stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: peabody on September 02, 2007, 05:36:17 PM
-
In 2004 I introduced Yuri and his brother Andre to John Brodak and suggested that John import the great flying models that the brothers were manufacturing.....talks ensued, but nothing came of it...I believe that John probably felt that they were too expensive....????
Dollars to donuts, if John HAD decided to import them, I bet they would be considered "ARFs" in any state of assembly....
Think about it....
-
I think you're trying to stir S?P up the muck again. Let it be. Life's too short. And oh, yeah.......you'd be wrong. Again. n1 Steve
-
Geeeeeeeeze Rich, don't you have anything better to do?
-
Geeeeeeeeze Rich, don't you have anything better to do?
I would really doubt it!
Walter
-
--- OK, I posted a comment relating to Peabody's intellectual capabilities a possible a question about his parentage, but decided that it wasn't worth it. He'd probably sue me regardless of the truth of the statement.
Sigh...
-
What I find interesting is that the AMA approved Orestes airplane as
BOM legal, but Peabody knows better,Mr. Peabody, are you really reallly implying that the AMA is ignorant of this issue? It almost sounds personal to me sir.I cant see how the AMA would allow a known violation at the single largest or most visible contest especially since the man WON. sheesh, I dont hear any of the other pilots that he flew against complaining why are YOU.
-
Leave it to me to say something different, I am not buying in to what I think was a flawed decision. Yes, even the AMA has made mistakes and bad rulings:
A few years ago my Nephew was prepared to bring out a kit of his NATs Advanced winning machine, featuring presheeted foam wings & stabs and a molded fuselage. He was told in no uncertain terms that it would fail BOM.
Fast forward to present, someone assembled models using components supplied by a someone else in the business of selling ARF's and even RTF's. In accepting this as a BOM legal model the ruling prominently notes: the builders designed their own paint schemes. (!)
Now how in the heck are you supposed to respect that kind of rulemaking?
People in the electonics biz will tell you once you let the smoke out, its hard to get it back in. Now that the ruling has been made its awfully hard to get a do-over.
...that's why I am urging my nephew to dust off his molds and start producing kits - I DEFY anyone to use BOM to stop it
-
The AMA BOM memo made prefabs and ARCs virtually legit. Allowing ARFs is almost a formality. Most ARFs need to be stripped of their covering anyway, in order to make it through a competition season. Orestes went with the new interpretation of BOM. Working from prefab composite pieces. Then again, with composites, what other choice is there. Unless the builder of the model makes up the molds and does the casting. No problem with Orestes' current approach given the wholesale reinterpretation of BOM. In the past, I thought buying sheeted foam wings pushed the envelope of BOM, since a straight wing, ready to paint, is the most difficult stunt plane component to get right. A moot point now. But overlooked when the pre-sheeted foam wing could have been an issue. Peabody is of course right. Some members of our hobby raise the old guards' hackles. Other folks do not. As far as the AMA reinterpretation of BOM, no one has ever explained the origin of the memo. Sure the AMA did it. But who in the stunt community discussed it with AMA officialdom, instigating the clarification. It's possible the current interpretation of BOM is based on the precedent set within the RC community where pre-builts fly in pattern events. Also, no doubt, the current proliferation of ARFs and ARCs required a new look at BOM.
Personally, I wish the BOM was more stringently enforced. Requiring the modeler to actually build 51% of an aircraft. The designs developed in the past were works of beauty and effectiveness. It's doubtful that we will see the equivalent burst of creative energy today. Impossible for many reasons. The gutting of the BOM rule is one factor, among many others, that separated the builder of the model from the flier of the model. Reducing the insentive for a flier to be original and build well.
On the plus side (and this is a big plus). ARCs, ARFs, prefabs etc. allow many to compete in stunt, who would not do it otherwise. Probably it would be beneficial for us to bend with the times. Keeping things as they are or eliminating BOM all together. Our hobby/sport would be more likely to survive.
-
Actually, Dennis, even building 51% of the model was NEVER in the BOM rule. It WAS commonly referred to and accepted, though. But is was never a written part of the rule. I heard the 51% almost 20 years ago as being acceptable........
The BOM as written became un-enforcable many years ago. It is a rule that is entirely based on the entrant's integrity, and personal interpretations.
Personally I agree with Dennis and believe the AMA really messed up with the last minute "interpretation" which was probably only a measure to avoid all the rumored protests that were going to take place at the NATS that year.
Plus, the precedent had already set when Kenny won Advanced at the NATS with a "prefabbed" kit. Not flaming Kenny, I like him a lot, but the Quick Built Tom Morris Cavalier was really no more legal than any other ARC at the time.
-
EXTREMELY eloquent posting Mr Moritz!
Yes I remember when pre-built foam wings looked to be encrouching on BOM. However, used my first in 1968 (Stott) and then in 1974 & 75 (Hunt). Never used the other items that came out: stabs, fuselage crutches, etc and now its even pre-made control systems. I am not sure how we will measure "51%" of the build.
BTW my "beef" is with the rulemaking, not Mr. Hernandez. I think the rulemaking has let it all out of the bottle, I cannot comprehend even DQ'ing a Brodak ARF: If it was assembled "using fixtures" and "designed the color scheme" (i.e., put the AMA number on it) then it fits the interpretation. It would have been more plausible to just declare BOM as null.
Certainly the era of design has ended, in favor of the era of prefabs, unless...
-
>>Actually, Dennis, even building 51% of the model was NEVER in the BOM rule.<<
And a lot of people quote Shakespear thinking it's from the Bible, too.
-
Okay guys/gals, here is my side of it as I had a small part of the current BOM rule which I agree is a farce. Mr. Peabody in his infinate wisdom threatened protests out the ying-yang that year. Brenda Schuette being the control line catagory manager for the NATS approached Mr Kalauf before the NATS. A questionare was sent to each contest board member. We then sent our responses back to Mr Kalauf. I for one stated that for Junior, Senior and Open classes of stunt that any prebuilt parts were not allowed. But, the precedent had already been set with completely ready to go wings minus covering. As stated there was also the prebuilt components of the Cavalier. Now Mr Peabody suddenly came up with family problems that kept him from the NATS that year and every year since. I do not beleive he was at the Team Trials from the posts he has made. Besides at the Team Trials they should be flown under FAI rules in which there is no BUILDER OF THE MODEL rule. I beleive someone has now put in a proposal to eliminate the BOM. I hope no one else has as it may pass this time. The BOM is ancient history and been violated ever since I have been in modeling competition. I was hoping to get an E-Mail from our administrator about the named subject, but, I am impatient. Now he knows why people I fly with have to give me an attitude adjustment once in awhile. Have fun, DOC Holliday
-
In the late 70's and early 80's I built 9 or 10 stunters that number has swelled to 14 in the last 5 years. I'm just now getting the hang of building a good plane. And now when I'm finally getting it together after all those years of intensive training, the requirement to build your own is no longer part of the game. Bummer.
I look down my nose at ARFs. They robbed us of one more thing that was worth doing and left us standing in the shallow end of the pool snorkel, flippers and all.
-
Doc, Check your PMs.
Bill <><
-
In the late 70's and early 80's I built 9 or 10 stunters that number has swelled to 14 in the last 5 years. I'm just now getting the hang of building a good plane. And now when I'm finally getting it together after all those years of intensive training, the requirement to build your own is no longer part of the game. Bummer.
I look down my nose at ARFs. They robbed us of one more thing that was worth doing and left us standing in the shallow end of the pool snorkel, flippers and all.
Frank,
The part that bothers me is that I will be penalized for building my ownmodels! There is supposed to be a system where I get points for doing just that. When you build a model, you are a "modeler" which is what is part of the Mission Statement of the AMA, I thought. While I do have an ARF Nobler (a gift from my family), I consider that almost like buying another "toy", not the process of being a modeler.
I do not harbor any ill feeling against those that feel they MUST fly ARFs, but I feel the system that PAMPA developed of allowing them to fly without AP was fair.
Having said all that, I also feel the BOM is impossible to enforce these days. There is no real way to stop someone from flying a model I built for them unless I protest it. I was at the motel pool in Muncie when the BOM protest originated in '96 in the Senior class. It wasn't a pretty sight. Even though it was blatantly obvious that the plane in question had NOT been even remotely built by the contestant. The plane had actually been in a cover shot of Model Aviation! Yet the contestant said he had "rebuilt" it. Rebuilding is in no way "BUILDING". The protest was upheld at that time. The situation almost came to blows between the two Fathers involved.
-
Here is my 2 cents ---
-
Biil, i like your two cents. Ron.
-
I think the nail was hit straight on the head in one of the above posts. The BOM depends on the integrity and honesty of the entrant. Acceptable practice these day is to do whatever feels good, including lying, cheating, and self-indulgence. This a sad reflection on the direction society has taken over the past generation.
-
Biil, i like your two cents. Ron.
I'll second that!
-
Hey G Man, I'll secound that secound. I am your Father.
-
Leester, looking good y1 Ron.
-
Boy... this thread went to the dogs in a hurry!
-
I wonder if the Worlds Aerobatic Championship contest has a BOM rule...or the United States aerobatic championship have a BOM rule....mebbe all those pilots flying Extras, Laudenslagers, Pitts, Yaks. ETC, ETC.....should have to comply to a BOM rule....lol, what do you all think??
-
Boy... this thread went to the dogs in a hurry!
Yes it did! But my dog is still better than G-Mans dog LL~
-
Frank,
The part that bothers me is that I will be penalized for building my ownmodels! There is supposed to be a system where I get points for doing just that. When you build a model, you are a "modeler" which is what is part of the Mission Statement of the AMA, I thought. While I do have an ARF Nobler (a gift from my family), I consider that almost like buying another "toy", not the process of being a modeler.
Bill,
If the rule is removed then you are not penalized for building or not building. Then is a non issue and you can build to your hearts content and you will know going in that you are going to receive no points for doing so. If getting those 13-19 points is all you build for then are you really doing it for the love of building?
On the other hand with the BOM, without that stupid worthless interpretation, you really were penalized when someone purchased a Bob Hunt wing and stuck in their plane and got appearance points from his excellent building skills. Excellent building can and will result in an excellent finish. Using someone else's work, even skinned foam wings, is way over the line if you ask me.
Since there is no real way to document it, or no way in which anyone will accept, removing it becomes a viable option. Otherwise, you just have a sore spot for the entire event. As has been shown over the years. Long before I got here I might add.
Pitting pilot to pilot protest is never a good thing and will always foster ill will. Figure out a way people can prove they built their model and it would work out perfectly. People say signing off on it is enough. Maybe for some but I know Hunt wings don't go into people's practice planes, neither do the wings I build and sell either....
The real penalty is when rules aren't enforced. All the rule abiding contestants lose when that happens.
-
This a sad reflection on the direction society has taken over the past generation.
I would say it's a direct reflection on the Generation that raised the past generation.
lying, cheating, and self-indulgence has been around since Jesus was a corporal
-
There do seem to be lot of Jon Brodak specific BOM/ARF interpretations.
-
I wonder if the Worlds Aerobatic Championship contest has a BOM rule...or the United States aerobatic championship have a BOM rule....mebbe all those pilots flying Extras, Laudenslagers, Pitts, Yaks. ETC, ETC.....should have to comply to a BOM rule....lol, what do you all think??
I think it is comparing apples and oranges.
Chris...
-
Bill,
If the rule is removed then you are not penalized for building or not building. Then is a non issue and you can build to your hearts content and you will know going in that you are going to receive no points for doing so. If getting those 13-19 points is all you build for then are you really doing it for the love of building?
On the other hand with the BOM, without that stupid worthless interpretation, you really were penalized when someone purchased a Bob Hunt wing and stuck in their plane and got appearance points from his excellent building skills. Excellent building can and will result in an excellent finish. Using someone else's work, even skinned foam wings, is way over the line if you ask me.
Since there is no real way to document it, or no way in which anyone will accept, removing it becomes a viable option. Otherwise, you just have a sore spot for the entire event. As has been shown over the years. Long before I got here I might add.
Pitting pilot to pilot protest is never a good thing and will always foster ill will. Figure out a way people can prove they built their model and it would work out perfectly. People say signing off on it is enough. Maybe for some but I know Hunt wings don't go into people's practice planes, neither do the wings I build and sell either....
The real penalty is when rules aren't enforced. All the rule abiding contestants lose when that happens.
Hi Doug,
I know that YOU know my position on the BOM. ;D
I am 1000% for it in its pruist sense and 100% for dropping it now. For all thereasons I stated (except getting penalized for building my own! LOL!!).
We cannot enforce it, so let it go. I still think that is a trvesty since the event was began as a building/flying event and a large part of it was to be able to BUILD a model that COULD fly good enough to win. Now the emphasis is only on flying so let the BOM go. Do I agree with that emphasis? NO!!!!!! But I realize it is there and I can go with the majority and still enjoy doing this CLPA thing! ;D
I will still build for myself and, in two years upon my retirement, I will be back to building for others, too.
Itr's all gravy since I get to go fly in any contest I want to (and can GET to! ;D) whether or not there is, or isn't a BOM. And, in all humbleness, I build a plane as good (straight,light and strong) as anyone else can. So, no BOM would mean no points for appearance, so I wouldn't have to try and knock out 20 point airplanes! LL~
It's all gravy! H^^
-
I had a chat with a friend over the weekend somewhat relevant to this thread. He flew in the fifties. Did well in Junior and Senior, even to the extent that GA sent him an original green box Nobler kit. In those days my friend said, elders refused to even glue a stick on his plane, respecting the spirit of BOM that much.
-
I think it is comparing apples and oranges.
Chris...
Hi Chris
LL~ S?P Lets compare these apples and oranges!!!I thought I saw green and everyone else saw orange! D>K
Love David eyskens
-
I remember this one now. Phil: you got to be kidding.
Bradley: Do you have anything to back what you say. Starting to sound like someone else does on the other site.
Bill: I can see you side also. But, as stated somewhere, it is known that you score well, if not better with a good looking ship.
Have fun, DOC Holliday