stunthanger.com

General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 07:13:17 AM

Title: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 07:13:17 AM
This is not a rule proposal. It is a change in definition

To level the playing field for the intent of this proposal the average kit is defined as.

The average kits components are defined as no pre glued parts. Kits may include molded parts to be assembled by the builder.Leading and trailing edge materials may be preformed,where foam wings are used they may be sheeted or un sheeted but un assembled. Flat parts may be pre-cut. Kits may include bell cranks and fuel tanks and all hardware necessary to assemble the model.The builder must assemble the airframe in its entirety and must finish the complete model to be eligible for appearance points.
Scratch built airframes may be built in any manner the modeler see fit, be it molded,cast sculpted,carved or assembled as long as the entrant does the required work as per the average kit to include all assembly's and finish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a list of things you do not need to make

PRE-FORMED CANOPIES
FG/CF COWLS
CONTROL SYSTEMS INCLUDING THE BELL CRANK, CONTROL HORNS, LO WIRE, LO GUIDES, and PUSH RODS
TIP WEIGHT BOXES
LANDING GEAR
WHEEL PANTS
WHEELS
PILOT/PILOTS
INSTRUMENT CLUSTERS and or INTERIOR PARTS FOR A SCALE APPEARING COCKPIT
RC TYPE MOTOR MOUNTS
SPINNERS
PROPELLERS
ENGINES/MOTORS
EXHAUST SYSTEMS
HARDWARE
RUNNING LIGHTS
RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
BATTERIES and THE NEEDED HARDWARE FOR ELECTRIC POWERED MODELS
VINYL GRAPHICS
STICKERS
RUB ON LETTERS
you do not need to cut your own foam wings (as they are offered in some kits)

This interpretation is more about common sense than honor
If you can set your non commercially available aircraft down on the line and say you build it we must take it that you did. If a commercially available model is copied proof of construction must be supplied by the builder. Proof to include pictures of the molding of all sub assembly's with you in the photo.

This is a stretch but would suffice. As for example lets say builder A, built a shark and messed the wings up. Because of how its made you could borrow a wing from builder B and affix it to your airframe. Thus constituting team built. This is my interpretation lets see yours. I am in contact with the AMA and they are watching here as well.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: peabody on March 31, 2011, 07:47:04 AM
Hi Robert....
I kinda think that molded parts (non-flat) should be okay, regardless of what they are mad of....
I do favor a rule that excludes pre-glued components.....that would take care of pre-built wings, pre-sheeted wings, and other pre-made pieces....

No ARFs, ARC's, "component kits", etc......

The average kit, in my opinion, is one offered in the Brodak "kits" section, or the SIG "kits" section or from Randy or Walter Umland or Eric Rule.

Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: PJ Rowland on March 31, 2011, 07:51:34 AM
This is what I was trying to go on about before..


" If a commercially available model is copied proof of construction must be supplied by the builder. Proof to include pictures of the molding of all sub parts "

Someone said earlier " Burden of proof isn't with the flier "

So signing your AMA entry form isnt enough? ... that was my single point all along.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 07:52:08 AM
Hi Robert....
I kinda think that molded parts (non-flat) should be okay, regardless of what they are mad of....
I do favor a rule that excludes pre-glued components.....that would take care of pre-built wings, pre-sheeted wings, and other pre-made pieces....

No ARFs, ARC's, "component kits", etc......

The average kit, in my opinion, is one offered in the Brodak "kits" section, or the SIG "kits" section or from Randy or Walter Umland or Eric Rule.

See I came up with this in 5 min, Its more clear than the well thought out ruling from 05. LL~
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 07:53:00 AM
This is what I was trying to go on about before..


" If a commercially available model is copied proof of construction must be supplied by the builder. Proof to include pictures of the molding of all sub parts "

Someone said earlier " Burden of proof isn't with the flier "

So signing your AMA entry form isnt enough? ... that was my single point all along.

Not in this case Let me ask you this do you not think there would be some kind of copy rite infringment filed if it was a true copy? then sold to all the people saying they built them.

To copy something for personal use is one thing to copy for resale is another. So I say prove it. I Live in Missouri this is the show me state.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: PerttiMe on March 31, 2011, 07:56:12 AM
Kits may include molded parts to be assembled by the builder.No sub assembly's.
There'll be a fight on what is a molded part and what is a sub assembly. Those terms need definitions if you want to do something like this. Maybe flat components too.

I assume you have a purpose for a definition of the "average kit"?

Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 07:57:26 AM
Molded parts as supplied in a TF Nobler kit. We don't need to define every word.

NO PRE GLUED PARTS
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 08:02:01 AM
I assume you have a purpose for a definition of the "average kit"?

Yep! take that to the bank
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Randy Ryan on March 31, 2011, 08:31:35 AM
To level the playing field for the intent of this rule the average kit is defined as.

The average kits consists of flat components. No pre glued parts. Kits may include molded parts to be assembled by the builder.No sub assembly's (such as wings,elevators and rudders). Flat parts may be either laser cut or die cut. Kits can include bell cranks and fuel tanks and all hardware necessary to assemble the model.The builder must assemble the airframe in its entirety and must finish the complete model to be eligible for appearance points.
Scratch built airframes may be built in any manner the modeler see fit, be it molded,cast sculpted,carved or assembled as long as the entrant does the required work as per the average kit to include all assembly's and finish.

If a commercially available model is copied proof of construction must be supplied by the builder. Proof to include pictures of the molding of all sub assembly's.

This is my interpretation lets see yours. I am in contact with the AMA and they are watching here as well.



Robert. I'm in agreement with this totally, but make one suggestion:

"Flat parts may be either laser cut or die cut."

Change to simply; "Flat parts may be pre-cut or printed".

Some yo-yo will pick up on your statement and say that saw-cut parts and printed are ineligible.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 08:33:58 AM


Robert. I'm in agreement with this totally, but make one suggestion:

"Flat parts may be either laser cut or die cut."

Change to simply; "Flat parts may be pre-cut or printed".

Some yo-yo will pick up on your statement and say that saw-cut parts and printed are ineligible.


Fixed! this is what we need. Constructive input to get this right.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Randy Ryan on March 31, 2011, 08:44:03 AM
Fixed! this is what we need. Constructive input to get this right.


Something else, but probably not as contentious; "Leading and trailing edge materials may be preformed."
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: PerttiMe on March 31, 2011, 09:16:29 AM
Molded parts as supplied in a TF Nobler kit. We don't need to define every word.
Not everybody has seen a TF Nobler kit. Does it have a molded wing? A wing is a pretty flat component.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Dick Pacini on March 31, 2011, 09:46:31 AM
Not everybody has seen a TF Nobler kit. Does it have a molded wing? A wing is a pretty flat component.

The Top Flite Geiseke Nobler kit has molded fuselage decking.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Terrence Durrill on March 31, 2011, 10:20:24 AM
Buy it, build it, fly it, have fun and tell no falsehoods to any man...........................!    y1    LL~    LL~    LL~ 
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 10:23:46 AM
The Top Flite Geiseke Nobler kit has molded fuselage decking.

Not everyone has seen a moon rock. ( I have ) It looks like a rock.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Dick Pacini on March 31, 2011, 10:44:44 AM
Not everyone has seen a moon rock. ( I have ) It looks like a rock.

Robert, I'm not sure I follow your train of thought.  The Top Flite Nobler was brought up.  As I recall, the '57 green box Nobler didn't have any molded parts.  However, the Gieseke Nobler did have the upper fuselage molded in the desired shape. I bought that kit last year off ebay and it is complete with the molded parts.  That being said, the kit has been out of production for quite a few years, so it really isn't a good example for today's definition.

Cudos to you for beginning sensible dialog on this subject.  I am sure a satisfactory definition of the average kit will result through your efforts. y1
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 10:50:21 AM
Robert, I'm not sure I follow your train of thought.  The Top Flite Nobler was brought up.  As I recall, the '57 green box Nobler didn't have any molded parts.  However, the Gieseke Nobler did have the upper fuselage molded in the desired shape. I bought that kit last year off ebay and it is complete with the molded parts.  That being said, the kit has been out of production for quite a few years, so it really isn't a good example for today's definition.

Cudos to you for beginning sensible dialog on this subject.  I am sure a satisfactory definition of the average kit will result through your efforts. y1

Not every scenario will be coverd nor does it need to be. The thing is no assembled parts in the kit.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Steve Fitton on March 31, 2011, 10:52:52 AM
Maybe it would be easier to define whats NOT approved, rather than trying to enumerate every single possibility that is legal.

Perhaps just have a picture of a Yatsenko plane with the word "NO" next to it....
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Dennis Toth on March 31, 2011, 10:56:27 AM
Robert,
Interesting approach. I think that in fairness if one flier is required to bring proof then all fliers should bring the same type of proof. The reason being the BOM applies to all models not just ARF's. A flier could take a set of plans or a kit and have someone completely outside the hobby built it and present it as their own.

The photo's should be of specific activities that are important to the performance and scoring of the model, such as building the flying surfaces, installing the flying surfaces, covering and final finishing. The photo's should be on photographic film not digital (digital can be modified with programs like Photo Shop or Cloud, we've all seen the commercials). They should show the modeler clearly visible doing the work.

Difficult for existing ships, but it would be enforceable.

Best,       DennisT
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 11:10:02 AM
Robert,
Interesting approach. I think that in fairness if one flier is required to bring proof then all fliers should bring the same type of proof. The reason being the BOM applies to all models not just ARF's. A flier could take a set of plans or a kit and have someone completely outside the hobby built it and present it as their own.

The photo's should be of specific activities that are important to the performance and scoring of the model, such as building the flying surfaces, installing the flying surfaces, covering and final finishing. The photo's should be on photographic film not digital (digital can be modified with programs like Photo Shop or Cloud, we've all seen the commercials). They should show the modeler clearly visible doing the work.

Difficult for existing ships, but it would be enforceable.

Best,       DennisT

The only proof needed if its a commercially available plane for obvious reasons
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Tim Wescott on March 31, 2011, 11:26:44 AM
The only proof needed if its a commercially available plane for obvious reasons
Obvious to you, perhaps, but not obvious to me.  I think Dennis is spot-on with his comment.  Requiring proof only if it's a commercially available plane is just an assist to the really sneaky people, because of the exact scenario that Dennis cited.

Howard Rush had a thread on this a couple of months ago: I thought he did a good job of drawing boundaries.  I don't really agree with where he put the boundaries, but I thought that what he delineated was pretty clear.

Personally, I'm all for a rule that reduces argument.  I think the AMA's position on this does just that, and splendidly. 

Frankly, unless you make the airplane construction part of the event, either right there on site or with proctors that follow the construction of the plane all the way, you're always going to have a BOM that's unenforceable by any means other than the honor system.  You don't have a choice about that -- it's just the way the world is.  Your choice is whether you want to divert energy that could be better spent on constructive pursuits to arguing about it, or whether you want to get on with life.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Randy Powell on March 31, 2011, 11:28:21 AM
One of the problems with definitions is you will always get someone arguing the definition of "is" or whatever. Rule lawyering is a national sport. I understand the desire to try to give something specific and I agree, but understand that there will be those that will argue minutiae for there own reasons and try to cloud the waters no matter how clear the definition.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 11:44:25 AM

Frankly, unless you make the airplane construction part of the event.

It already is, you can get up to 20 points if you have followed the rules.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Derek Barry on March 31, 2011, 12:21:25 PM
NOT LEGAL
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Derek Barry on March 31, 2011, 12:22:26 PM
NOT LEGAL!!!!
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Derek Barry on March 31, 2011, 12:23:40 PM
NOT LEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Derek Barry on March 31, 2011, 12:24:43 PM
NOT LEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Derek Barry on March 31, 2011, 12:25:35 PM
Now see if you can find the not legal planes in this picture!
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: jim gilmore on March 31, 2011, 12:26:16 PM
So, NO foam wing or foam elevators ?
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 12:33:04 PM
Fine as long as you built it. Meaning you sheeted it and covered it. You do not need to cut it, as it is found in a SIG mustang or a Magnum kit un covered.

Pretty simple
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: PerttiMe on March 31, 2011, 12:48:15 PM
Fine as long as you built it. Meaning you sheeted it and covered it. You do not need to cut it, as it is found in a SIG mustang or a Magnum kit un covered.

Pretty simple
Now go and add that and all the other exceptions to "flat parts" in your rule. Better also make a list of kit parts, or sizes of parts, that can be molded. Who knows, your reference kit (TF Nobler) might not be available for checking in a few years.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Derek Barry on March 31, 2011, 12:52:10 PM
I don't really have a problem with sheeted foam wings but if getting rid of them means no more ARF's I am ok with that.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 01:01:05 PM
I don't really have a problem with sheeted foam wings but if getting rid of them means no more ARF's I am ok with that.

I think any person with any grasp on the English language can understand the most important sentence in the interpretation "The builder must assemble the airframe in its entirety and must finish the complete model to be eligible for appearance points."
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Steve Fitton on March 31, 2011, 01:09:21 PM
Now go and add that and all the other exceptions to "flat parts" in your rule. Better also make a list of kit parts, or sizes of parts, that can be molded. Who knows, your reference kit (TF Nobler) might not be available for checking in a few years.

This is why I think its easier to list what is not legal vs what is legal.  See Derek's pictures above, all planes from the Worlds, all planes with molded prefinished parts and thus not Nats compliant per the rules.  Its very simple, and even PC for todays world where using pictures in place of words is encouraged lest the reading-challenged be left out...just show a picture of the non legal model or component with "No" next to it.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: builditright on March 31, 2011, 01:23:53 PM
Pictured below are my definitions of an average kit
hope this is acceptable...  

Blocks and pants...
the wheel pants and blocks are cut to profile or top view shape but they are not sanded to their final shapes

Foam wings...
because the wing has gear clips in them, the foam would be in three pieces per panel so the
gear clips and spars were installed only to assure a correct airfoil to the customer.

If I may add my "opinion" that I would also allow for sheeted foam wings with the hope that most, if not all will agree that because an improperly sheeted foam wing can cause a safety issue if the foam wing was to fail or come apart due to delamination of its sheeting. Remember that's just my opinion but I would allow them.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: SteveMoon on March 31, 2011, 01:25:15 PM
Personally, I don't care, because I don't care if the guy I'm competing
against built his plane or not. I simply don't give a s**t. ARC/ARF/Kit built/
Scratch built/Pre-built components/whatever It just doesn't matter to me.

Later, Steve
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Terry Bernard on March 31, 2011, 01:26:33 PM
I think you would be more successful if you addressed the issues that actually make a prebuilt model have a perceived or actual advantage over one built from scratch.
 

" As purchased, neither the flying surfaces nor the components that compose the flying surfaces may be pre-aligned as components or to each other as completed structures.

As purchased, all external surfaces must not be finished other than that required to achieve the basic shape of the component."


Protest or no, the AMA is not going to allow anyone to enforce the BOM against anyone who has signed that they are in fact the builder. To think other wise is just wishful thinking. That train has left the station.


Terry.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 01:34:33 PM
Protest or no, the AMA is not going to allow anyone to enforce the BOM against anyone who has signed that they are in fact the builder. To think other wise is just wishful thinking. That train has left the station.
Terry.

Don't bet on it
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Tim Wescott on March 31, 2011, 01:44:31 PM

It already is, you can get up to 20 points if you have followed the rules.
No.  Saying that you built the airplane is part of the event.  Actually building the airplane happens before the event.

Unless you tell people "show up with balsa, glue and paint, and spend Sunday flying what you build right here on Saturday" then the build isn't part of the event.  It's just what someone does -- or said they did -- before hand.  And confirming that will be a huge issue that's impossible to do in any reasonable way, unless you depend on the honor system, which was my point.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 02:30:50 PM
And confirming that will be a huge issue that's impossible to do in any reasonable way, unless you depend on the honor system, which was my point.

Well I guess times change. I will supply pictures and documentation on any aeroplane I present for appearance judging. Why because I can and because I built it.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Wynn Robins on March 31, 2011, 02:48:00 PM
Now see if you can find the not legal planes in this picture!
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: dale gleason on March 31, 2011, 03:02:38 PM
I think we should take a look at the term, "average kit". In discussions I've had re this subject, "average kit" soon includes RC planes, boats, cars, even static display plastic kits, not to mention all the ARFs, ARCs, hand chucks, AJ Hornet type "kits"...The term "average kit" is too broad for our rules. Change "average kit" to "average control line precision aerobatic kit". Maybe throw in some examples to add clarity, ie,  Brodak full kits, RSM, Blueridge, etc.  Do this and the subject is narrowed down to what we do, control line precison aerobatics. Control line precison aerobatics' first scoring feature is to have built your plane, and if it came in a little box, you have to have built it!

dg
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Bill Gruby on March 31, 2011, 03:14:43 PM
I think any person with any grasp on the English language can understand the most important sentence in the interpretation "The builder must assemble the airframe in its entirety and must finish the complete model to be eligible for appearance points."

 Just use this one sentence, it explains it all. Nice call Bob.   y1

  "Billy G"
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Randy Powell on March 31, 2011, 03:49:42 PM
>>I think any person with any grasp on the English language can understand the most important sentence in the interpretation "The builder must assemble the airframe in its entirety and must finish the complete model to be eligible for appearance points."<<

And to me, this is enough. But as I said, there are those that will try to pick it apart. What do you mean, "in it's entirety"? Does that mean I have to build my own control system? What about my own tank? Can I use a foam wing? if so, how much can be "pre" constructed?

I'm with Tim on it being an honor system. If you say you built it, you built it. Now, there are certainly those that will lie their backsides off about this. Oh yea, I built it (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). But we generally know who those guys are (though not always). But that has always been part of the event.

For some, this event is about flying. Period. For others it's a modeling event that includes flying. Just depends on your viewpoint.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: john e. holliday on March 31, 2011, 04:25:04 PM
Well that lets me out of contention.   In other words I have several kits in which some of the component are assembled,  like the spar for the i-beam,  laser cut ribs,  and the engine plate ready for the fuselage.   Another one I have is already covered in SLC.  But, I give up the appearance points just to be able to fly.   At VSC the appearance points would not have helped one bit.  Still, the appearance points apply to those that build their planes.   As far as competition the BOM only applies to JR, Sr and Open.   When the rules state that you have to build your own in the PAMPA classes that will be the death of stunt. S?P
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Steve Fitton on March 31, 2011, 06:02:41 PM
Hey Wynn, you missed two in that pic there!  ;D

Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Dennis Moritz on March 31, 2011, 06:19:22 PM
Kit: a box of flat stuff and plans.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Wynn Robins on March 31, 2011, 07:59:44 PM
Hey Wynn, you missed two in that pic there!  ;D



wasnt sure about the one closer to camera - and totally overlooked the "classic" in the second row...
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Steve Hines on March 31, 2011, 08:44:11 PM
Can Bob Hunt Wing core's be used they do not come in a kit, unless you were to make a flying wing. How about carbon fiber wheel pants, you could make them yourself. Or is it ok to buy a kit and then buy any after market piece you would like. My 10 year old is working her butt off trying to build a kit to fly at the nat's. She has done all the work, but I put in the bellcrank that I got from Tom Morrris I wanted to make sure that this was right, I did not trust her to do this. So I guess her plane will not be able fly at the nat's. I can tell you this she has more than 4 hours in to it. What could you build that would take you less than 4 hours build, I want to build one these. I hope someone soon comes up with rules that every can understand and the inturpation wount be changed every week. I dont get paid vacation, so a weeks pay and all the other exspenses is not worth getting there and finding out she cant fly. I dont care what the rules are make it clear right them in stone and dont change them.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 08:58:47 PM
This is what I mean




AIRFRAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 09:20:49 PM
Can Bob Hunt Wing core's be used they do not come in a kit, unless you were to make a flying wing. How about carbon fiber wheel pants, you could make them yourself. Or is it ok to buy a kit and then buy any after market piece you would like. My 10 year old is working her butt off trying to build a kit to fly at the nat's. She has done all the work, but I put in the bellcrank that I got from Tom Morrris I wanted to make sure that this was right, I did not trust her to do this. So I guess her plane will not be able fly at the nat's. I can tell you this she has more than 4 hours in to it. What could you build that would take you less than 4 hours build, I want to build one these. I hope someone soon comes up with rules that every can understand and the inturpation wount be changed every week. I dont get paid vacation, so a weeks pay and all the other exspenses is not worth getting there and finding out she cant fly. I dont care what the rules are make it clear right them in stone and dont change them.

Will she be flying in advanced or open? These are the classes it pertains to.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: W.D. Roland on March 31, 2011, 10:33:15 PM
Entering the Nat's is a possible in the future for me but even so I do build mostly as if every contest were BOM.
I wish that all stunt events would be BOM.

A possible simple solution from a simple mind.(KISS) might be 2 simple rules:
1-Not allow commercially produced ARFs.
2-Sign affidavit declaring BOM.

#2 will not stop someone from secretly having an airplane built by another and having to lie to fly but we never do achieve 100% in anything involving humans.

How would you deal with the one in a 10000 that would have someone else build thew airplane and at intervals  during construction have pictures taken with his self, not the actual builder in the picture and then present it as
BOM?

Now for the Rambling on,,,,,,,,,,

But to make pre-sheeted Foam wing's illegal makes as much sense as pre-molded cowl's, wheel pants, canopies and other such parts being illegal.
Should pre-shaped flaps or pre bent landing gear be listed as a No No?
Should parts like the molded plastic top on Sigs P-51 make this airplane illegal?

Would it be  BOM compliant to scratch build my own design using a sheeted foam wing bought from one of
our own good guy fellow fliers?



What would happen if someone was nuts enough to want to build the FW190 I'm doing?

If I mold a balsa fuselage and send to him with rib patterns and so called plans for him to spend 100s of hours building is that BOM compliant?
Would including the molded Fiberglass cowl and gun hood make a diffrence?

Instead of rib patterns I supply a sheeted & cored foam wing from another source is this BOM legal?

What if I loose my mind and make molds for production of all parts in Carbon Fiber then the Builder would assemble from 50+ separate molded parts? THIS METHOD WOULD BE EXTREMELY TIME CONSUMING FOR THE BUILDER.


Time for the box full of wheel pants, cowls from various that I have been saving for the last 1/4+ century to go
into the trash?


The BOMer in me is nearing the finished airframe stage on the FW so..... H^^ H^^ H^^to all


David




Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on March 31, 2011, 11:27:30 PM
This is what I don't understand. Did you build your airplane? If so why ask if it is BOM legal. YOU BUILT IT! It could be molded,carved,cast,pressed,diecut,scratch built,machined who cares? You built it. The planes that are in question stick out like a sore thumb


AIRFRAME
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Steve Hines on April 01, 2011, 03:28:16 AM
She will be JR, I was told the BOM will apply. I think a wing is part of the air frame or it would say fuse.  Off to Toledo 3 hour drive a fun day of air planes

Steve
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Rafael Gonzalez on April 01, 2011, 05:35:10 AM
To level the playing field for the intent of this rule the average kit is defined as.

The average kits consists of flat components. No pre glued parts. Kits may include molded parts to be assembled by the builder.No sub assembly's (such as wings,elevators and rudders).Leading and trailing edge materials may be preformed. Flat parts may be pre-cut. Kits may include bell cranks and fuel tanks and all hardware necessary to assemble the model.The builder must assemble the airframe in its entirety and must finish the complete model to be eligible for appearance points.
Scratch built airframes may be built in any manner the modeler see fit, be it molded,cast sculpted,carved or assembled as long as the entrant does the required work as per the average kit to include all assembly's and finish.

If a commercially available model is copied proof of construction must be supplied by the builder. Proof to include pictures of the molding of all sub assembly's.

This is my interpretation lets see yours. I am in contact with the AMA and they are watching here as well.

PERFECT
We will find someone that will try and distort a statement or rule interpretation. But it will predominantly fail under the "common sense" test.
Like the kid that you tell to put the dishes in the dishwasher and doesn't turn the machine on. The "alien" will argue that you did not say that, you just said to put them in the dishwasher. HB~> HB~>
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: dennis lipsett on April 01, 2011, 06:32:32 AM
This whole topic has been worse then a bunch of kids arguing on the playground. Sportsmen, Glad that this isn't an olympic event,
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on April 01, 2011, 07:43:07 AM
Sheeted -un sheeted foam wings makes no difference did the flier build his or her own airplane? Nowhere does it say NO OUTSIDE HELP. But it does say in the current BOM no team entry's. Kinda your call on that. No one will be grudge anyone for a little help.

This is to ward off the pre built- pre flown- pre trimmed airplanes that are now currently entering JSO. This is not rocket science (sorry Brett)

This is a simple event if you want to participate BUILD YOUR OWN PLANE as per rules.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: john e. holliday on April 01, 2011, 08:22:18 AM
Can Bob Hunt Wing core's be used they do not come in a kit, unless you were to make a flying wing. How about carbon fiber wheel pants, you could make them yourself. Or is it ok to buy a kit and then buy any after market piece you would like. My 10 year old is working her butt off trying to build a kit to fly at the nat's. She has done all the work, but I put in the bellcrank that I got from Tom Morrris I wanted to make sure that this was right, I did not trust her to do this. So I guess her plane will not be able fly at the nat's. I can tell you this she has more than 4 hours in to it. What could you build that would take you less than 4 hours build, I want to build one these. I hope someone soon comes up with rules that every can understand and the inturpation wount be changed every week. I dont get paid vacation, so a weeks pay and all the other exspenses is not worth getting there and finding out she cant fly. I dont care what the rules are make it clear right them in stone and dont change them.

Since the inception of foam core wings, people have flown them at the NATS in all catagories with no complaints.  Most of them cut by other people.  Yes SIG had two kits I know of that had foam wings.   But, you had to apply the sheeting.   Yes Bobby sells foams wings from bare foam to ready to cover with silkspan/poly-span.   Any plane that your daughter has did most of the construction on I myself would let go compete.  If you help her cover the wings is still a go for me.   Let her learn to use dope on the plane as the exotic paints need special treatment and equipment. Anybody that complains about Junior at least trying to do it right needs to go talk to someone.  Good luck at the NATS and have fun while learning. H^^
Title: Re: List for the thick headed
Post by: RC Storick on April 01, 2011, 08:38:25 AM
This is a list of things you do not need to make

Engine
propeller
spinner
bolts
cables
silkspan
dope
glue
canopy's
pilots
wheels
wheel pants
tip box
leadout sliders
landing gear wire
landing gear molded
molded cowls (as they are offered in some kits)
nylon hinges
bellcranks
wood (you do not need to grow your own balsa trees)
carbon mat
fiberglass mat
you do not need to cut your own foam wings (as they are offered in some kits)

This interpretation is more about common sense than honor
If you can set your non commercially available aircraft down on the line and say you build it we must take it that you did. However if you set down a plane that's a RTF and say you built it (well living in Missouri SHOW ME) and the pictures better include you in them doing the work.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Randy Ryan on April 01, 2011, 08:52:10 AM
Since the inception of foam core wings, people have flown them at the NATS in all catagories with no complaints.  Most of them cut by other people.  Yes SIG had two kits I know of that had foam wings.   But, you had to apply the sheeting.   Yes Bobby sells foams wings from bare foam to ready to cover with silkspan/poly-span.   Any plane that your daughter has did most of the construction on I myself would let go compete.  If you help her cover the wings is still a go for me.   Let her learn to use dope on the plane as the exotic paints need special treatment and equipment. Anybody that complains about Junior at least trying to do it right needs to go talk to someone.  Good luck at the NATS and have fun while learning. H^^



I'm with you on this Doc, any kid (or beginning adult) needs help and anyone that would be against that is wrong. We've somehow found ourselves as a society in an era of "to the letter" enforcement in some areas and total "blind eye" in others, how about the little girl that was suspended from school because she had a plastic knife in her lunch box? Stupid, lack of common sense is maddening. In other things the attitude is "I didn't get caught so its OK", that's just as bad. For so many years we enjoyed out hobby accepting the fact that we had to "build to fly" tempered by the common sense understanding that people need help as they learn. Were there cheaters? Sure there were, did they take trophies home? Probably. But the fact is they're just cheaters with trophies and THEY know it and sooner or later so does everyone else. I'm so tired of these nit picking attacks and sarcastic remarks, When I was a kid, I built my own and my Dad helped my through the tough spots, everyone knew that's the way it was, no big deal.

Steve Hines, Helping your daughter is perfectly OK and anyone that says otherwise is an antagonist that has some agenda he's pushing, probably to circumvent the BOM himself. I'm glad you're helping her do this, she will have a feeling of accomplishment when she's done that is not measurable in $$$$ and will carry over far beyond model airplanes. She will build confidence that will help her throughout her life. If you run into opposition, overly critical people and just plain antagonists, remind your daughter that there are people out there that have axes to grind and that are generally just miserable themselves. Walk on by and know that you have your integrity intact and that helping someone leads them to self reliance, but doing for someone leads to dependency.
Title: Re: List for the thick headed
Post by: Randy Ryan on April 01, 2011, 08:56:20 AM
This is a list of things you do not need to make

Engine
propeller
spinner
bolts
cables
silkspan
dope
glue
canopy's
pilots
wheels
tip box
leadout sliders
landing gear wire
landing gear molded
molded cowls (as they are offered in some kits)
nylon hinges
bellcranks
wood (you do not need to grow your own balsa trees)
carbon mat
fiberglass mat
you do not need to cut your own foam wings (as they are offered in some kits)

This interpretation is more about common sense than honor
If you can set your non commercially available aircraft down on the line and say you build it we must take it that you did. However if you set down a plane that's a RTF and say you built it (well living in Missouri SHOW ME) and the pictures better include you in them doing the work.


Robert, I would include wheel pants simply because they are normally made by the same processes and cowls, and in some cases spinners (CF). Not sure, but I think there must be kits that include them (I don't build from kits). Regardless, because its the same process, I'd include them.
Title: How many will sign on to this interpretation?
Post by: RC Storick on April 02, 2011, 07:11:29 AM
If you would electronicly sign this pitition please send me a Private message for instuctions
To level the playing field for the intent of this rule the average kit is defined as.

The average kits consists of flat components. No pre glued parts. Kits may include molded parts to be assembled by the builder.No sub assembly's (such as wings,elevators and rudders).Leading and trailing edge materials may be preformed. Flat parts may be pre-cut. Kits may include bell cranks and fuel tanks and all hardware necessary to assemble the model.The builder must assemble the airframe in its entirety and must finish the complete model to be eligible for appearance points.
Scratch built airframes may be built in any manner the modeler see fit, be it molded,cast sculpted,carved or assembled as long as the entrant does the required work as per the average kit to include all assembly's and finish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a list of things you do not need to make

Engine
propeller
spinner
bolts
cables
silkspan
dope
glue
canopy's
pilots
wheels
wheel pants
tip box
leadout sliders
landing gear wire
landing gear molded
molded cowls (as they are offered in some kits)
nylon hinges
bellcranks
wood (you do not need to grow your own balsa trees)
carbon mat
fiberglass mat
you do not need to cut your own foam wings (as they are offered in some kits)

This interpretation is more about common sense than honor
If you can set your non commercially available aircraft down on the line and say you build it we must take it that you did. If a commercially available model is copied proof of construction must be supplied by the builder. Proof to include pictures of the molding of all sub assembly's with you in the photo.

This is a stretch but would suffice. As for example lets say builder A, built a shark and messed the wings up. Because of how its made you could borrow a wing from builder B and affix it to your airframe. Thus constituting team built.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Doug Moon on April 02, 2011, 08:39:18 PM
The rule does not in any way shape or form need to have anything in there about average kit.  That just invites rules nitpicking and confusion.  Furthermore the common sense argument wont cut it.  It is as vague as having the average kit in there and will invite more rule lawyering and nitpicking.  Just get away from that line of thinking all together and get it out of play once and for all.

I re-wrote the rule not to long ago on Howard's thread and this is what I came up with.  Once I started writing it really didnt take that long.  You will note the angle of my rule drives toward the contestant building and finishing the model.  Plus you will note it states nothing about flat parts and so on.  Once you go down that road you have to state every part that is legal.  That is in impossible task.  You simply state what has to be built and not how.  If this rule were in place everyone would know you could not purchase prebuilt wing and use it, sheeted foam or built up.  And the average kit is taken out of the rule all together.  Change your thought process and angle of approach and it isnt that difficult to get it close on the first try.

Actually, having just re-read it you could do away with the typical used equipment part all together.  Then it simply states the items you have to build and some language on help and when the BOM is in play for clpa and the rest is OPEN to the builders content.  Buy all the cool add-ons you want as long as you built these items.

I put a little statement in there about the typical items list.  It would probably be best to take it out all together as to remove any form of confinement line of thinking from the modelers perspective.  We want our modelers thinking outside of the box, trying to innovate and push the envelope.   The rulebook should stay out of the way and let them get to it.  

Give it a read and see what you think.



Contestants who enter their models in contests where appearance points will be awarded have to be the Builder Of the Model in order to receive the appearance points.  Otherwise they can enter the contest and fly without receiving any appearance points.  

In events 322 J S O at the US nationals and anywhere else 322 J S O is held the contestant will have to be the Builder Of the Model in order enter the contest and receive appearance points.

Methods used to construct the model are not described and open to any and all forms of available technology as long as the contestant is the one using the technology to build the parts and plane.

In order to be considered the Builder Of the Model the contestant must build the major components of his/her model.  A list of parts that have to be built by the contestant can be found below.

FOAM WINGS WHERE USED MUST BE SHEETED AND FINISHED BY THE BUILDER
BUILT UP WINGS
FUSELAGE
STABILIZERS
ELEVATORS
FLAPS
RUDDERS
TOP and BOTTOM BLOCKS SANDED OR MOLDED

There is also a list of the typical pre-built items that are available for use in these models and still be considered Builder Of the Model legal.

PRE-FORMED CANOPIES
FG/CF COWLS
CONTROL SYSTEMS INCLUDING THE BELL CRANK, CONTROL HORNS, LO WIRE, LO GUIDES, and PUSH RODS
TIP WEIGHT BOXES
LANDING GEAR
WHEEL PANTS
WHEELS
PILOT/PILOTS
INSTRUMENT CLUSTERS and or INTERIOR PARTS FOR A SCALE APPEARING COCKPIT
RC TYPE MOTOR MOUNTS
SPINNERS
PROPELLERS
ENGINES/MOTORS
EXHAUST SYSTEMS
HARDWARE
RUNNING LIGHTS
RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
BATTERIES and THE NEEDED HARDWARE FOR ELECTRIC POWERED MODELS
VINYL GRAPHICS
STICKERS
RUB ON LETTERS

Other items not found on this list are allowed for use.  The above list is a reference for general items.  As long as the contestant has built the specified items on the required list and follows the rest of the criteria described in this rule other items that are not found on the typical items list may be used and the model will still be considered Builder Of the Model legal.

The contestant must be the one who completes the final construction of the model into one piece.  Thus meaning attaching the wing to the fuselage, the stabilizer to the fuselage, and the flaps and elevators to the wing and stabilizer, attaching top and bottom blocks, and the rudder. 

Where take apart components are used the contestant must be the one who aligns and incorporates initial assembly of the take apart hardware into the model at the time of construction.     

COVERING WHERE APPLICABLE MUST BE APPLIED BY THE BUILDER.

100% OF THE FINISH MUST BE APPLIED BY THE BUILDER, THIS INCLUDES FINAL CLEAR COAT WHERE APPLICABLE.

Methods used to finish the model are not described and open to any and all forms of available products as long as the contestant is the one applying the finish to the plane.

Contestants may receive help during any phase of the building and or finishing of the model.  As long as the contestant is doing the work and the help received is in a support and or teaching role.

Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Steve Hines on April 02, 2011, 09:46:30 PM
Randy R. It looks like muffler's are ok to buy, So you could sell me one of your muffler for my 35 Mccoy   :) :) :)
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on April 03, 2011, 06:49:30 AM
Doug I can see where you might get confused. Mine is not a rule, it's a interpretation just different from the whilly nilly not well thought out one of 05. The most important line in my interpretation is ."The builder must assemble the airframe in its entirety and must finish the complete model to be eligible for appearance points." The rest is just insertion for the rulebook lawyers. Anyone can use any method or material to build their entry as long as THEY did the ALL of the work!

But yes Doug I would sign on to yours. I am just trying to move the AMA into a emergency change just as they did in 05. When I talked to Greg on the phone he said it was our sand box and we have to change it. I said thats not quite true. It's the AMA's sand box and they need to fix what was was changed in 05.

I have went back and reviewed the posts on this subject and it had been said that its been a long time sense a SR. had won the walker cup and no JR. had ever. That means nothing as they should have the opportunity as all the rest before them.

Some have asked what's my motive? Simple. This HOBBY is just that a hobby not a sport or profession.If someone does not have the time to build a airplane find another HOBBY like stamp collecting that doesn't take any skill. (no offense to the stamp collectors)

The rule does not in any way shape or form need to have anything in there about average kit.  That just invites rules nitpicking and confusion.  Furthermore the common sense argument wont cut it.  It is as vague as having the average kit in there and will invite more rule lawyering and nitpicking.  Just get away from that line of thinking all together and get it out of play once and for all.

I re-wrote the rule not to long ago on Howard's thread and this is what I came up with.  Once I started writing it really didnt take that long.  You will note the angle of my rule drives toward the contestant building and finishing the model.  Plus you will note it states nothing about flat parts and so on.  Once you go down that road you have to state every part that is legal.  That is in impossible task.  You simply state what has to be built and not how.  If this rule were in place everyone would know you could not purchase prebuilt wing and use it, sheeted foam or built up.  And the average kit is taken out of the rule all together.  Change your thought process and angle of approach and it isnt that difficult to get it close on the first try.

Actually, having just re-read it you could do away with the typical used equipment part all together.  Then it simply states the items you have to build and some language on help and when the BOM is in play for clpa and the rest is OPEN to the builders content.  Buy all the cool add-ons you want as long as you built these items.

I put a little statement in there about the typical items list.  It would probably be best to take it out all together as to remove any form of confinement line of thinking from the modelers perspective.  We want our modelers thinking outside of the box, trying to innovate and push the envelope.   The rulebook should stay out of the way and let them get to it.  

Give it a read and see what you think.



Contestants who enter their models in contests where appearance points will be awarded have to be the Builder Of the Model in order to receive the appearance points.  Otherwise they can enter the contest and fly without receiving any appearance points.  

In events 322 J S O at the US nationals and anywhere else 322 J S O is held the contestant will have to be the Builder Of the Model in order enter the contest and receive appearance points.

Methods used to construct the model are not described and open to any and all forms of available technology as long as the contestant is the one using the technology to build the parts and plane.

In order to be considered the Builder Of the Model the contestant must build the major components of his/her model.  A list of parts that have to be built by the contestant can be found below.

FOAM WINGS WHERE USED MUST BE SHEETED AND FINISHED BY THE BUILDER
BUILT UP WINGS
FUSELAGE
STABILIZERS
ELEVATORS
FLAPS
RUDDERS
TOP and BOTTOM BLOCKS SANDED OR MOLDED

There is also a list of the typical pre-built items that are available for use in these models and still be considered Builder Of the Model legal.

PRE-FORMED CANOPIES
FG/CF COWLS
CONTROL SYSTEMS INCLUDING THE BELL CRANK, CONTROL HORNS, LO WIRE, LO GUIDES, and PUSH RODS
TIP WEIGHT BOXES
LANDING GEAR
WHEEL PANTS
WHEELS
PILOT/PILOTS
INSTRUMENT CLUSTERS and or INTERIOR PARTS FOR A SCALE APPEARING COCKPIT
RC TYPE MOTOR MOUNTS
SPINNERS
PROPELLERS
ENGINES/MOTORS
EXHAUST SYSTEMS
HARDWARE
RUNNING LIGHTS
RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
BATTERIES and THE NEEDED HARDWARE FOR ELECTRIC POWERED MODELS
VINYL GRAPHICS
STICKERS
RUB ON LETTERS

Other items not found on this list are allowed for use.  The above list is a reference for general items.  As long as the contestant has built the specified items on the required list and follows the rest of the criteria described in this rule other items that are not found on the typical items list may be used and the model will still be considered Builder Of the Model legal.

The contestant must be the one who completes the final construction of the model into one piece.  Thus meaning attaching the wing to the fuselage, the stabilizer to the fuselage, and the flaps and elevators to the wing and stabilizer, attaching top and bottom blocks, and the rudder.  

Where take apart components are used the contestant must be the one who aligns and incorporates initial assembly of the take apart hardware into the model at the time of construction.      

COVERING WHERE APPLICABLE MUST BE APPLIED BY THE BUILDER.

100% OF THE FINISH MUST BE APPLIED BY THE BUILDER, THIS INCLUDES FINAL CLEAR COAT WHERE APPLICABLE.

Methods used to finish the model are not described and open to any and all forms of available products as long as the contestant is the one applying the finish to the plane.

Contestants may receive help during any phase of the building and or finishing of the model.  As long as the contestant is doing the work and the help received is in a support and or teaching role.


Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on April 03, 2011, 07:25:17 AM



Contestants who enter their models in contests where appearance points will be awarded have to be the Builder Of the Model in order to receive the appearance points.
Otherwise they can enter the contest and fly without receiving any appearance points.   

This will not happen. I spoke to Greg about this as well and it is either a BOM model or its not, no in between. As it should be.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Randy Powell on April 03, 2011, 10:38:44 AM
Very thoughtful, Doug. I like this. It's clear. While any rule can be gotten around if you work at it, this is pretty good. I'd vote for it.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Doug Moon on April 03, 2011, 09:26:49 PM
This will not happen. I spoke to Greg about this as well and it is either a BOM model or its not, no in between. As it should be.

Robert,

I wrote it that way on purpose so people can enter PAMPA events or other events that dont apply the BOM to enter the contest.  They just have the BOM in place in those contests to make sure those who are receiving are the builder.  Like 325 advanced at the nats.  A non BOMer can enter and fly with no app points.

I then specifically address contests like 322 JSO where BOM must be followed in order to even ENTER the contest.  Without following the BOM you are not allowed to enter it.   I kept the two sentences separate as well for that very reason.

Remember the BOM applies to all forms of modeling in the AMA not just us.  My first sentence is open to cover all types of events.  Then I specifically hit on our event.  If this were to get to a rule committee it would need some work in that area to make sure it would work across party lines.  But I would really want it to be clear, simple, direct and short as possible.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: jim gilmore on April 03, 2011, 09:56:53 PM
When I mentioned foam wings I had a reason for questioning it....
Suppose I call bob hunt...
I draw my own ribs and layout and ask him to make the foam wing to my set of directions...
I then cut out and make all other parts, elevator fuse,stab,elevator assemble it and Paint it.
Only part done was the foam wing.
I am just questioning it....
Granted I'd rather build a d-tube but my point is here in ny I am little space and do not yet forsee any changes for a long while...
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: RC Storick on April 03, 2011, 10:58:26 PM
Robert,

I wrote it that way on purpose so people can enter PAMPA events or other events that dont apply the BOM to enter the contest.  They just have the BOM in place in those contests to make sure those who are receiving are the builder.  Like 325 advanced at the nats.  A non BOMer can enter and fly with no app points.

I then specifically address contests like 322 JSO where BOM must be followed in order to even ENTER the contest.  Without following the BOM you are not allowed to enter it.   I kept the two sentences separate as well for that very reason.

Remember the BOM applies to all forms of modeling in the AMA not just us.  My first sentence is open to cover all types of events.  Then I specifically hit on our event.  If this were to get to a rule committee it would need some work in that area to make sure it would work across party lines.  But I would really want it to be clear, simple, direct and short as possible.


My mistake. But I am not writing a rules proposal as it would take till the next cycle to get it inacted. I am cleaning up the interpretation of 05
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: Doug Moon on April 05, 2011, 07:32:58 PM
When I mentioned foam wings I had a reason for questioning it....
Suppose I call bob hunt...
I draw my own ribs and layout and ask him to make the foam wing to my set of directions...
I then cut out and make all other parts, elevator fuse,stab,elevator assemble it and Paint it.
Only part done was the foam wing.
I am just questioning it....
Granted I'd rather build a d-tube but my point is here in ny I am little space and do not yet forsee any changes for a long while...


Are you sheeting the wing or are you having Bob Sheet it for you?  I think that is the question that needs to be answered.  As it stands today you can do that if you want.  You can do pretty much anything now.
Title: Re: Definition of the average kit
Post by: jim ivey on April 06, 2011, 10:43:05 AM
How about a new acronym? IPSOTBMA<--- I paid some one to build my airplane.  S?P   jim