stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: RC Storick on July 29, 2018, 12:21:21 PM
-
This year at the NATS there was an airplane I thought was next years model of Yatsinko and I was assured by everyone it was not. Well, it was not next years model it was this years and it was flown at the worlds. Photo evidence coming forthwith. I wish if we are going to have a BOM they would stick to it. It is not fair to those who are abiding by the rules.
If everyone wants inclusivity we could put forth a rule change to let these planes fly at the NATS with no appearance points and un-eligible for the walker cup fly off. But whatever the rules are STICK TO THEM!
-
Same airplane no cockpit detail
-
That model has nothing to do with the Yatsenko brothers
Brett stated that this model was a kit build
With the current BOM you can purchase the wings,flaps,stab elev,fin check cowls,rudder built by other. Construc the fuse install controls,take apart hardware and paint it’s legal
Jose modesto
-
That’s the Sbach built by Sergey Solomyanikov, also in Ukraine. L
-
That model has nothing to do with the Yatsenko brothers
Brett stated that this model was a kit build
Jose modesto
I was thinking it could possibly be another manufacturer. Now, where can I buy this kit?
-
Someone, please tell me (or show me the link) to buy this kit.
-
There is a new manufacturer ready to fly $1;200
One of his models competed in the worlds
Real nice plane
Jose modesto
-
This is the rule from AMA I can find
BOM Rule and Appearance Points. The
contestant need not be the builder of the model to
compete; however, no appearance points will be awarded
to the contestant who does not build and finish his/her
own model. For contestants who do build and finish their
own models, appearance points will be awarded per the
Appearance section of the CL Precision Aerobatics
event.
-
There is a new manufacturer ready to fly $1;200
One of his models competed in the worlds
Real nice plane
Jose modesto
Great! you said these were Kits available. If I want on where do I find them?
-
That model has nothing to do with the Yatsenko brothers
Brett stated that this model was a kit build
Not quite, I think we were under the impression that it he built it based on whatever source, per the existing rules. As I recall, he had a large photo-documented book about it, maybe at Golden State in about 2013 or so.
Everyone expects Kestes to know the rules, and signed the form saying he would comply will all the rules as part of the NATs entry (and the other contests he entered with this airplane over the last few years). Until someone proves otherwise, that's going to be good enough for me.
If someone has a different view, I suggest Section 18 of the AMA Competition Rules, General Section (quoted, with poor formatting, below). Neither you, Jose, or I, have any standing to protest the NATs results, not being contestants.
Brett
Protests
Protests concerning the conduct of a meet or record trial will be considered only when presented in writing, by a contestant or official in that event, to the Contest Director no later than one (1) hour after the close of the contest or record trials. The protest must report in full the action or decision, the names of entrants and officials involved and completed details. The Contest Director must accept the protest. He may return it to the protester with his reasons, in writing, for not acting on it, but he should make every effort to assist the protester in acquiring any information he may need to present a complete document in the proper form. This section applies to all AMA-sanctioned competition concerning events involving rules included in this rule book. Protests concerning matters apart from conduct of a contest may be directed in writing, within three (3) days, to the Contest Board Chairman as in the “appeal” paragraph. If the problem is related to any official’s actions, a copy of the protest should be sent to those officials. A person who is the subject of a protest action shall be so notified and shall be invited to submit a written statement before the protest is acted upon.
18.1. Protest Procedures
Whether a protest is to be submitted within one (1) hour of the close of a meet or within three days (3) depends upon the nature of the meet.
a. Where the protest affects the presentation of awards or the results of the meet do not determine who is eligible to take part in a following meet, as is the case of most AMA contests, the one-hour rule applies.
b. Where the results of one meet determine who is eligible to take part in a following meet, as is the case with FAI qualification meets, the three-day rule applies.
Academy of Model Aeronautics 18
Models damaged in landing are not to be disqualified except for safety reasons as may be determined by the Contest Director.
The CD, at an AMA sanctioned event shall have irrevocable authority to disqualify or prevent from flying any participant whose ability to fly is impaired (in the CD’s opinion) by the use of alcohol or drugs.
Competition Regulations | General Information | All Categories
Executive Council Jurisdiction
18.1.1.
18.2.
18.3. Appeal
Protestant and/or the person who is the subject of the protest may appeal a CD’s protest decision by sending the CD’s answer to the protest, together with the reason for appeal, in writing, within three (3) days after the date of the CD’s decision, to the appropriate Contest Board Chairman.
18.3.1.
18.3.2.
Contest Board Jurisdiction
In case of doubt as to whether a contestant is eligible to fly in a meet or event, he shall be permitted to fly, pending final determination of his status; except that where team elimination match or heat-type flying is involved, the decision in dispute must be resolved by the CD before the next step in the event schedule and his decision will be final.
CDs must answer protests received in accordance with the “protests” paragraph within one hour after receipt of protest in writing to the protestant, with reasons for decision.
The Contest Board Chairman must rule, no later than three (3) days after receipt of the appeal, in writing to the protestant and the person who is the subject of the protest, with reasons for his decision, with copies of the decision to be forwarded to the AMA President and the Technical Director.
Only if the procedures in the “protests” and “appeal” paragraphs do not produce decisions by the official’s concerned, or if it is essential to obtain a decision in less time than that provided, the protestant may appeal directly to the AMA President. The President will follow up his action by sending written copies of his decision to the protestant, the CD, the appropriate Chairman, and the AMA Technical Director. Any action of the President will be final without further recourse or appeal. If there is insufficient time for the appeal procedures to operate completely, the decision of the last official involved will be final without further recourse or appeal.
-
One thing I would like to add. If one guy builds a scratch built plane in Ukraine and one or 2-3-4-5 ETC. built them in other places in the world with varying abilities in construction techniques they will not look like they came out of the same mold unless they did.
-
Everyone expects Kestes to know the rules, and signed the form saying he would comply will all the rules as part of the NATs entry. Until someone proves otherwise, that's going to be good enough for me.
Brett
This is not a rag on Kestes. It's a rant on our system that does not work. It does not work because it takes everyone to make it work.
-
The Yatsenko can provide you with a kit that is AMA compliant. You must acquaint your self with the BOM rule Robert
They are very specific.
Jose modesto
-
The Yatsenko can provide you with a kit that is AMA compliant. You must acquaint your self with the BOM rule Robert
They are very specific.
Jose modesto
I can read Jose" this is from the AMA
BOM Rule and Appearance Points. The
contestant need not be the builder of the model to
compete; however, no appearance points will be awarded
to the contestant who does not build and finish his/her
own model. For contestants who do build and finish their
own models, appearance points will be awarded per the
Appearance section of the CL Precision Aerobatics
event.
is there a new rule?
-
The Yatsenko can provide you with a kit that is AMA compliant. You must acquaint your self with the BOM rule Robert
They are very specific.
Jose modesto
The
contestant need not be the builder of the model to
compete; however, no appearance points will be awarded
to the contestant who does not build and finish his/her
own model
No I want that kit and you said it was NOT a YS.
-
I'm sure that Ruslan The line guy can give you the contact details of Solomyanikov.
-
I might have thrown away my 50 bucks If I had the pictures from the worlds I posted above. But since they started the 50 dollar rule it in their best interest to rule against you as they get to keep it then. Does not makes sense. They are doing less and less for us. Where were they in the last meeting in Congress? I guess all members needed to pay an extra 50 to get them to show up.
-
Robert.erik v. And company created a very specific BOM rule that allows a certain amount of prefabrication for a BOM compliant model
You use to have it at top of this Forum.
If you read that rule you will understand how you can comply with AMA BOM.
And yes I know you can read. You created the best CL forum on the net.
Jose modesto
-
Too bad he didn't put the AMA number on the proper wing panel? S?P
-
I can read Jose" this is from the AMA
BOM Rule and Appearance Points. The
contestant need not be the builder of the model to
compete; however, no appearance points will be awarded
to the contestant who does not build and finish his/her
own model. For contestants who do build and finish their
own models, appearance points will be awarded per the
Appearance section of the CL Precision Aerobatics
event.
is there a new rule?
The rule you quoted is not the current AMA BOM rule. It might be an explanation of appearance points, but it's not the BOM.
As far as Kestis is concerned, I was told that he designed the plane, made the molds, and made his plane. I haven't heard anyone dispute that...
Derek
-
The rule you quoted is not the current AMA BOM rule. It might be an explanation of appearance points, but it's not the BOM.
As far as Kestis is concerned, I was told that he designed the plane, made the molds, and made his plane. I haven't heard anyone dispute that...
Derek
I am now in contact with the Russian designer and manufacturer of this plane (kit). We shall see where this shakes out.
-
The rule you quoted is not the current AMA BOM rule. It might be an explanation of appearance points, but it's not the BOM.
As far as Kestis is concerned, I was told that he designed the plane, made the molds, and made his plane. I haven't heard anyone dispute that...
Derek
I was told the same about Kestis plane. I would add that after talking with him and looking at the plane it was pretty cool.
James
-
Kestutis told me he designed the plane in CAD. He had the molds made and built it himself. Nothing stops him from sharing that info with others so they can produce it en mass.
As Brett said, he says he made it, signed the AMA form, thus he did. As such, even if protested at the Nat's by an entrant, the AMA will rule in favor of the entrant, who signed the form, every time. I was informed of this when I was the Nat's ED for 3 years.
-
As such, even if protested at the Nat's by an entrant, the AMA will rule in favor of the entrant, who signed the form, every time.
This is what's wrong. I built a Harley-Davidson once from the castings up
-
I can read Jose" this is from the AMA
BOM Rule and Appearance Points. The
contestant need not be the builder of the model to
compete; however, no appearance points will be awarded
to the contestant who does not build and finish his/her
own model. For contestants who do build and finish their
own models, appearance points will be awarded per the
Appearance section of the CL Precision Aerobatics
event.
is there a new rule?
You are quoting the rule for skill-class stunt. See section 2.1, which details the builder of the model requirements, and applies to event 322. it could be pointed out much more clearly that it applies to event 322 -- and no, "oh, everyone knows that" doesn't cut it for me. It could also specify that "builder of the model" will be abbreviated as BOM later in the document -- it's referred to as "Builder of the Model" in section 2.1, then "BOM" in subsequent sections. Sloppy rules lead to pissed-off contestants.
-
This is not a rag on Kestes. It's a rant on our system that does not work. It does not work because it takes everyone to make it work.
I didn't see it that way, either, so I wasn't trying to catch you on something. And you are absolutely right about everyone. That *everyone* includes the people in a position to protest or to otherwise object to it when it will make a difference. I have no knowledge of any prior actions or what was claimed in local contests about appearance points (aside from what I mentioned) and the NATS is it when it comes to BOM or don't fly.
In any case, I am not the arbiter of BOM, so I have no more say or influence on the situation than anyone else, less than you in fact (since I wasn't at the NATs and thus had no stake in the outcome either way).
The quick answer to the entire thing is that *I don't know* for sure. I have gone with what people who were charged with figuring it out said, and assume that my fellow competitors are no less honorable than I am. That certainly allows for someone, whoever, getting away with something if they wanted to, but I can't add anything or control that situation.
Brett
-
Robert.erik v. And company created a very specific BOM rule that allows a certain amount of prefabrication for a BOM compliant model
You use to have it at top of this Forum.
If you read that rule you will understand how you can comply with AMA BOM.
And yes I know you can read. You created the best CL forum on the net.
Jose modesto
That model has nothing to do with the Yatsenko brothers
Brett stated that this model was a kit build
With the current BOM you can purchase the wings,flaps,stab elev,fin check cowls,rudder built by other. Construc the fuse install controls,take apart hardware and paint it’s legal
Jose modesto
Took some time to find this.
The CD shall make every reasonable effort to ascertain that each pilot has
completely “constructed‟ the model(s) the pilot uses in competition, with
“constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model
starting with no more prefabrication than acquiring 1 of the 2 main
structures preassembled prior to merging and finishing. The 2 main
structures are considered to be: 1) the wing(s) and 2) the fuselage(s).
Flaps, rudders, elevators & horizontal stabilizers are not considered main
structures, therefore there are no limitations on level of their
prefabrication, and only the finish portion of this rule applies to them. In
unconventional stunt designs, such as a multi-engine wing with engine
nacelles, or a flying wing, they are to be considered as multiple merged
structures, so no level of prefabrication is allowed, and on multi wing
planes, the wing total counts as one structure, but the pilot must be the one
who joins and aligns the multiple wings together. In the case of take-apart
models, the take-apart hardware must be installed by the pilot. The pilot
must be the person who applies the finish to the plane, to “finish” meaning
the pilot fills the surfaces and applies the covering and finish to the
completed model where covering and finish is applied. Whereas on the
surface of the main structures, molded structural surface underlayment’s
including but not limited to molded fiberglass, or carbon fiber that are
filled or colored as a result of the manufacturing process that may show as
part of the final finish may be used, as long as this surface underlayment is
applied, filled and colored by the pilot. Control systems such as but not
limited to the bellcrank, control horns, pushrods, etc. may be purchased,
but must be installed by the pilot. Other accessories and hardware may be
purchased or otherwise obtained for their function such as, but not limited
to: engines, tanks, wheels, canopies, airframe take-apart hardware, and
have no bearing in the way “main structures” are counted.
-
That's it.
Derek
-
So, we have threads going that are against the FAI rule of a lack of a BOM and other threads questioning the enforceability and integrity of the AMA rules? Interesting...
As Brett said, he says he made it, signed the AMA form, thus he did. As such, even if protested at the Nat's by an entrant, the AMA will rule in favor of the entrant, who signed the form, every time. I was informed of this when I was the Nat's ED for 3 years.
If the AMA is not going to enforce the rules why do we need a rule book? It is just a fun fly then.
-
Three ways to enforce BOM.
1. Basic human ethics and integrity.
2. The model is obviously a factory product.
3. People know that the airplane was built and flown by somebody else.
-
So, we have threads going that are against the FAI rule of a lack of a BOM and other threads questioning the enforceability and integrity of the AMA rules? Interesting...
I think you have massively missed the point of the other thread. It has nothing to do with the actual content of the rules. It is about the fact that we (world stunt fliers and administrators) appear to have absolutely no control over what goes into the rules, with agreements over the right way to proceed by the most knowledgeable people later torpedoed by people who have absolutely no stake at all in the event, and are entirely unaccountable for their actions.
Brett
-
A mold is a tool, just like an exact-o knife.
If I buy a mold, then inject magic resin, and out pops an airplane, I am the builder of the model.
If my buddy comes over, borrows my molds, injects magic resin... he is the builder of the model.
It’s a different method of construction using non traditional materials.
Now if the airplane is purchased, borrowed, or given away, the new owner is not the builder of the model. Just like a balsa model.
I can see where a small portion of these new fangled molded airplanes could be legal for BOM purposes, but molds are pretty expensive so many airplanes would have to be sold to recoup that investment. One would think the vast majority of them would be ineligible.
-
You are quoting the rule for skill-class stunt. See section 2.1, which details the builder of the model requirements, and applies to event 322. it could be pointed out much more clearly that it applies to event 322 -- and no, "oh, everyone knows that" doesn't cut it for me. It could also specify that "builder of the model" will be abbreviated as BOM later in the document -- it's referred to as "Builder of the Model" in section 2.1, then "BOM" in subsequent sections. Sloppy rules lead to pissed-off contestants.
Please explain what is so difficult to understand about our AMA rules for CLPA or where the rules are "sloppy" regarding our AMA BOM requirements.
Now, the following applies ONLY to our AMA rules and has nothing to do with whatever is swirling around in the fuzzy processes of the FAI.
Until several years ago, the BOM rule that applied to our CL PA event was only defined in the AMA rules for "General Information All Categories". The wording of that general rule for all model aircraft has remained virtually unchanged for a number of years, like since the 1960's. The wording of that rule was conceived in an era when BOM compliant models were constructed as the action "required to complete a model starting with no more prefabrication than the amount used in the average kit. Models which are completely prefabricated and require only a few minutes of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition." It still contains the provision that the AMA General rules for BOM "applies to every AMA event unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event." (See AMA General Rules for sanctioned events, Paragraph 6.)
Over the years in our CLPA event, the concept of an "average kit" has become blurred and purchased foam wings and purchased wing assemblies had become generally accepted for builders to use in the construction of their CLPA models and still be compliant with the AMA General BOM rule. Also, over those years, there was a very vocal minority that objected that if such wings are used then the model is NOT BOM compliant. Threats were made that every CLPA model at the Nats with foam wings or purchased wing assemblies would be formally protested. The fact that the Genie was already out of the bottle when purchased wings (foam or wood construction) were widely accepted starting in the 60's when such wings appeared and generally accepted to compete at all levels of competition. The AMA Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board addressed this situation and developed the current wording which recognized the fact that the Contest Board felt the majority of CLPA competitors believed using purchased wings was BOM compliant. The wording currently in the AMA CLPA rule book, Paragraph 2.1 took several rules change cycles to develop and applies to all of our CLPA events, event numbers 322, 323, 324, 325, and 326. That is the rule quoted by Robert Storick in Post #26 above. (As noted above, the AMA General BOM rule no longer applies to our CLPA event.) It should also be understood that the Nats is the only contest in the US that applies the rules for event 322 which defines the age classifications for the event and enforces the CLPA BOM rule. Virtually all other CLPA events here in the US follow the rules for the Skill Classes, events 323 - 326.
Now go to the Skill Classes, events 323-326, and you will find that BOM rule and appearance points specifically do not apply to the beginners event, event 323. For events 324, 325 and 326, Intermediate, Advanced and Expert classes, the rules are clear that the contestant need not be the builder of the model to compete but will forego the award of appearance points. "For contestants who do build and finish their own models, appearance points will be awarded per the the appearance section of the CL Precision Aerobatics event."
Our CLPA rules for events 324, 325 and 326 allow contests to be held that do not require the BOM in any form and do not award appearance points. This practice is followed at several contests around the country.
It is interesting to note that during the FAI processes to define their own BOM rule, they used the concept/wording of our BOM rule as defined in our CLPA rule book.
So please explain what is so "sloppy" with our CLPA rule book regarding our BOM rule. These rules were generated to avoid a major problem being posed by a small group of vocal malcontents that could have seriously done harm to our event. Now, if there is a majority of CLPA modelers that feel purchased wings and such items that are now specifically allowed in our CLPA BOM rules, let them speak up. If there is such a group within PAMPA or some website or even organized outside the provinces of PAMPA, then let them speak up and so advise the CL Aerobatics Contest Board.
One thing to remember, as long as we have any form of a BOM rule, it can only exist on the integrity of all participants of this event. Hopefully, honesty, peer pressure, and disciplined action by Contest Directors can maintain a meaningful BOM policy.
There is one aspect of our rule book that is a bit "awkward" where our basic CLPA event 322 is defined in whole at the beginning of the CLPA rule book, including the maneuver descriptions and diagrams. Then, after a lengthy Judges' Guide and 36 pages later, there are the provisions for the Skill Classes, events 323- 326. Attempts to integrate the Skill Classes as part of the overall CLPA rules, rather than have them appear almost as an afterthought following the Judges' Guide have not been very productive.
Keith
-
Nicely said Keith.
-
If you wanted to you could define what IS is. I design my own, cut every stick of wood, make my own cranks, horns, fuel tanks and draw/ cut my own paint masks.......so where shall the lines be? :-))
Dave
-
Please explain what is so difficult to understand about our AMA rules for CLPA or where the rules are "sloppy" regarding our AMA BOM requirements.
- In any sort of writing where you resort to three letter abbreviations (TLAs), the first use of the phrase should be spelled out clearly, and then the abbreviation should be placed, in parenthesis, immediately after the spelled-out phrase. The rules document does not do this. The only place where "BOM" and "builder-of-the-model" are tied together is in section 15.5.3, and there it is indirect and terse -- the reader is forced to (A), read the entire document, and then (B) infer a connection between "BOM" and "builder of the model". Newcomers to the sport have precious little way of knowing that the sections (15.6.2. 15.7.2 & 15.8.2) on the "BOM rule" in intermediate-expert relate in any way shape or form to section 2.1.
- Because section 2.1 does not clearly state that it only fully applies to event 322, and the above-mentioned sections do not call out section 2.1 either by number or by name as not being fully applicable.
- Because of both of the above, and because fixing it would only require an extra ten to twenty words out of a document that has to be 5000-10000 words long.
-
- In any sort of writing where you resort to three letter abbreviations (TLAs), the first use of the phrase should be spelled out clearly, and then the abbreviation should be placed, in parenthesis, immediately after the spelled-out phrase. The rules document does not do this. The only place where "BOM" and "builder-of-the-model" are tied together is in section 15.5.3, and there it is indirect and terse -- the reader is forced to (A), read the entire document, and then (B) infer a connection between "BOM" and "builder of the model". Newcomers to the sport have precious little way of knowing that the sections (15.6.2. 15.7.2 & 15.8.2) on the "BOM rule" in intermediate-expert relate in any way shape or form to section 2.1.
- Because section 2.1 does not clearly state that it only fully applies to event 322, and the above-mentioned sections do not call out section 2.1 either by number or by name as not being fully applicable.
- Because of both of the above, and because fixing it would only require an extra ten to twenty words out of a document that has to be 5000-10000 words long.
Minor and arguable defects that have no bearing at all on the matter at hand, or the crux of the problem. I presume that if you have enough mobility to throw stones at a fairly massive and laudable effort, you should be able to bang out a corrective rule proposal in about 10 minutes.
I know no more about this particular situation than I stated above, however, there are three immutable principles of rulemaking that apply in the extreme to BOM, and that cannot be avoided and must be considered:
- The more complex the rules, the more opportunities exist to exploit them
- If you can't objectively determine the answer, compliance will rely on the honesty and good will of the participants
- You cannot do anything to avoid #1 and #2
#1 suggests not having ever-more-complex "laundry lists" of acceptable and unacceptable practices. #2 makes that unnecessary or pointless.
In the history of this event (over the last 40 years I have been involved) I have seen or heard of exactly 3 clear examples*1 of cheating*2, and only 1 where I was essentially sure of it but didn't have any way to prove it. There have been maybe 3-4 times when I suspected it, but not nearly sure enough to make an issue of it. Over that amount of time, that seems like a pretty darn good reason to think we can trust people, and even if every single example was someone getting away with it, it doesn't seem like a widespread problem that requires elaborate solutions.
Brett
*1 Two examples of the same person inserting an allen wrench in eyelets during the pull test, one case where an individual later admitted that he did it because he knew he could get away with it - even though what he was doing was definitely arguably not a violation, he sure thought it was and was using the same logic to point the finger at others on the same principle.
*2 cheating being defined as knowingly violating a rule, as opposed to following it the way they understood it, but other people had a different interpretation. Most "cheating" accusations fall into the latter category, where something is ambiguous, usually due to Rule #1, where the more you write, the more ambiguous and open to interpretation it gets.
-
How can anyone say they built their own model if they buy components somebody else made? If you buy wings already assembled or cut out, (or any other subassembly) then you did not build the model.
I think they should have a class of competition called "Real Modelers Class" where the plane is built from plans. The modeler in this class must cut their own parts (foam or balsa), build it, cover and paint themselves. Then those who want to compete in another class where prebuilt components are used they can, but it will not be called build your own.
Almost any modeler who builds, uses prefabricated components to complete their model, it just depends how far you want to take a “Real Modelers Class”.
It is somewhat retrograde to expect an own built model not to include a prefabricated part of some nature in it’s build, but just how much should be allowed?
A horn or bellcrank is a prefabricated part, stranded leadouts are a component made by someone else, as are tissue and glass fibre cloths. The ic engine or electric motor, prop, and mounts are all prefabricated.
Ultimately some form of prefabrication has to be permissible in BOM rules and I am with the current compromise situation which allows for some prefabricated items to be included. I create my own molds and make everything from props, fuselages and cowls, to even complete wings for my own use. I do this because I enjoy the challenge of creating my own model. I also have no reservation in using a prebuilt part such as a wing or tail assembled by a world class builder and flyer. Because I know I will spend very considerable time assembling the other parts and finishing them to a standard that can garner appearance points to help my meager flight scores.
If you ask any pro builder or flyer they will often be happy to explain that assembly and painting taking a good deal of time and expertise - some 2/3rds of the build time is often allocated to them to get a model complete and in the air.
I would contend we already have a “Real Modelers Class” and the majority of builders and flyers are happy it’s that way.
-
Sounds like a funny story! I guess my point is it’s funny wherever your particular spot in the sand is is where the line is drawn. It would be a small contest indeed where everyone MUST do it my way. At different stations in the hobby it makes sense to use available items to get your bird in the air and not have to re-invent the wheel. (I do buy my wheels). It’s hard to say about some things. At the Nats I spent a good part of one day flying with Kestas and launching the plane. I couldn’t tell you for sure one way or the other whether he ‘built’ it or not which also means I couldn’t have disputed a claim either way. That , and the AMA number issue I felt like I wasn’t going to worry about unless there was a formal complaint (the only mentions of either have been on this forum). Then I would have handed him a magic marker and asked him to scribble his number on the other side. It was his first Nats and it wasn’t a reason to spoil it for him. All this about foam wings etc. got out of the barn a LONG time ago and isn’t worth rehashing. It works pretty well and the active participants are mostly satisfied.
Dave
-
I remember when the ARF's came on the scene. I even said it was good because some guys do not have a place to build a plane and would like to fly. Yes it also takes room to assemble one. My bed room was my place to build planes back a long time ago. At bed time every thing went under the bed. I have seen guys give up appearance points and out fly most of the entrants in skill classes. The age classes require the entrant to build their own plane for AMA competition. but how many contests are run using age classes. Their are several Juniors and Seniors that fly circles around this old man and have done it for years.
I have watched the local stock car guys/gals compete at the local tracks. Several have bought cars so they can race but if the car breaks they have to pay some one or have some one fix it for them. The there are the guys/gals that built their car from the ground up, in the case of factory stock using a vehicle from the scrap/junk yard. Yes we have a couple that state they wish they had the money so and so does to have a competitive car to race. Myself I could care less if a dozen people show up to fly/compete with prebuilt planes. We need more people flying if only just for the fun of it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, fly by the rules of what ever you want to fly. S?P
-
Rusty, I have a similar situation all the time at the airfield. Mine may not be 20 pointers, but I built them.
However! Let me add this! (I get carried away with the exclamation points sometimes because I think I'm important!) - I was told I'm NOT a "Real Modeler" because I build from kits. Not recently, and not by control line guys, but just thinking how many out there share that opinion?
I've also heard the statement, "yeah well you didn't design it, so it doesn't really matter" when I presented my scratch built DLG gliders.
Within the control line community, however I've always felt like people have accepted me as a model builder, and have heard no negativity about my planes. I guess we'll have to accept people's word for it, that they built it.
Jim Hoffman was walking around at VSC taking info on planes and was asking if the pilot built them. He came up to mine and said, " I know you built them. There's lots of pics! " I thought that was really cool.
-
- In any sort of writing where you resort to three letter abbreviations (TLAs), the first use of the phrase should be spelled out clearly, and then the abbreviation should be placed, in parenthesis, immediately after the spelled-out phrase. The rules document does not do this. The only place where "BOM" and "builder-of-the-model" are tied together is in section 15.5.3, and there it is indirect and terse -- the reader is forced to (A), read the entire document, and then (B) infer a connection between "BOM" and "builder of the model". Newcomers to the sport have precious little way of knowing that the sections (15.6.2. 15.7.2 & 15.8.2) on the "BOM rule" in intermediate-expert relate in any way shape or form to section 2.1.
- Because section 2.1 does not clearly state that it only fully applies to event 322, and the above-mentioned sections do not call out section 2.1 either by number or by name as not being fully applicable.
- Because of both of the above, and because fixing it would only require an extra ten to twenty words out of a document that has to be 5000-10000 words long.
Good points. During the last rules change cycle, there were a number of small corrections in format that were incorporated in the rules by a formal change proposal, many to correct the kind of areas you outline above. This proposal included several pages that just got into proper use of commas, parentheses, colons, placement of paragraphs and a myriad of other items. In the process of incorporating those changes, the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) gave the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board (CLACB) access to their AMA master file where we could incorporate these changes and make even more adjustments that were not included in formal change proposal for similar "incidental" items. The intent of the rules were not changed. The result was a much cleaner document. However, a casual reader of the new rule book would hardly notice any of the "adjustments" incorporated. Having spent a career living with military regulations and military documents, I am well aware of the practice that any time a brevity code is used, or what you call three letter abbreviations (TLAs), and not all brevity codes are limited to three letters, the term is to be spelled out the first time it is used. With the material that I worked with, the policy was to spell out the brevity code each time it first appears on a page of a document and any page thereafter. This is something that was missed in that "rework" of our rulebook in the last change cycle. I am not making an excuse for overlooking this format to be used for the Builder of the Model (BOM) in the rulebook, but the reality is that a significant majority within Control Line Precision Aerobatics (CLPA) community knows what the TLA for BOM stands for.
Your CL Aerobatics Contest Board will welcome your proposal in the next rules change cycle to incorporate the improvements you suggest. (I am sure you are aware that any AMA member can submit a change proposal to the rule book.) However, it might be possible for the Contest Board to request the AMA to make these incidental adjustments when the new rule book is published prior to January, 2019. So thank you for your suggestion and for your proposal if you submit one if we cannot get this matter corrected prior to publishing the next rule book.
Now, since you are concerned about detail and "correctness", you state in your second bullet above that Paragraph 2.1 of our CLPA rules "does not clearly state that it only fully applies to event 322". Where is it in the rules that even suggests that Paragraph 2.1 "only fully applies to event 322"? Paragraph 2.1 is "clearly" in the section applicable to events 322, 323, 324, 325, and 326 where appearance points are added to a contestant's flight score. Nowhere in the rule book is the implication, as you suggest, that Paragraph 2.1 applies only to event 322.
Now, when we get to Section 15 which introduces the Skill Classes, the exception that the Builder of the Model (BOM) is not required for these classes with the attendant forfeiture of appearance points. It is clear in this section that the usual convention of spelling out the term "Builder of the Model" is not followed by the TLA (BOM). This is the way the rules for Skill Classes were introduced into our rule book many years ago (like the 1980's) and has never been corrected to a more standard writing convention. Again, your formal proposal to incorporate a more acceptable convention will be gladly reviewed by your CLACB. It would be appropriate in your change proposal for this BOM matter in the Skill Classes to clearly include a reference to Paragraph 2.1 of our CLPA rules. Your attention to detail is appreciated.
Keith
-
Now, since you are concerned about detail and "correctness", you state in your second bullet above that Paragraph 2.1 of our CLPA rules "does not clearly state that it only fully applies to event 322". Where is it in the rules that even suggests that Paragraph 2.1 "only fully applies to event 322"? Paragraph 2.1 is "clearly" in the section applicable to events 322, 323, 324, 325, and 326 where appearance points are added to a contestant's flight score. Nowhere in the rule book is the implication, as you suggest, that Paragraph 2.1 applies only to event 322.
I was thinking I should submit a proposal, since I brought it up.
Section 2.1 says, in summary, "build it yourself or don't fly, here's what we mean by build it yourself". The sections in the skill class events say "oh, you can fly after all, but with a loss of points". I'll give some thought to how section 2.1 may be tweaked to make it clear that the "build it yourself or don't fly" part only applies to 322 without engendering confusion.
(And yes, I know that doing anything with section 2.1 is poking a long snake with a short stick -- witness the emotion in this thread. So I'll just submit my proposal and then hide behind y'all if things get hot!)
-
At my RC field this weekend I was the only guy both Saturday and Sunday that had a plane I made.
The other guys aren't very interesting to talk to, are they?
-
How can anyone say they built their own model if they buy components somebody else made? If you buy wings already assembled or cut out, (or any other subassembly) then you did not build the model.
(Clip)
I think they should have a class of competition called "Real Modelers Class" where the plane is built from plans. The modeler in this class must cut their own parts (foam or balsa), build it, cover and paint themselves. Then those who want to compete in another class where prebuilt components are used they can, but it will not be called build your own.
(Clip)
The Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board (CLACB) spent nearly 4 years to develop the wording for the Builder of the Model (BOM) rule that is now in the Control Line Precision Aerobatics (CLPA) rule book. The collective action of the CLACB was based on the understanding that the majority of the Control Line Precision Aerobatics (CLPA) community had and have accepted that foam and prebuilt wings can be incorporated in models flown in CLPA competition. What the CLACB wanted to recognize that in order to complete a competition CLPA model, significant skills were required. These skills include but are not limited to proper alignment of the components, installation of a good control system, and the covering/finish of the model. These factors are spelled out in the BOM requirements of Paragraph 2.1 in the CLPA rule book.
A builder can purchase/obtain the most perfectly constructed wings available on the market but still cannot automatically assemble a competitive CLPA model. However, Paragraph 2.1 clearly requires that the builder/pilot is the one who assembles and aligns the components and in the case of take-apart models, the take-apart hardware must be installed by the pilot. The pilot is also the one required to apply the finish to the plane and is defined in more detail in Paragraph 2.1.
For those who would like to "have a class of competition called 'Real Modelers Class' where the plane is built from plans," please feel free to develop your own set of rules and hold a contest or series of contests using those rules. The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) rule book allows for and will sanction such special contests to be held. If you witness overwhelming support for such an event, then you can make it an official part of the AMA rulebook. Even without a formal inclusion of such rules in the AMA rulebook, you can continue to hold your special contests for the expected few if any that will attend/support your concept. Please note that you do NOT need to establish new rules in the AMA rule book to initiate any event you can dream up. Start something and we all might be surprised if you have any kind of support. These forums and even the Precision Aerobatics Model Pilots Association (PAMPA) can provide you great platforms to initiate your ideas. Even your CLACB would take notice if you organize contests for your ideas and there is any kind of measurable support/entries. As a parallel to this subject, the Skill Classes were encouraged and initiated as unofficial events at local contests by PAMPA. Now, Skill Classes are a significant element of our CLPA event.
I have an interesting question regarding your "Real Modelers Class". You state that the "modeler in this class must cut their own parts (foam or balsa)...". So, does this exclude a "Real Modeler" from building a model from any of the several current manufacturers of CLAPA kits (Brodak and RSM to mention a few) to compete in your "Real Modelers Class"?
Keith
-
Why not also require that they build their own bell cranks, control horns, take apart units, fuel tanks etc, etc, etc. If you really want to get tough require that they make their own engines. There are after all several modelers in Europe , and other places who do that!
Of course, it's going to be a very small class but in fact there is no limit to what you can limit if you really try hard!
S?P S?P LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
Some people simply are never happy until they find something that only THEY can do, or would want to do?!
Randy Cuberly
-
Keith is absolutely correct in his description of our current BOM rule. Many hours of writing, discussion, and arguing went into what we have today. One of the original drafts had the plane separated into 4 major parts (wing/flaps, fuselage, stab/elevator, and rudder. You were only allowed to buy 1 of the 4 major components. That proposal did not pass and had to be modified (a few times) to get what we have today. Also remember, a lot of people had been trying, unsuccessfully, to rewrite the rule to be more specific, especially after the sharks and ilk started showing up in numbers, at the US Nat's.
To claim that what we have now is sloppy, poorly explained, or unclear is just silly. You either aren't reading clearly, or you're trying to read something that isn't there..... Tim.
Derek
-
To claim that what we have now is sloppy, poorly explained, or unclear is just silly. You either aren't reading clearly, or you're trying to read something that isn't there..... Tim.
Derek
EXACTLY!!
And the rule we have today allows us as a whole to use advanced building techniques found elsewhere while still holding the true intent of the event which is to create the best all around modeler/flier. You still have to get the thing into one piece then trim it out, figure it out, then fly it....
-
Keith is absolutely correct in his description of our current BOM rule. Many hours of writing, discussion, and arguing went into what we have today. One of the original drafts had the plane separated into 4 major parts (wing/flaps, fuselage, stab/elevator, and rudder. You were only allowed to buy 1 of the 4 major components. That proposal did not pass and had to be modified (a few times) to get what we have today.
I might want to add Rule #4 - There's no need to use an A-Bomb on an anthill. For the entire time I have been involved with stunt, we have careened wildly from one "controversy" to another, almost always based on something that is a legitimate issue, but blown far out of proportion, with sometimes astronomically, almost comical (if you didn't know otherwise) overreactions.
Most of the "conspiracy" shenanigans were like that, for example, we turned ourselves inside out over what was histrionic claims of torment. Over 30+ years and to the point the entire event was destroyed. Most of the stuff should just have been summarily dismissed or ignored, instead, we (in good faith, for the most part) treated utter nonsense like it was sober and objective fact, and then knocked ourselves out trying to either "correct" or explain our actions.
The BOM is another example, essentially every time it comes up it almost immediately veers into one hysterical claim after another. We have spent so much time trying to get it perfect, that we took forever to accomplish even an OK solution that works most of the time if everyone tells the truth. No one understands perfectionism better than stunt fliers, the event filters for it, but a lot of times we end up wasting a lot of time or effort to close every possible loophole that we wind up doing nothing, or coming up with solutions that are worse than the original problem, due to Rule #1. This all to replace two words that almost everyone understood - "completely construct".
I am pretty OK with just leaving everything alone or simplifying the current rule, and living with a few outliers here and there, they aren't signifcant.
Brett
-
Is it time to run screaming into the night yet....I for one am ready!
Randy Cuberly
-
Just to show how the more things change the more they stay the same, there are many letters to the editors in the old mags going back to WW-2 that complain of people not building their models and not being "real modelers." Some where of the ilk that you even had to draw your own plans, or at very least, enlarge them out of the magazine. Buying plans from the publisher was looked own upon! There was big outcry when Top Flite started putting pre-shaped leading edges and trailing edges in their kits. Real modelers shape their own!! Varying levels of prefabrication go back that far. I have a Cavacraft 1/2A WW-1 biplane kit that is completely built and ready to cover in the box, what we call today an ARC. Probably dates to the early 50's,. The Monarch line of sport C/L planes were all machined balsa and hard wood and just slid together like a jig saw puzzle and the parts fit together so well that the model could be assemble to a complete state without any glue and stand there on it's landing gear wire by itself! So, really nothing new here, just a different time and different people.
As technology advances, you have to make allowances fo the new methods to be used. The molded models aren't going anywhere, and someone already brought up using some one else's molds to lay up your own model and that's fine with me. I am pro BOM but have been able to keep flying during a busy work career that didn't allow me much time for building, so I bought other peoples planes and ARF's so I could still join in the fun. The current rules that cover that seem to work just fine as far as I'm concerned but I do hope to remedy the building situation ASAP!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
(Clip)
What is the deal about the control system? Sparky has the entire control system for sale in his webstore.
(Clip)
Your really missed the point on this one. Sure, you can buy an "entire control system" just like you can buy an "entire" power train, just like an "entire" set of wheels. What does that matter? These items have been in the market place since before CLPA was initiated as an official event.
The point in the CLPA BOM rule is that the control components "may be purchased but MUST be installed by the pilot". (Emphasis added.) This is one area the CLACB preserved as a fundamental part of the BOM rule. That "entire control system for sale in [Sparky's] webstore" surely does not include the installation into the model which the BOM rule clearly states that is the responsibility of the pilot. I am sure that you would agree that not all control system installations are the same. I think that most anyone will agree with you that it takes a true "CRAFTSMAN" to accurately install a functional control system in a competition CLPA model whatever the source of the components.
Foam wings not necessarily fabricated by the pilot were allowed in models flown at the Nats in the era when George Aldrich and Bill Netzeband were Nats stunt event directors using the then and still current AMA definition for the BOM including the phrase "constructed is to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model starting with no more prefabrication than the amount used in the average kit." Maybe you should consider that there have been kits for various types of models, including stunt ships, on the market for many years that include foam wings. So perhaps the "average kit" from the 1960's on morphed to include foam wings. Now, if foam wings were permitted, it is only logical that fully assembled purchased wings could also be used in the construction of a CLPA model. From outward appearance and design particulars, there is no difference in form or function between a purchased foam wing and a purchased assembled wing with 637 individual parts assembled together except for possibly the weight factor. Would you suggest that any placing of any individual at the Nats who used purchased wings over the years should be invalidated when the stunt community as a whole essentially endorsed their use? Is the CLPA community at large out of touch or is it the almost insignificant minority of vocal malcontents that cannot accept reality? We could take your argument to the next step and require that the pilot must fabricate his own engine, spinner, and prop. There are some in our community that can and actually do that. Are not those individuals even more of a true "CRAFTSMEN" than what you are claiming for yourself and others who build their own wings?
Please feel free to make whatever proposal(s) you wish. I do not think anyone on the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board (CLACB) would prejudge your proposal(s). Who knows, there may be a silent majority out there in our small CLPA community that may want the changes you propose. The individual members of the CLACB will certainly respond to the input from pilots in their respective Districts as well as to the recommendations that will surely be made by the Precision Aerobatics Model Pilots Association (PAMPA). On the other hand, I think you will be the one who is surprised how little support there will be for your proposal(s).
Keith
-
These are exciting times for construction techniques and materials.
3 D printers are becoming less expensive and the programming is becoming easier as well.
Laser printers have become even less expensive as well.
There is a foam that seems to be fuel proof (or is covered/painted with something fuel proof).
The guys at Flex Innovations have one of their $300 pattern foamies converted to control line....
Those that seem to harp about the BOM allude to balsa construction. Other materials may soon eclipse balsa for a number of reasons.
With new materials traditional construction techniques will more than likely disappear.
And the definitions will become more and more murky.
-
I agree with that. Like when foam wings appeared, it was something a modeler could do. My idea of the equal contest would be a guy could get 300 points (max) for having built his own model, then 300 (max) for flying. I have actually been studying making a wing using foam ribs, instead of balsa. Yea, Peabody I see your point.
Well somebody beat you to that one... My flying partner in the 80's Jim Cochran used nothing but foam ribs and qualified Top 20 at the 85' Chicopee Nats with such a machine. He used foam meat trays like you get your hamburger on at the store. He made it work but the problems were rib crushing and or cap strips de-laminating. Help build lighter? Na....he was just cheap..LOL!!
Dave
-
I have no problem with using new materials I do have a problem with someone else using them for you. IE a molded, finished airplane from a manufacturer.
-
I have gotten to the bottom of this story and here it is.
Hi Robert I received a message from Sergii. " Hello RC Storick A set of components for the self-production of the F2B aerobatic flight model Sbach is available for $ 1,500. The production time is 6 months. Yours faithfully Sergii Solomianikov. " P.S. I talked with Sergii by phone. He said that his planes are a joint development with Kestutis from America. Kestutis has exactly the same forms
I wonder how many more of these models will try to show at the NATS? The Camel's nose was let under the tent a few years back.
I am going top buy and build one of these just as a test
-
There are extremes to everything and common sense (define that?) should rule. To me common sense is that if you do not make the air frame to your model, you did not build it.
[/quote]
Herein lies the problem. Everybodies definition on this is different. We worked long and hard to get where we are. It seems to work.
And, you really didn't build your model completely. In fact, you only did the EASY parts. Did you dig the ore from the ground, refine it, forge/roll/cast it, heat treat it, machine it to get your motor, wire for horns and control system parts, landing gear etc. You just assembled a series of premade items to form your product. It is not as simple as you make it out to be. People who compete in this event worked on the rules proposals until it was acceptable to pass a vote.
-
I have gotten to the bottom of this story and here it is.
Hi Robert I received a message from Sergii. " Hello RC Storick A set of components for the self-production of the F2B aerobatic flight model Sbach is available for $ 1,500. The production time is 6 months. Yours faithfully Sergii Solomianikov. " P.S. I talked with Sergii by phone. He said that his planes are a joint development with Kestutis from America. Kestutis has exactly the same forms
I wonder how many more of these models will try to show at the NATS? The Camel's nose was let under the tent a few years back.
I am going top buy and build one of these just as a test
When you say 'build' are you going to lay up the parts?
-
I think I'll stop by the nursery tomorrow and see if I can order a balsa tree to plant. Time to get started at the beginning......... LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
-
I think I'll stop by the nursery tomorrow and see if I can order a balsa tree to plant. Time to get started at the beginning......... LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
Hey Roy,
Can I go half on the tree? I need some more balsa to ruin! LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
Randy Cuberly
-
When you say 'build' are you going to lay up the parts?
Not sure. I am going to build this kit as sent and see if it turns out as the ones I have seen. I want to see if it looks and flies like it came out of the mold. This is just a test of the AVERAGE kit. Don't expect to see me flying this at the NATS.
-
That why I suggest upping the ante. Increase the bet. Stop playing penny poker, by changing the rules. You could, in addition to what I already suggested, add points for drawing your own plans, cutting your own parts, etc.
The whole objective is to see who the best REAL Modeler is. I think if you were to add points for having real modeling skills (craftsmanship), Sparky would have given you guys a run for your money.
I don't know who you are, but you have obviously never been to a US Nationals. If you had, you would know that everything you just posted is BS.
Derek
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHEiv0q_26I
I hope this helps.
-
Mr. Hunt, Sir. Please re-read my comments. I was suggesting a DIFFERENT EVENT, where the best overall modeler was determined. This suggestion came about because your rules regarding building your own model are PHONY. They are a joke.
My suggested event would give more points for a modeler who really did build their own model with added points for building the entire air frame, covering the model, even making the engine so that true craftsmanship is rewarded.
The truth is as I see it, you want to live in a make believe world where somebody makes wing panels and other components and then you pretend the purchaser built the WHOLE model.
Does who you are change the meaning of building your own model? Is that how the rules came to accept using components made by somebody else? Why not just be honest and start flying ARFs? Then you will know who has the best muscle memory with nothing whatsoever to distract from that.
Your build your own model rules remind me of:
Affirmative Action: Ignoring the truth about who is most qualified.
Electoral College: Ignoring the truth about who got the most votes.
Fake News: Convincing the public information known to be false.
Bottom line: If you do not build every part of your air frame, you did not build your own model. That, my friend, is the truth.
Your ignorance is showing again. Your entire argument is based on your assumption that the people that compete at the Nationals do not build their own airplanes, simply because of the way YOU interpret the rules. Those of us who compete at the highest level at the Nationals build every square inch of our airplanes. We cut every piece of wood, spend hundreds of hours sanding, filling, painting, and polishing the planes we use in competition. As with any event, there are people who will use every advantage they can right up to the edge of breaking the rules. That is far from the majority in our event. Even the model in question, has been proven legal by Robert's own research.
Derek
-
This year at the NATS there was an airplane I thought was next years model of Yatsenko and I was assured by everyone it was not. Well, it was not next years model it was this years and it was flown at the worlds. Photo evidence coming forthwith. I wish if we are going to have a BOM they would stick to it. It is not fair to those who are abiding by the rules.
If everyone wants inclusivity we could put forth a rule change to let these planes fly at the NATS with no appearance points and un-eligible for the walker cup fly off. But whatever the rules are STICK TO THEM!
Give the FAI F2B Comp. Folks 4 more years...and after
you may call it "THE SHARK-CUP".
Sure they got BIG numbers in pre-orders.
Does it bother me ?
NOPE !!!!!
cause I am not in that kind of race.
LOVE IT ....OR .....LEAVE IT,
AND FOR SURE......,
HAVE FUN WITH IT.
p.s.
SURE can find BIG TIME FUN for less Honey.
Its allways a matter of choice which horse you wanna ride.
An expensive horse makes not a winner.
Not at all. I remember one Pilot in my home Country,still wrestling with his Shark for years.
But.....its the Pilot and not the fish.
-
Mr. Hunt, Sir. Please re-read my comments. I was suggesting a DIFFERENT EVENT, where the best overall modeler was determined. This suggestion came about because your rules regarding building your own model are PHONY. They are a joke.
My suggested event would give more points for a modeler who really did build their own model with added points for building the entire air frame, covering the model, even making the engine so that true craftsmanship is rewarded.
The truth is as I see it, you want to live in a make believe world where somebody makes wing panels and other components and then you pretend the purchaser built the WHOLE model.
Does who you are change the meaning of building your own model? Is that how the rules came to accept using components made by somebody else? Why not just be honest and start flying ARFs? Then you will know who has the best muscle memory with nothing whatsoever to distract from that.
Your build your own model rules remind me of:
Affirmative Action: Ignoring the truth about who is most qualified.
Electoral College: Ignoring the truth about who got the most votes.
Fake News: Convincing the public information known to be false.
Bottom line: If you do not build every part of your air frame, you did not build your own model. That, my friend, is the truth.
Start your event. I will enter it. I build my planes WITHOUT a plan. Will I get more points since I don't have someone else telling me where to cut things? I just do it myself right out of my head! Been that way since 2002. Bring it on....
-
The thread has morphed from the sublime to the ridiculous...…
Most know of my belief that we must do everything possible to grow, or even sustain our event.
The existing BOM definition limits "buy and fly" as intended. The rest is, as has always been the case, based upon the honor of a competitor.
-
Not sure. I am going to build this kit as sent and see if it turns out as the ones I have seen. I want to see if it looks and flies like it came out of the mold. This is just a test of the AVERAGE kit. Don't expect to see me flying this at the NATS.
There is no such thing as an "average" kit, at least as far as an applicable definition to Control Line Precision Aerobatic (CLPA) rules.
Keith
-
I don't know who you are, but you have obviously never been to a US Nationals. If you had, you would know that everything you just posted is BS.
Derek
Derek is making reference "Ketogenic". Not knowing what his name really is, but I wander if "Ketogenic" has ever even participated in a CLPA event. A few posts back after being challenged to submit change proposals to accomplish what his goals are, he back flipped and essentially said he would not "write to the AMA", essentially expecting someone else to submit the proposals for his ideas. I even doubt he knows what the rules change proposal process is. It is NOT about writing to the AMA, but submitting a formal proposal in accordance with written AMA procedures.
Even if "Ketogenic" has participated in a CLPA event, it would be interesting to have a description of his airplane. He might have some credibility if he has totally constructed every part of his model from his original plans.
So, to "Ketogenic", why not establish some credibility? What is your name? Tell us about your airplanes. What contests have you entered?
Keith
Keith
-
Keith, what you are writing is an age old debate tactic of attacking the person because you have no defense against what they are saying.
It does not matter who I am or what I have done. What matters is that I have discovered your build your own model rule is PHONY.
Doesn't it hurt more that a nobody, like me, uncovered the stunt world's lie? Some of you are not building your own models. I don't care what your rules or you say, that if you buy ready made wings and tail pieces, you are NOT BUILDING your own model.
I know this drives a stake in some of your egos, but it is reality. If you use ready made parts on your plane, the guy who builds his entire air frame is a BETTER MODELER than you. It hurts to hear it, but deal with it. Walk around the block, drink a beer, whatever.
"Ketogenic"
Not even a worthy deflection of what or who you think you are.
Keith
-
....
-
Now I know you are a diet of sorts. D>K
-
WHO THE HELL IS KETOGENIC??????????
Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
(Notice that I use my real name)
-
He is Rusty Pieper.
Not to be confused with RknRusty, who is a different Rusty, and a genuinely nice guy.
Search Ketogenic’s past posts for an idea of his history on Stunthangar.
-
Jim, FYI: that is an alias too. LL~
No matter what your current alias is, Rusty, a search for your posts reveals all of your previous contributions to Stunthangar.
It was what, a month, maybe two, ago that you accused me of cyber-bullying you merely because I pointed out that you have been a member here for quite some time and not the neophyte you wanted us to believe you were. I think your alias was John Doe at the time.
I know from reading your history that you are a veteran, and have had some health problems. I thank you for your service, and sympathize for your troubles. But I gotta tell you, you’re not helping your case here.
You seem to enjoy poking the beehive here every once in a while. Now you’ve verbally assaulted Bob Hunt and Kieth Trostle in almost one breath. I don’t think you’re going to get any support from the masses here.
-
Okay, Jim.
Jim, I can see your point in that these guys are legends in the hobby. However, in discussions like this I think we are all equal and only what our theories and points of discussion are is what counts.
I don't agree with me being called ignorant. That is not proper debate. I don't agree attacking my user name, that is not proper debate.
I made a point that I don't believe it is building your own model if you use wings and tail pieces others made. Nobody wants to address that point. Why?
Anyway, I agree with Peabody, the thread is going nowhere. If you wish, I will delete my posts. What I think is not going to change anything. The system always wins. You can't beat city hall.
Being ignorant is not necessarily an insult. I'm ignorant when it comes to brain surgery, that's just a fact. The rest of my post went on to say that most of the people that compete at the Nat's, especially at the highest level, do in fact build their own planes. We don't buy components, mainly out of pride, and partly because we don't trust anyone else to do work to the quality we would. You are accusing people of not building their planes, when you have no knowledge or proof to back up your claims. Therefore, you are in fact ignorant in regards to that specific topic.
Yes the rule does state that you can buy one, unfinished component, and still be eligible to compete in Open at the Nat's. Some of us didn't want to give that much, but based on 30+ years of history, we were overruled.
Derek
-
I guess Mutagenic didn't like the light of truth shining on him.
-
Okay, Jim.
(Clip)
I made a point that I don't believe it is building your own model if you use wings and tail pieces others made. Nobody wants to address that point. Why?
Anyway, I agree with Peabody, the thread is going nowhere. If you wish, I will delete my posts. What I think is not going to change anything. The system always wins. You can't beat city hall.
To Rusty Pieper
OK, I want to make a couple of points here.
First, I took the advice of others and went back to look at some of your posts. Yes, it appears you have been involved with models for some time. I found it interesting, however, that on May 31, 2018, you wrote "I am willing to support the hobby even though I don't fly."
Does this mean you do not fly CLPA? If so, then you are an observer looking in on an event with which you have little or no experience and you are telling us how it needs to be improved. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, however misinformed they may be.
Over the years, there have been numerous attempts from various people to eliminate the BOM from our CLPA event with the claim that this is a flying event. Those initiatives have been thwarted by the majority in this event that consider CLPA, as we believe it to be, is a modeling event which includes the building AND flying these model airplanes, thus we have provisions in the rules for appearance based on a BOM rule and a very carefully worded section in our CLPA rules that define what the BOM requirements are. This CLPA BOM rule is based essentially on the fact that the majority of the CLPA community understand that purchased wings have been a part of our event since foam wings (built by others) first appeared in contests, including the Nationals as early as the 60's. (It could be argued that since foam wings have appeared in kits for various designs/events, that such foam wings could be considered as part of the "average kit" that was in the applicable BOM rule extant at that time.) Certainly, Event Directors at the Nationals found no problem when these models appeared including two people who had significant influence in the evolution of our event and the National CLPA event including George Aldrich and Bill Netzeband.
In the following, I believe your definition of a "true CRAFTSMAN" is one who completely starts from scratch using original plans to build a model)
Now, let's fast forward to the present. I am sure you are aware that our CLPA enthusiasts represent a broad band of interests and capabilities, both in the designing, construction, flying, and contest participation. So, let's address those who are interested in contest participation. This encompasses those who are only interested in local or even regional level participation where some are totally satisfied with ARF and RTF or borrowed airplanes foregoing any appearance points to those who participate at the highest level of competition including from the few really competitive regional contests to the Nats and to our US CLPA fliers who participate in the FAI F2B event. Even at the Nationals, some will fly models they did not build in the Skill Classes, willingly giving up appearance points and are not concerned if they or those they compete against are the "true craftsmen" you say should only be competing in our CLPA event. Now, let's look at those competing at the highest levels.
You should be aware that most of the competitors capable of competing in the top 20 rounds of the Nats build their own models entirely from scratch. Many of those, at least a significant majority, use their own design. You will also find that the models these competitors bring to contests are generally capable of being found in the front 3 or 4 rows during the Nats appearance judgeing, so there is very little difference to discern one master modeler from the other regarding "CRAFTSMANSHIP". So, the question becomes, what would be gained by trying to improve our event by somehow giving additional credit for elements of appearance over the the curent system? Right now, the system seems to work fairly well and the participants seen comfortable with it. For an interloper who does not fly/compete in this event to come in and make absurd claims of what the event should be will not be warmly received.
Sure, people can use a procured wing. But the important parts in a CLPA model is the skill and craftsmanship of the builder to align the components, install the control system, apply the finish, integrate the power train while maintaining some weight control and then deal with flight trim.
You are correct on one thing. What you think regarding this matter will not change anything. I hope you have had fun in the meantime.
Keith
-
Not sure. I am going to build this kit as sent and see if it turns out as the ones I have seen. I want to see if it looks and flies like it came out of the mold. This is just a test of the AVERAGE kit. Don't expect to see me flying this at the NATS.
Cool, I'm very intersted to see the 'guts' of this ship. Can we expect a build log, or some vids?
-
Now, this is just a thought. I think Appearance point score should be the value of at least one maneuver for a total of 40 points. Seeing is it takes 2-400 hours to produce a quality model. This is the value it use to be. this offers a bigger spread between the front row and the last row of planes.
Thought number 2. With the 40 point system, you could award a value of 10 for buy and fly models.
-
Now, this is just a thought. I think Appearance point score should be the value of at least one maneuver for a total of 40 points. Seeing is it takes 2-400 hours to produce a quality model. This is the value it use to be. this offers a bigger spread between the front row and the last row of planes.
Thought number 2. With the 40 point system, you could award a value of 10 for buy and fly models.
That would result in a potential 30 point disadvantage for flying an ARF, rather than the current 20 points. That alone could result in less participation.
Perhaps a different solution would be to separate BOM and non-BOM into two distinct groups, then the top 5 ( or some other number ) from each group move on to a final flyoff with no appearance points awarded. Best pattern wins. If the stick built, hand rubbed flyer gets beat by an ARF it’s then all about the flying.
I have my flame proof underwear on, so go ahead and torch me.
-
Sparky....You've squalked about that for years.
There are full rule change procedured and forms on the AMA web site.
Have fun!
-
That would result in a potential 30 point disadvantage for flying an ARF, rather than the current 20 points. That alone could result in less participation.
Perhaps a different solution would be to separate BOM and non-BOM into two distinct groups, then the top 5 ( or some other number ) from each group move on to a final flyoff with no appearance points awarded. Best pattern wins. If the stick built, hand rubbed flyer gets beat by an ARF it’s then all about the flying.
I have my flame proof underwear on, so go ahead and torch me.
IF we are talking about the NATs then for jr sr and open, you cannot fly ARFs anyway, they are not eligible to fly
They can fly in the PAMPA advance and other skill class events, just they do not get any points at all for appearance
Randy
-
but the "whole objective" is to win the event (or at least do your best) while adhering to the established rules.
??? Bu##er , that means 29,978 are goig to be dissapointed . :P
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqCMxZ0GgXvWxCN6L8_KDeMW6gviRvUU9lT2-QQu1BqHQtxl7INKS82A)
Actually , some people do it RECREATIONALLY .
The ' you got a prize ' ( particularly if its Not a Aeromudling related object ), can be a bit purile . If your turning up To keep the Event Going . :-X
Though of course the Top Ten or Whatever are ( top 5 ? ) worthy of their dedication and singleminded objectivity .
Particular;y if they fly B T/R too. LL~
-
Not Sure THIS wouldnt be a better bet , Sparky . Being more of the U.S.A. in the aerodynamics Dept. ?
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/gettin-all-amp'ed-up!/revolutions/?action=dlattach;attach=287779;image)
Mr TDM ( Dunno if he has a yamaha or its the objectivity & persevearance to see the project through Tee Dee uuM )
may be looking at ' production ' . Certainly theyre available at a comparable fiscal component .
Shoulda been N P 86 C , off course .
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Cru7fl5lKeY/ToNWlWI0TjI/AAAAAAAABEk/_XiHF3cRQTY/s1600/Quantel+Cosworth+Daytona.jpg)
" I MADE IT MYSELF " . ;D :-X
-
Hey Randy!! I'll be happy to share some balsa. Of course, while the tree is growing I have to build a sawmill to process the balsa. Even before that I have to build a kiln to dry the very wet balsa tree. Gee, I might not live lone enough to make all the things to construct a model airplane. Dope, how does one make that stuff??? What about silkspan?? Could that be made from balsa chips??? LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
-
Start your event. I will enter it. I build my planes WITHOUT a plan. Will I get more points since I don't have someone else telling me where to cut things? I just do it myself right out of my head! Been that way since 2002. Bring it on....
Yes, we have been waiting years for plans LL~
But in the ancient tradition of the Moon tribe, building must be learned without plans, instructions, or power tools! n~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
-
Yes, we have been waiting years for plans LL~
But in the ancient tradition of the Moon tribe, building must be learned without plans, instructions, or power tools! n~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Haven't we already had this discussion?
Ken
-
Who ever the guy is (or was) in the picture has it right! The government built it! After all, they have the printing press to make the money, not you!
Joe
-
IF we are talking about the NATs then for jr sr and open, you cannot fly ARFs anyway, they are not eligible to fly
They can fly in the PAMPA advance and other skill class events, just they do not get any points at all for appearance
Randy
This is true, under the current rules.
Sparky suggested a change to the rules, presumably one that suits him because he’s good at making shiny airplanes. Then he threw a bone to ARF flyers, 10 points, thanks for coming. But the net result is a widening of the gap.
I suggested an alternative rule change that suits me better, because I don’t have mad building and finishing skills. Me flying a plane that I built is not unheard of, but lately it’s a rare event.
It’s a moot point, because neither idea is going to get any traction.
One day I may build a world beater and get a few extra points, but it’s going to be a while.
-
This is true, under the current rules.
Sparky suggested a change to the rules, presumably one that suits him because he’s good at making shiny airplanes. Then he threw a bone to ARF flyers, 10 points, thanks for coming. But the net result is a widening of the gap.
I suggest a rule change Backward to the spirit of the event. Build your own model. After all it is the National Aero modeling event and not the National Aero Buying event.
-
I suggest a rule change Backward to the spirit of the event. Build your own model. After all it is the National Aero modeling event and not the National Aero Buying event.
In the grand scheme of things it wouldn't change the lineup of the top-10 guys at all. Period. They would still build their own planes at the highest level and trim them and fly them at the highest level of competition. Seriously, the top 5-10 all build planes that are in the 17-20 point range. That only gives a spread of 3-5 points max in the appearance points, which basically invalidates that aspect of the contest. They don't show up with a scabby junker. If BOM went away tomorrow, the same 10 guys would still be the same 10 guys and the overall scoring spread in the flying contest would still be the same. Buffering the BOM rules up to 40points would yield the same outcome. The top guys would still be the top guys. They build nice planes. They also fly them better than most. So to go to bigger appearance points gift to someone with a more unique/shinier plane would still not really change the lineup. The top guys would just show up with more unique/shinier planes and move on with the flying contest.
Imho, it's just a way to make the lower tier of expert fliers feel like they might just be able to make it into the club with the big boys. It won't. Fly better. Some guys are just better/ more talented/more practiced/disciplined than others. That's what will get you there.
-
Ah Spark.....you're one of about ten that think that way....the Nationals will become a battle between a half dozen "builders"....I wager you still wouldn't win.
-
The plane I build has part of me and my efforts within it. I know every part of it, inside and out. I may not be thrilled with the paint or alignment or my flying, but it was my best effort and the next one will be better. Even if it isn't a world beater, it is flying as well as I was able to make it. I can be proud of that. It is MY airplane.
Or, put another way:
A hotrod built at home is a reflection on my efforts and might be part of the family. It has character.
A rented or purchased performance car that eats mine for lunch is a nice car, but there is no LOVE involved. It is an appliance.
It may not be favored by the contest rules, but why would you want to fly something you didn't build? If you buy to get something better than you can build, learn how to build better.
-
If BOM went away tomorrow, the same 10 guys would still be the same 10 guys and the overall scoring spread in the flying contest would still be the same. Buffering the BOM rules up to 40points would yield the same outcome.
So whats wrong with going back to the way it use to be and make it the value of one maneuver?
Ah Spark.....you're one of about ten that think that way....the Nationals will become a battle between a half dozen "builders"....I wager you still wouldn't win.
I probably never win because of the practice time required to fly at that level
-
So whats wrong with going back to the way it use to be and make it the value of one maneuver?
Because it really wouldn't change the outcomes at all. The top guys would show up with a plane equally as pretty (as yours) and still kick arse in the flying competition. You could assign a value of eleventy billion to appearance and the spread of appearance points among the top fliers would still be very narrow because they are all elite builders as well. That's what I meant by my comment that the appearance portion is basically invalid to the final score of the top competitors. The narrowness of the spread means that it doesn't have a huge impact on the outcome unless the flying scores are within 2 points of each other. Once they reach the top 5, it's a flyoff, also.
-
Because it really wouldn't change the outcomes at all. The top guys would show up with a plane equally as pretty (as yours) and still kick arse in the flying competition. You could assign a value of eleventy billion to appearance and the spread of appearance points among the top fliers would still be very narrow because they are all elite builders as well. That's what I meant by my comment that the appearance portion is basically invalid to the final score of the top competitors. The narrowness of the spread means that it doesn't have a huge impact on the outcome unless the flying scores are within 2 points of each other. Once they reach the top 5, it's a flyoff, also.
Top guys can win with a ringmaster. But at least If 40 points were awarded for building it would be worth all the time and money invested. This is not a flying only competition FAI is. AMA NATS is a modelers competition.
-
Top guys can win with a ringmaster. But at least If 40 points were awarded for building it would be worth all the time and money invested.
Ah, the "can win with a ringmaster" straw man argument. A favorite, and rampant, stunt misconception. Don't recall seeing any s-1 Ringmasters in use on top 5 day. Anyhew...
Would 40 points have gotten you in the contention for the Walker Cup this year? Is your plane that much nicer than Walker's or Chris Cox's?
With respect, the answer is obviously no. You are an elite builder, but so are they.
-
With respect, the answer is obviously no. You are an elite builder, but so are they.
And should be awarded as such
-
That model has nothing to do with the Yatsenko brothers
Brett stated that this model was a kit build
With the current BOM you can purchase the wings,flaps,stab elev,fin check cowls,rudder built by other. Construc the fuse install controls,take apart hardware and paint it’s legal
Jose modesto
Not the current rule at all. You are allowed to purchase the wing or the tail surfaces or the fuselage. "One Major Component" is the way it's written.
I believe the previous rule required the owner to install the bellcrank and do the covering and finishing. Cheek cowls and come-apart* hardware are not required, of course. H^^ Steve
* Here in the NW, we refer to it as "come-apart" hardware, after seeing a variety of failures (by most of the users, usually only once each).
-
No Steve, you are the only one that calls them come apart models.
-
No Steve, you are the only one that calls them come apart models.
Doesn't what you call them really depend on where in the flight they came apart?
Ken
-
I remember one young man that lost the first place award because of appearance points. He had a mishap and the back up plane lacked the appearance points of the one he was flying until it bit the dust. D>K