political points. The same nonsense is used over and over. They (the usual predictable bunch) also claimed that people rushed to outlaw the Z-Tron to "get Windy", when in fact it was legal until about a year and a half ago when I added the 2.4 GHz rule.

      Brett

[Skip Chernoff]

Brett, I like that 2.4 GHz rule. If I'm flying a glow powered plane I'd like to be able to shut it off when I want to,and also allows me the use of retracts. The warbird type stunters would look great with their gear up!

I've got some projects to finish up,but I do plan to build one using 2.4.

[Steve Helmick]

Yes. I was told they do it all the time. Even tho it's not mentioned on the website. I had an ARC Vector 40 wing hanging up in my shop. The controls had been taken out rewired, reconfigured and reinstalled. I planned to order the plans build a fuse, assemble the rest, cover and finish. The resulting model would comply with the current rules defining BOM. On a whim I asked about a fuse kit. Great. They make them. Twenty dollars sounded cheap to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, did the "Playrite" do all that ARF Vector 40 wing rework, or did somebody else do it for him? How much did it cost, if the latter?

A real "Playwright" should be able to spell "fuselage" and understand how to abbreviate it correctly, if he must do so.  Steve

[Brett Buck]

Brett, I like that 2.4 GHz rule. If I'm flying a glow powered plane I'd like to be able to shut it off when I want to,and also allows me the use of retracts. The warbird type stunters would look great with their gear up!

I've got some projects to finish up,but I do plan to build one using 2.4.

   I am glad you like it, but I have mixed feelings about it. I was asked to come up with something to clarify it for stunt after it got approved in the CL General section. The rule (which we discussed here) was intended to allow it (and nothing else, as a side effect) for only two limited functions that don't have a consequential effect on the performance or the conduct of the flights. The alternative plan was to disallow it completely, since it did not effect control via the lines. That it also happened to (finally) ban other forms of remote control is almost incidental.

    The reason you want to limit it in this way is to preclude any short of closed-loop control using ground processing to receive telemetry, process it in a ground station, and then send commands/control signals back.

    Brett

[Dennis Moritz]

Yeah. I’m a bit dyslexic. So. In fact I didn’t even notice my mistake until someone was so kind. I’ve written a lot of plays that have been produced. Take it up with the theaters that produce me. Or Simon and Schuster who anthologized my play “Just the Boys” or the folks who will publish my collected plays this Spring. My second book of theater pieces. Or the magazines who publish my plays and poems. Jerks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dennis Moritz]

Yes. I'm a bit dyslexic. Didn't even notice my mistake until someone was so kind. Yes. I'm a real playwright. Wrote 30 plays that have been professionally produced. Take up your complaints with the theaters that produce me. Or Simon and Schuster who anthologized my play, "Just the Boys." Or the publishers of my books of plays. My collected will be coming out this spring. That'll make nearly every play I wrote published. Or take it up with the mags that publish my plays and poems. Jerk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dennis Moritz]

My post outlines a way to put a model together that complies with BOM specifications. A model that is time efficient to construct and cost effective. I called it a duffer model. Not intended as a world beater. A model like this is useful for someone like myself with skills bellow the expert class. Someone trying to get better at the shapes while crashing often enough to make a model like this a practical compromise. It is a possible choice. Not an ultimate choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk