stunthanger.com

General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: RC Storick on April 09, 2008, 07:38:55 PM

Title: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 09, 2008, 07:38:55 PM: We will make this easy. Taken from a SSW thread.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: Alan Hahn on April 09, 2008, 07:50:40 PM: BOM and appearance points aren't really the same thing. All rule book events have appearance points--and we can argue about them and how you qualify.
Only (at this point) the NATS events actually have a BOM rule to actually participate.

So what is the vote about?
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 09, 2008, 09:31:03 PM: there
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: john e. holliday on April 12, 2008, 09:27:42 AM: Okay, I voted yes for appearance points as I love pretty airplanes and the finishes some of the people get on their planes. I think the ARC's will shorten the time to get a great finish. Myself I can build, but, I will admit I can't finish. DOC Holliday
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: RandySmith on April 12, 2008, 10:48:43 AM: Quote from: Alan Hahn on April 09, 2008, 07:50:40 PM
BOM and appearance points aren't really the same thing. All rule book events have appearance points--and we can argue about them and how you qualify.
Only (at this point) the NATS events actually have a BOM rule to actually participate.

So what is the vote about?

HI Alan

The NATs in CL aerobatics does not have any BOM rule on any of the PAMPA classes flown. only in Jr. Sr. and open is the BOM required.
I know you probably knew this but many do not.

Regards
Randy
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: Doug Moon on April 12, 2008, 11:55:07 AM: Quote from: RandySmith on April 12, 2008, 10:48:43 AM

HI Alan

The NATs in CL aerobatics does not have any BOM rule on any of the PAMPA classes flown. only in Jr. Sr. and open is the BOM required.
I know you probably knew this but many do not.

Regards
Randy

Randy and others,

PAMPA events follow the BOM and always have if you want to claim app points. PAMPA events ALSO allow you to fly without app points if you were not the BOM (best of both worlds so to speak). Jr Sr Open REQUIRE you to build the model to the letter of the BOM if you are to enter those events. But as of late the BOM requires very little building.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: Clayton Smith on April 12, 2008, 12:36:12 PM: Yes, only if all visible finish ie: colors, trim, panels, details, lettering, clear coat etc have been applied by the flier. Otherwise absolutely No!!!

Clayton Smith
High Point, NC
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: RandySmith on April 12, 2008, 06:06:42 PM: Quote from: Doug Moon on April 12, 2008, 11:55:07 AM
Randy and others,

PAMPA events follow the BOM and always have if you want to claim app points. PAMPA events ALSO allow you to fly without app points if you were not the BOM (best of both worlds so to speak). Jr Sr Open REQUIRE you to build the model to the letter of the BOM if you are to enter those events. But as of late the BOM requires very little building.

Hi Doug
I thought I said that , I took it as a given people knew that at the NATs they had to build the model to claim appearance points.
My point was that the PAMPA classes have NEVER required you to build the model in order to compete. Naturally you have to if you want Appearance points. They are 2 entirely different things.

Regards
randy
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: Doug Moon on April 12, 2008, 07:12:57 PM: Randy,

I thought so i just wanted to be clear. I know you know what I was saying for sure, you been at this alot longer then me. Just wanted to be clear that's all.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: john e. holliday on April 13, 2008, 07:54:57 AM: And I have seen on here where someone else is putting the final clear on other people airplanes. Also people having someone build their plane so they can finish it. DOC Holliday
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: phil c on April 13, 2008, 08:24:00 AM: put the appearance points up for a %$*#(%^ Concours award and let us fly.
Title: (Poll) I know there's more than 82
Post by: RC Storick on April 14, 2008, 12:28:07 PM: I know there is more than 82 members on here. Log in and make your vote count. This is a informal poll however it lets you reps know (that read here And most do) just where you stand on this issue. Log in using you user name and vote now Poll closes tonight
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: Bill Little on April 14, 2008, 12:42:50 PM: Quote from: phil c on April 13, 2008, 08:24:00 AM
put the appearance points up for a %$*#(%^ Concours award and let us fly.

Hey, Phil, no one is stopping anyone from flying and competing, not even you! LL~

That is of course unless you are going to fly Open at the NATS. Since you're in the Open class and you do want to fly in the NATS and possibly be the National Champion, then why not make you have to build your own plane? And be a TRUE member of the Academy of MODEL Aeronautics (note: not the Acad. of Model PILOTS !) Just because Combat didn't/doesn't require you to be the BOM to qualify as the NATS champion doesn't mean the last 60 years, basically, needs to be thrown away in CLPA. ;D

I have never subscribed to the theory that a NATS Stunt Champion shouldn't truly build his/her own airplane and therefore be a true *Modeler*. There is actually no known valid excuse for anyone aspiring to that position (National Champion/Walker Trophy Winner) to NOT be capable of building their own model. If a person wants THAT bad enough, they will learn to meet the BOM requirement. Otherwise, they really don't *WANT* it.

Bill
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: Bob Whitely on April 14, 2008, 01:49:57 PM: It's a fairly simple concept. A builder is one that can build a plane and can't fly. A flier is one that can fly and not build. A modeller is one that can do both and so does not need any excuses such as arfs' and barfs'. Fly the cheap toys from China all you want but don't expect to get any AP at a legitimate stunt contest. RJ
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points (Poll)
Post by: catdaddy on April 14, 2008, 03:35:33 PM: Quote from: Bob Whitely on April 14, 2008, 01:49:57 PM
It's a fairly simple concept. A builder is one that can build a plane and can't fly. A flier is one that can fly and not build. A modeller is one that can do both and so does not need any excuses such as arfs' and barfs'. Fly the cheap toys from China all you want but don't expect to get any AP at a legitimate stunt contest. RJ

So if you build a model car you're a flier, not a modeller...wait you're a builder if you can build a model boat, but you can't sail it if you're not a flier.
I think I got it thanks.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bob Whitely on April 14, 2008, 04:45:35 PM: No, that is incorrect. I specifically made mention of planes (model planes as in stunt planes that one would fly in Pampa and/or AMA competition.) I can appreciate the fact that there are some that can not tell the difference between a plane and a boat and so it is understandable that they either cannot build or fly. I think it is a good thing to have all the arfs' and barfs available for the above challenged individuals. It is a bad thing to attempt to enter a contest wherin the BOM and APs' are a part of the rules and seek to get points for same without having done same. Like I said, a pretty simple concept but still difficult for some to get their minds around. RJ
Title: 62.2% want to keep Appearance points
Post by: RC Storick on April 15, 2008, 06:35:58 AM: There you have it.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Terry Bolin on April 15, 2008, 07:28:28 PM: I vote YES.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bob Reeves on April 16, 2008, 12:20:10 PM: Looks like the majority wants to keep some form of BOM rule. I sure hope Marvin's sliding scale appearance point proposal gets serious consideration next rules cycle. We are going to use it at our September Stunt contest and am hoping it turns out well.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: SteveMoon on April 17, 2008, 07:11:47 AM: I build my own planes and I don't give a crap about getting some form
of points for my efforts. I don't build my planes to get some sort of
satisfaction by receiving some subjective points based on a sujective
scale from my peers. I don't care. The reason I build a plane is in search
of a good flying plane. I could care less what anybody else thinks about
it. Why does anybody care? The more I think about it, the more it dawns
on me that BOM, and the awarding of appearance points is a just plain
stupid rule. The only place where this rule should matter is in scale.
There you have a benchmark to judge the model against. Not so in our
sport/hobby.

Later, Steve
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dalton Hammett on April 17, 2008, 09:07:01 AM: Well, I am only a beginner in competition but a long time flyer and I guess I will put my opinion in. I understand
that to be considered an expert in the sport one should be able to build their planes - however - my major concern
is how many people may be discouraged for various reasons from competition. There are plenty of folks out there
without good building talent, there are some with talent and no building space, and (my personal reason for being out of the hobby for 20 some years), a little building talent, some space but no time due to job requirements. So
I see a gray area in the BOM that does not contribute positively to the advancement of the sport. Personnaly, I
build some and I have bought some - I've never built one that flew as good as some that I've bought. There is
no question that BOM has to be part of scale as thats what it is about, but in the rest I guess you have to look
at what is best for the sport. I do know that in the past one of my sons entered a few static building contests
with his Jr. Nobler - if he had been able to get any points for actually flying it he might have taken first.

For what it's worth - I'd vote No.
Dalton Hammett
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bob Reeves on April 17, 2008, 10:17:57 AM: Quote from: Dalton Hammett on April 17, 2008, 09:07:01 AM
Well, I am only a beginner in competition but a long time flyer and I guess I will put my opinion in. I understand
that to be considered an expert in the sport one should be able to build their planes - however - my major concern
is how many people may be discouraged for various reasons from competition. There are plenty of folks out there
without good building talent, there are some with talent and no building space, and (my personal reason for being out of the hobby for 20 some years), a little building talent, some space but no time due to job requirements. So
I see a gray area in the BOM that does not contribute positively to the advancement of the sport. Personnaly, I
build some and I have bought some - I've never built one that flew as good as some that I've bought. There is
no question that BOM has to be part of scale as thats what it is about, but in the rest I guess you have to look
at what is best for the sport. I do know that in the past one of my sons entered a few static building contests
with his Jr. Nobler - if he had been able to get any points for actually flying it he might have taken first.

For what it's worth - I'd vote No.
Dalton Hammett

This is exactly what Marvins idea on appearance points/BOM addresses.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bob Whitely on April 17, 2008, 10:50:07 AM: So many opinions but no readily visible answers to the age old question of BOM rule. If one wishes to fly in competition then one bears down and does what it takes to qualify for said competition. If in fact this means one must build the model in question then that is what one will do. There are no excuses for not building the plane in question so as to meet the rules of the competition. Period. All the preceeding rhetoric means nothing to the competition minded as they will do what it takes to enter and win.

This all goes back to the whiners and wannabes that want to play on the big field wihtout putting out any effort and to be recognized for doing nothing. Hey, I paid my entry fee, why don't I get any reward? Doesn't fly, pun intended. Buy and fly anything you want so long as it is not in competition and really, no one cares. However when one decides to fly competitively then everything changes. You abide by the rules or otherwise you don't fly or don't win. In competition winning is everything else why do it? There are many losers but only one winner. Only the best make it to the top and they will do what it takes to get there without dumbing down the contest so as to appease the many that do not win.

If one does not wish to give 100% to win what is the point?

Those that compete do so voluntarilly and will take the time to get to the top. As soon as the rest of you get a handle on this concept you too can be a legitimate conpetitor and quit trying to change the rules to make it so easy as to be worthless as an endeavor and then there is nothing......RJ
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dick Fowler on April 17, 2008, 11:16:07 AM: By jove... I think I have it!

I can buy a Bob Hunt wing and Tom Morris fuselage and tail feathers, glue it all together and let Billy the Body Shop Guy shoot the colors and get my points. If I do the gluing then I'm covered...perfectly logical to me ! D>K
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 17, 2008, 11:51:56 AM: Dalton,

That's a good point and why I think that ARFs and such have their place. It gives newbies a decent flying plane while they learn to build their own. Some never graduate beyond that point and that's fine, too. It's one of the reasons that PAMPA don't require BOM for competition. When you get good enough at building, most give up ARFs, but some don't and again, that's fine. But why should someone that doesn't put in the effort and time get rewarded points? If you don't like to build, fine. Give up the appearance points and work on your flying. There are 600 available flight points and only 20 appearance points. Seems that they only really matter when you are a top tier expert where just a couple of points separate 1st from 3rd. But then, those guys should be able to build their own stuff, it would seem.

I was looking last night a the new plane I'm building. I really like to to build, so in some ways, it probably isn't fair comparing my experience to someone that only builds to get a plane so they can fly. But I realized how satisfying it is to see a plane go from a set of plans (mine or someone else's) to a completed plane. Not true for everyone, I know, but for me, just realizing that a couple of months ago, this plane was just a stack of balsa, bits and pieces and an idea and is now an almost completed is very cool indeed. Sometime from nothing.

I imagine that in a society of I want it now and not much patience to learn to do things over time, ARFs will only become more popular.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dalton Hammett on April 17, 2008, 01:26:47 PM: Hi Randy - I don't usually do a lot of discussion of opinion but I do appreciate your comments as well as the fact that you did not refer to me as a whiner for disagreeing with you. I have a great respect for the builders of some of the fantastic looking planes of today and I also have the realistic knowledge that I will never be one of them. I also will not llikely ever get into the Expert circle but everyone in competition is not after the same thing. I like the association with other flyers as well as the flying. I gave three possible common situations where people might not be able to build -- none of these had anything to do with the "want it now and no patience" attitude.
These people's capability is not likely to change at all unless thier lifestyle changes but if they enjoy the hobby I personally would want to encourage them to participate. I also would have to take exception to the effort put in, I know the great planes take a lot of effort but it would be hard to really say who had to put in the most effort and if you read some of the other threads it seems there is a lot of concern that everyone is putting in their own effort. If a very marginal builder happened to build a model that was ALMOST as good as one by an experienced builder with a great shop and paint bay and all -- who has had to actually had to put in the most effort???

Dalton H.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: SteveMoon on April 17, 2008, 02:26:34 PM: Dick's post is perfect! A perfect illustration of the farce that
BOM is. It is a JOKE! People can cry all they want about the
'purity' or 'tradition' of the hobby, but that is long gone. I don't
need my plane to be validated by others; as so many others
seem to yearn for. My goal is to build a plane that flies good.
That's all there is to it. I could care less what anybody else
thinks about it.

Steve
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 17, 2008, 02:27:29 PM: everyone keeps forgeting the BOM

ONLY APPLIES AT THE NATS!
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Doug Moon on April 17, 2008, 02:46:58 PM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 17, 2008, 02:27:29 PM
everyone keeps forgeting the BOM

ONLY APPLIES AT THE NATS!

Uh,,,, No.

The BOM applies to all CLPA contests unless otherwise stated in the contest flyer or by the CD for a certain amount of time prior to the contest. AMA RB says BOM is in play. Even for PAMPA classes.

Havig said that you can opt to fly OPP in PAMPA classes you will have to take a hit and not get app points. That seems fair to me. So yes the BOM is in play in all contests it is just the fact that you have an option as an entrant to go around it with a penalty if you so choose.

IIRC you were not such a big fan of APP points at the last nats. You were quite hacked off according to some who were there. Even said you wouldnt go back again on your forum. Did you vote no on this pole?
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 17, 2008, 03:07:24 PM: Listen I can say what I want to . There is still freedom of speech. Why is it whenever you try to question me on something you try and geode me into a verbal dispute? I don't need it here. YES i WAS HACKED OFF! Yes I am going back even tho I thought something was wrong. Paul is running the NATS this year, Maybe it will not be status quo.

Take the hit or learn how to build.

Most still want the BOM. I would like to see more impartial judging. Not to say they judging is not fair now, just to say that the judges don't know the pilots by name or reputation. Kill the HALO effect! I think I will get some shirts printed to that effect.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: peabody on April 17, 2008, 03:37:45 PM: Bob:
Most that responded HERE want the BOM. I am a member of one of the oldest surviving control line clubs on the Planet and the VAST majority DO NOT want the BOM in CLPA. This includes a multi-time Concours winner....and the builder of THREE perfect (20) point) models.....

The choice to not want to enforce the BOM certainly does not mean that the appreciation for craftsmanship has departed....

As for "If one does not wish to give 100% to win what is the point?" does it degrade the (several and current) National Champions who have NOT built their own models?
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Doug Moon on April 17, 2008, 03:48:02 PM: Robert,

That is what stinks about the net. You cant see I am not trying to gode you into anything or push your buttons or whatever. In coversation face to face you would see it as just that, a conversation. I was just trying to see where you were coming from. Less than a year ago you put an awesome plane out there and it got less than deserved. You were hacked and talked about not going back. That is not good for the event. There is no standard, competitos just throw their planes out there and hope for the best. If anything it really hacks people off. You hear it every year. Heck, one year there was a guy so upset over apprearance judging he quit the contest in protest.

I can build. I can build light, I can finish well, and I get good appearance points for it at most of the contests I attend. I even received 17 points at the 2003 nats. Removing this would not benefit me at all. If anything it would hurt me. But this is bigger then me and how I finish in a contest. Some cant see that and no matter what or how I say it.

BUT I am not trying to gode you into anything, just trying to have a conversation.

Comments about building and all that stuff that Bob W and others make does not apply to me. And I really dont who they apply to because anyone who has actually made a proposal to change the rule already has a proven track record of building and competing and very high level. So I dont really know where he goes with that, but he seems to have some inside track on a bunch of people who cant build that are trying to change the event. But since I have been involved in or on the very close sidelines (my brother makes the proposal every time) I have not seen what he keeps saying to be true. But hey if someone repeats something long enopugh maybe someone will actually believe it.

Again I am not trying to gode you or verbaly joust with you or get you mad, that does nothing and helps no one.

Later
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 17, 2008, 04:20:22 PM: Quote from: peabody on April 17, 2008, 03:37:45 PM
As for "If one does not wish to give 100% to win what is the point?" does it degrade the (several and current) National Champions who have NOT built their own models?

Name the names of these champs. Lets get it out in the open. If we ever want to enforce this rule some one will have to name names and of coarse prove it!
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RandySmith on April 17, 2008, 06:53:44 PM: HI All

Again to clarify:
There is ...NO BOM rule in any PAMPA class, including Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced , or Expert.
At Local contest or at the NATs.....NO BOM rule to fly the event

The only place the BOM comes in is if you claim appearance points, in that case you must be the builder of the model to get the points, does NOT affect you being able to fly.

Regards
Randy
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 17, 2008, 07:25:47 PM: Doug and Steve,

I certainly see your point. If guys can just buy parts, not build or for that matter, get others to build for them and then claim appearance points, seems to make it kinda pointless. And it's also a point about deciding where the line is. Do you have to make your own control or is using Tom Morris controls OK? If that's OK, what's wrong with using a Bob Hunt foam wing? Gee he could sheet it and what's wrong with that? At what point is it not the builder's plane, but an ARC? All good points. But they are mostly a concern, it seems to me, to folks that assume others are cheating. Possibly where it's an ongoing problem. The feeling seems to be, gee, everyone is cheating so let's just drop the rule. But as I've said before, it's like saying, gee, everyone speeds so let's just drop the rules about speeding. I assume that people are honorable and will tell you how much of the plane they built. The question for me is more some clarity on where the line is. How much do I need to build for the plane to be considered BOM. The old rule about kits and such just doesn't cut it with today's technology.

I have a friend that built a plane and used a cored, foam wing, stab, elevators and flaps. He sheeting them himself and built the rest of the plane and finished it. He was concerned that he had violated the BOM. We talked about it for some time. I honestly, under the current non-rule don't know. The rules are not designed, as they are, for close inspection.

You guys tone almost seems like you are saying that where you guys are, people have other's build their planes, know they are in violation of the rules and don't care. Around here, all the guys I see at contests are pretty concerned about it but it's mostly that they don't want to inadvertently violate the rule.

Anyway, the question for me is much more clarifying the rules so that folks know what's OK and what isn't. If they decide to violate it anyway, that's their problem. But if the rule is clear, at least you know.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Rudy Taube on April 17, 2008, 11:43:58 PM: Hi Randy, (Powel)

I'm very confused about your post. You said:

"...... I have a friend that built a plane and used a cored, foam wing, stab, elevators and flaps. He sheeting them himself and built the rest of the plane and finished it. He was concerned that he had violated the BOM. We talked about it for some time. I honestly, under the current non-rule don't know. ......"

I don't mean to sound impolite, but I have to ask, have you read the AMA BOM rules in the past few years? The AMA BOM rules that we use today have been in effect for several years now.

They are very clear on the issue of ARCs (modules, etc.) being legal for BOM and full AP in PAMPA and AMA events. The example you gave above is well within the current BOM rule. I have not heard of anyone not agreeing to this. .... Please don't misunderstand that last statement. I know that MANY people disagree with the current BOM rule, and would like it changed to something else; more points, less points, NO points, etc. etc. etc. .... but everyone is in agreement that "THE RULE WE HAVE NOW, AND UNTIL JAN 2011" is clear on ARCs and modular parts like your friends, sheeted foam wings/stabs from Bob and others, etc.

Please tell us what you are "unsure" about RE: ARCs in the current BOM rule?

The only item that is still a little up in the air for a "very small" minority is RE: the ARF that is uncovered and converted into an ARC being eligible for BOM and APs. This issue has nothing to do with your example, and is an entirely separate subject form the ruling on ARCs.

Last year Robert was kind enough to let my post on the " CURRENT BOM rule" continue for a long time, with many comments from the pilots on this forum. You may have missed it? The complete current BOM rule is there if you are interested in reading it?

FWIW: I do admire yours, and many other builders, beautiful planes. But like others have said, there are many reasons that some of us can't build planes (no room, no time, health reasons, etc. ) and we modelers should be aware that setting the hurdles to entry at such a difficult (for some impossible) level we will force many to go elsewhere for their hobby enjoyment. The rest of the World has found a solution to this vexing problem, maybe we will find a solution someday ourselves. ?

FWIW #2: This is NOT just a nats issue. After reading the results from 10 PAMPA NL contest reports, I found that the average 8 to 15 APs at most PAMPA contests throughout the country covers the spread between 1st and 2nd in the vast majority of contests that have more than 3 or 4 entrants in a class. And it covers the majority between 1st and 3rd, and every 3 positions down the line. This is an important difference if you travel to a contest to "compete". It often makes the difference between a trophy or NO trophy, etc. This is not a minor issue to deal with. The APs skews the scores more than most people think.

Because of the natural tendency of judges (in any subjective event, ice skating, gymnastics, CLPA, etc.) to compress their scores within each class magnifies any "outside" bonus scores like our APs. This is one of the main reasons why this is such a heated debate.

THANK YOU ROBERT:
I have said this before, but it bears repeating: We all need to thank Robert for bending over backwards and allowing everyone to have their say on this heated, but important, issue. Even when many of these opinions clearly go against his strong stance on this issue. My hat is off to him for his tolerance and patience with us! H^^
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: SteveMoon on April 18, 2008, 09:41:03 AM: Randy P: It's not so much that it bothers me that some people
are garnering appearance points with planes that they didn't
build (I know of a couple of planes that my brother has built
that were flown at the Nats), but rather the sheer illogicalness
(is that a word?) of the rule. To me, I just don't see why it
matters if so-and-so built the plane or not. It just doesn't
matter to me. I don't care if Orestes built his Shark or not. I watched
all the flights on Top 5 day last year and he flew the best and
deserved to win.

I have probably built 50 planes, I know I can build and I don't
need anybody else to validate that by giving me appearance points.
As I said before, to me, the only place where appearance or static
judging really matters is scale. In that discipline there is an actual
benchmark to judge against. It doesn't matter if the judge or judges
prefer Me109s to P-51s or whatever, they only have to compare
the model presented against the documentation presented. Not so
in CLPA. CLPA appearance judging is totally subjective and I have
no doubt that a judge's subconscious can affect their judging.

I am not saying all this because I have a beef with past scores I
have rec'd. As a matter of fact, I was quite satisfied with the 15 points
I rec'd for my Saturn last year. I finished the plane in 4 days using
auto paint and was satisfied with the result. Sure, I could have spent
months finishing it and possibly gained 2 or 3 more points, but I would
rather spend that time flying and trimming and have absolutely no
doubt that I gained much more points from the practice than with
the finish.

I remember speaking to a rather downcast Sparky at the appearance
judging last year. He rec'd 17 points (2 more than me) for a plane that
had an incredible amount of effort put into it. Several months more
work than I put into my plane for 2 points? I'm still stumped as to why
Sparky's plane wasn't farther up. It looked beautiful to me. I've done
the appearance judging for Intermediate at the Nats several times, so
I can speak from some experience. I would have had Spark's plane
right up front. He was robbed. This really drove home the fallacy that
app. judging is. It's just too darn subjective.

Let's also not forget that this is all governed by the AMA: Academy of
Model Aeronautics. That's pretty broad. It is not the Academy of Model
Builders Aeronautic. It doesn't mean squat to people in other disciplines
whether or not the pilot built the plane. I've never known anybody to
ask whether Quique Somenzini, Chip Hyde, Mike McConville, or many other
top pilots whether or not they built their planes. I'm quite sure they
can, but what really matters is how good they fly it. I think that is what
should matter in our discipline also.

Later, Steve
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dick Fowler on April 18, 2008, 09:56:16 AM: ..."I can speak from some experience. I would have had Spark's plane
right up front. He was robbed. This really drove home the fallacy that
app. judging is. It's just too darn subjective."

Might have had more to do with whom he "offended" rather than being a matter of objectivity. You pay the Piper in this small fraternity if you displease the "Gods".
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 18, 2008, 11:54:18 AM: Rudy,

It wasn't a matter of rules, really. It was just us trying to decide (sans recent stupid and confusing AMA decisions) at what point the plane is modeller built. Where is the line drawn? It really wasn't so much a discussion of whether is would pass muster at a contest. More of philosophical discussion of how much do you have to build to be the builder.

Steve,

It just a difference in perception, I suppose. To you (it seems) this is a flying only event. Who care who built the plane. This is about flying. To me it's a modeller's event. The point is to test the person as a builder, finisher, engine guru, trim specialist AND flier. To me the essence of the event is the complete test. Of course who built the plane doesn't matter to you. To you, it's about flying and flying only. You probably like IROC racing too (sorry, a mild joke). I just don't look at what we do that way. I think this is where so much of the conflict about this topic comes from. Sigh... It's probably not an area that folks on one side will ever agree with folks on the other. It's just a rather pronounced difference in how we see the event.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 18, 2008, 11:57:52 AM: Quote from: Rudy Taube on April 17, 2008, 11:43:58 PM
THANK YOU ROBERT:
I have said this before, but it bears repeating: We all need to thank Robert for bending over backwards and allowing everyone to have their say on this heated, but important, issue. Even when many of these opinions clearly go against his strong stance on this issue. My hat is off to him for his tolerance and patience with us! H^^

Yes I am for the BOM ,Many are not and thats OK. I am not here to suppress anyones ideas or thoughts, I am here as a referee trying to keep the peace until what ever rule is decided upon.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 18, 2008, 01:39:46 PM: Hi Robert,

I also thank you for allowing use to whine and spew drivel. I suppose that's what it is sometimes.

>>I am here as a referee trying to keep the peace until what ever rule is decided upon.<<

And probably after that. Doesn't seem to matter much what the official rule is, we all have our opinions.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Rudy Taube on April 18, 2008, 04:02:52 PM: Hi Randy P.,

Thank you for your clarification. Like other Cd's, I am always concerned with the rules as they are written in the current rule book (on line in our case). I try very hard to keep my "wish list" of rules out of any discusion of how to apply the "current" rules to a problem at a contest. This is why I was confused by your 1st comment.

I think it is important that we all do what you just did and make it clear that we are talking about some philosophical issue and NOT talking about it in the context of the current rules. Experienced, well respected modelers like you can have a big influence on others. The BOM rules RE: ARCs are very clear and having people like you say they are clear would be a big help in keeping everyone on the same page, and understanding the BOM rules we have now. Like most forums there are usually many more people reading these posts than commenting on them. Misstatements on rules can spread misunderstandings and/or confussion to a very wide audience. Thanks again for your clarification. :-)

One of the reasons I was so quick to ask you about what rule you were using is because of my experience at a contest a few months ago. I went to a large, out of state contest. There were two Cd's, both long time CL modelers, and very nice guys. They ran a great contest, and we all had fun. But it turns out that they had not read the rule book in a long time. Some pilots flew ARCs and were given "ZERO" APs. The pilots were not clear about the rule either and accepted their zeros. They had done an excellent job finishing their planes and I mentioned to them that their planes qualified for BOM status and they were eligible for full APs like all the other BOM planes.

One went to the Cd's who both said NO his plane was not BOM eligible. A few other experienced modelers stepped in and heatedly backed the Cd's on this issue. Amazingly, NOT ONE of these people, including the Cd's, had a rule book with them. As a rule nerd, I pulled out my copy of the current rules. They were all amazed when they read it and all said they had NO idea the rule had been changed. Fortunately we had two of the most respected rule guys in CLPA at the contest and they had a lot more credibility than a "Retread" like me. ;-) It all worked out well, the pilots got their full APs, and the Cd's thanked me for telling them about the "new" (2005?) BOM rule. I was disappointed when one very experienced modeler (an official at one of our largest CLPA contests) used colorful language to tell me I was full of it and did not know what I was talking about. He threw the copy of the rules down and said the Cd's were still correct and I was wrong and he walked away in a huff, this was a very strange scene, and a sad one too. ..... Fortunately the Cd's handled it very well and all but that one guy were happy.

One reason I am on this campain to get the word out about the current BOM rule is because we will have it for the next THREE YEARS. It will not change until JAN 1, 2011. So my hope is that we all become familiar with it, and as Cd's I hope we are all fair in it's application, and don't let our personal feelings about it (pro or con) influence our decisions. :-)

As to your comments to Steve, that is a very subjective issue that is well beyond the current rules issue. IMHO: it is a shame to see the last dying years of CL spoiled by this extremely divisive and corrosive issue. I agree with Randy Smith, these are the golden years of CLPA. With out the unnecessary stress this sad BOM issue has caused, these last years of CLPA would be much more enjoyable for everyone, especially for the "retreads" coming back to CL. Look around at any club meeting or contest, Do the math. We have maybe 10 good years of CLPA left. I would hope that we do what Randy Smith, Brett Buck, and many others have said: ".... we should be more inclusive, not exclusive....". I hope we can solve this corrosive issue so we can all enjoy these last golden years of our little hobby with more fun and less stress. :-)

Regards,

Quote from: Randy Powell on April 18, 2008, 11:54:18 AM
Rudy,

It wasn't a matter of rules, really. It was just us trying to decide (sans recent stupid and confusing AMA decisions) at what point the plane is modeller built. Where is the line drawn? It really wasn't so much a discussion of whether is would pass muster at a contest. More of philosophical discussion of how much do you have to build to be the builder.

Steve,

It just a difference in perception, I suppose. To you (it seems) this is a flying only event. Who care who built the plane. This is about flying. To me it's a modeller's event. The point is to test the person as a builder, finisher, engine guru, trim specialist AND flier. To me the essence of the event is the complete test. Of course who built the plane doesn't matter to you. To you, it's about flying and flying only. You probably like IROC racing too (sorry, a mild joke). I just don't look at what we do that way. I think this is where so much of the conflict about this topic comes from. Sigh... It's probably not an area that folks on one side will ever agree with folks on the other. It's just a rather pronounced difference in how we see the event.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 18, 2008, 06:46:11 PM: Hi Rudy,

Truth is, I have more in common with Steve than I probably let on. I really don't care all that much what happens with the BOM rules and appearance. It will have exactly zero impact on how I go about what I do. And the points at contests, as Steve notes, really don't have much effect on me one way or the other. I usually get between 15 and 19 points for a plane. I'm much happier with the increase in flight points I've seen over the past couple of years (practice with a good plane does wonders). I will continue to go about my business as I have regardless of what happens with the BOM or appearance points. And I agree that it has, for a number of reasons, become a divisive issue. But really, at least at our local contests, the issue really never comes up. I would never know that it was such an issue except for reading about it online.

Oh well, I continue on my merry way, I guess.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: dave shirley jr on April 18, 2008, 11:16:49 PM: geez Rudy try not to be so depressing.
i simply dont think there is maybe ten years left and i doubt brodak and other suppliers thinks so either.
this seems to be an old tactic that goes around in other circles as well(no pun intended) if something is about to die it must need fixing at all cost.
well i simply dont agree that the event is dying in ten years. sure there are a lot of flyers who are getting up there but at the same time there are plenty who are not even retired yet. severall of the recent nats winning fliers included and even the current FAI team. so please dont cry that the sky is falling and only drastically changing the event to suit some newcomers or lazy builders (yeah i said lazy) is the only thing that will save the day.
if you want to change the event then propose a change, its been tried before but at least come up with a valid reason.
if some people spent as much time at the work bench as they do at the computer they might actually learn to build better.
and guess what, 100 arfs fly like 100 dollar airplanes, sorry but its true.
Dave
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 18, 2008, 11:27:08 PM: Dave,

Does that mean that the $3000 ARFS fly like, well ....

I agree. I really wasn't going to address the dead in 10 years comment. I look around here and the average age is about 50 with a lot of younger combat fliers. I doubt it's going to die. It will wane and wax like anything else, I suppose, but it's too much fun to just go away.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Rudy Taube on April 19, 2008, 12:54:56 AM: Hi Dave,

SHORT ANS:
I'm sorry my math is so poor. Maybe all the guys over at the "Freeflight" forum have a better answer for you?

BTW: I did not say dead in 10 years, I said we have 10 GOOD years left. Meaning 10 years like we have now, with many contests with good participation, etc.

LONG ANS, Z@@ZZZ .... CAUTION: EDITORIAL, READ AT YOUR OWN RISK! (Those with a heart condition, please take your meds before reading! HB~> )

My guess is that your negative attitude will not go very far in helping to slow the decrease in the # of CL flyers. As some wise pilots have said: it is better for our small hobby to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

The obvious demographics aside, many people simply vote with their feet. They quietly leave and either go back to RC or find some other, more "open" activity to enjoy. The ONLY increase our little hobby has seen in recent years is from "retreads" coming back to CL, mostly from being in RC for X years. Most of these retreads are in the 60 to 70 age group. If CLPA becomes "inclusive and open" many of these people will stay, if you insist on being "exclusive" many will simply leave. This is not rocket science, it is just marketing 101.

I don't know many 12 year olds who would ever think for one second about coming into our hobby, CL or RC. Go and look at a modern video game set and see what a great alternative the 12 year old has. This fantastic game machine will transport him into an entirely different world of his own making. And do it for around $300. It will last for years, never crash, makes NO noise (headsets) to bother anyone, has a reset button, can be done for minutes or hours to fit any schedule, is NOT affected by the WX, etc. etc. ....

Now tell me why he is going to get into a hobby that requires about $300 just to get started, about $1,000 to be competitive. Then requires finding someone who will teach him for endless boring hours about how to do a building activity that seems to this 12 year old "somewhat outdated and totally unnecessary". And requires one of his dual working parents to take the time to drive him to a flying field 35+ miles away, then wait there for several hours and drive home, every time he wants to fly. Then ask those parents to put up with dangerous chemicals that smell up the entire home while Johny builds and paints his model. Then has to ask for a 2nd plane because he crashed the 1st one, etc. .... OR, he can just push a button and enter a fast paced exciting new world that does NOT require any permission or help from an often absent parent, and has a reset button with an instant start over with NO cost?

Unless you have a time machine none of us know about, we can only pretend to go back to the 1950s, they will not come back in reality, no matter how much we wish for them to do so. We old timers can enjoy this whimsical visit to our childhood by enjoying this Golden Age of CLPA, but I think it will only cause frustration if we try to delude ourselves into thinking that our very little, "dated", hobby is going to last very long into the future beyond our generation. Yes, there may be a few, just like in freeflight, but it will be on a very small scale after we stop flying. The continued loss of flying sites from noise issues will also be a factor.

This should not be depressing to anyone. I think we are all lucky that this wonderful hobby is still available to us and that we are still young enough to enjoy it for a while longer. We should all rejoice in the good memories CL flying brings back. And appreciate the beautiful models at our contests. My only point was simply that we should do all we can to maximize the FUN and minimize the stress in our little hobby while it is still, for a brief moment in time, in this Golden Age. :-)

Regards, H^^
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 19, 2008, 04:28:32 AM: Rudy I do understand what you are saying. However can you tell me what a video game can teach you in the way of craftsmanship? The dumbing down of America must end somewhere. Shoot I forgot who needs craftsmanship everything is made in China.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bob Reeves on April 19, 2008, 06:03:39 AM: Problem is we can't change it so we either adapt or die. I don't think any of us are real happy with the way our society is moving but a hand full of model airplane nuts do no have enough power to change much of anything. The decision is do we try to adapt as best we can and hopfully a few will at least keep the hobby alive or do we stand fast to our old fashion beliefs and watch it die.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 19, 2008, 06:27:46 AM: Quote from: Bob Reeves on April 19, 2008, 06:03:39 AM
The decision is do we try to adapt as best we can and hopfully a few will at least keep the hobby alive or do we stand fast to our old fashion beliefs and watch it die.

I have heard this for 20 years now
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Doug Moon on April 19, 2008, 07:58:49 AM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 19, 2008, 06:27:46 AM
I have heard this for 20 years now

That is true, I have herd people been predicting the end of CLPA ever since I have been in it. I have also heard the mass exodus of years ago was due to people leaving for other things to do, raising families, careers, RC, or whatever. Then a HUGE return about the time I really got into flying competition. Now I think people are more fearful for the end because people are not leaving they are dying. There is a huge difference and not recognize that would be a huge mistake by our very small community.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: SteveMoon on April 19, 2008, 08:09:29 AM: Well said Bob; the truth hurts, but it is the truth. Very well said Rudy.

Dave S.: I find your comment about 'lazy' buildiers to be rather offensive.
I assume you are referring to people who want to fly arfs or arcs as
lazy. That is assanine. There are a myriad of reasons why someone would
want to go in this direction. Is my brother 'lazy' because he has 3 young
children and by the time 9:00 pm rolls around and they're all in bed he's
too exhausted to stand up, much less go out in the garage and build an
airplane? Am I lazy because I'm a single parent who is gone from home
two weeks of every month working and when I'm home I don't want to
spend all my time holed up in the garage, but rather with my son and friends?
Is my buddy John lazy because he is allergic to epoxy and building an
ARF is about all he can get through?

I don't dislike building. I don't dislike ARFs. There's room for all of it here.
Removing BOM from other facets of the model airplane hobby has not
diminished those facets in any way, and it won't in CLPA when it finally
happens.

Later, Steve
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dick Fowler on April 19, 2008, 08:59:17 AM: Steve, you pretty much hit it on the head! Tolerance... Tolerance...Tolerance, after all at the end of the day it is only a hobby!
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Doug Moon on April 19, 2008, 09:32:04 AM: Quote from: Dick Fowler on April 19, 2008, 08:59:17 AM
.......it is only a hobby!

DING DING DING DING!!!!

Award this man 234 points!!!!
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: john e. holliday on April 19, 2008, 10:27:34 AM: Yes ARF/ARC's have their place. Unless the the pre-teen or teenagers get interested it is because of the parents. Yes I have had mothers call me about getting a son started. In fact his sister soloed before he did using my trusty old Ringmaster with Fox 35 Stunt. By the way Steve, is the Gieske Nobler ARF ready for delivery yet? DOC Holliday
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 19, 2008, 12:00:41 PM: OK, one last comment then I'll just shut up. This will likely always be a contentious topic. You have the folks that feel that getting rid of the BOM will kill the event. I doubt it. It may end up looking like my local RC field does. A bunch of shrink wrapped planes that the owners of which have no idea of how they work or how to fix them when they break. But the other side is, they have a lot of guys. They have probably 80 members (and this is a small area). 40 are hard core, out there all the time guys and the other 40 come and go. Again, makes no difference to how I go about my business, but if it actually generates interest, great!

I agree that being inclusive is better than exclusive for the health of the event. It's why I collaborated with Marvin Denny in coming up with a new set of rules about variable points for appearance depending on what you did. I still don't think that's a bad way to go. An inclusive approach. I also agree with Steve that just because someone is not able to put the time into this to learn to build or perhaps doesn't like building planes all that much, it shouldn't exclude him. As my friend Dirty Dan is famous for saying, those that can build will always be at the mercy of those that can't. But that doesn't mean that those that don't (for whatever reason, even if it is laziness) should be excluded from enjoying doing this.

So I'm good whatever way it goes.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: SteveMoon on April 19, 2008, 02:41:46 PM: I'm actually enjoying this debate. It hasn't gotten to
out of hand or mean spirited.

Doc: The GN ARFs should be arriving anyday. The boat was
due in this week, then it takes about 2 weeks to clear
customs. Hopefully, they'll be ready to ship the first
week of May.

I'll elt everyone know.

Steve
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bob Whitely on April 19, 2008, 03:06:37 PM: Thirty years ago I also heard the same thing. Controlline was going downhill with all the RC stuff that was being presented. Now it's computer games etc. Computers do not give you the visceral thrill of actually building or flying the plane. I think you're too hung up on computers to realize there are some out there that would rather actually do something than to look at a video screen. Mostly the computer geeks wouldn't make good modellers anyway as they would rather sit in a chair than do anything physical.

So do tell me please, how does keeping the BOM and APs' in our hobby relate to non-inclusive? Most of the people making noise about these don't fly in contests anyway so why do they care what we do? I'm glad that they have a chance to fly their arfs' but also they need to keep out of what we do as competitors or learn how to do what we do. Like you said it is not rocket science, I did it and so can they if they wanted to. Back to you....RJ
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dick Fowler on April 19, 2008, 08:14:49 PM: Anybody have a "visceral" building thrill today? I tried sanding a wing but nothing gut wrenching or heart stopping happened. Heckl ... my blood pressure didn't budge at all. WHAT AM I DOING WRONG? D>K
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Clint Ormosen on April 19, 2008, 11:26:02 PM: My first post on this thread.

While I have always been against the ARF/ARC movement, my views are starting to change somewhat. As contest participation increases with the use of ARF's, I'm seeing that those that start with them are moving on to building projects as their flying skills advance. Not a lot of ARF's in the advanced and expert classes. A beginner with a ARF is better to have at the contest than no participation at all. Sometimes a pilot is more likely to do well with an "expendable" model to learn on. I have seen people build their first stunter only to have it destroyed in short order while learning the full pattern. Then, often not having enough ambition to continue on with the hobby. I've also seen well experienced pilots that simply can't build anymore be able to still enjoy the flying aspect of the hobby. In all cases, I never seen anyone NOT having a good time with them and ARF's should not only be welcomed, but encouraged to to compete.
However, I'm still in favor of awarding appearance points to the builder of the model and not to ARF's. It's just that little extra bonus that should go to those that put forth the effort to construct their models. I think that just maybe it could be incentive to ARF pilots keep moving forward. In my mind, the hobby isn't just about flying, but about imagination, design, construction, artistic value, ect.. If we just let it be a flying only event, it quickly becomes a boring, commercial venture with little to offer for the creative mind. It may very well be that some will never expand into the building aspect of CLPA, and that's ok. But I think they will be missing out some of the best parts of the hobby.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Rudy Taube on April 20, 2008, 01:48:33 AM: Hi Robert,

That is an important question. The subject of "teaching craftmanship" has been brought up many times when the BOM is discussed. I hope we can discuss this part of the BOM issue in a larger context than it has been talked about before.

First, as posted on this thread earlier by someone else, we do have to keep in mind that our very small part of a very small hobby will have basically zero impact on this important educational issue. I know your heart (and many others) is in the right place on this issue and my hat is off to you for caring about the future of our children.

My guess is that our energy would be better spent on teaching our children skills that are more in line with the future world they will live in, not the world we have lived in during our time on this spaceship. Yes, there are definitely some ancillary benefits to the skills learned building a model plane. But the main skills are dated, and of very little interest, or value to the youth of today. Their future will be so radically different than our past that we are not able to comprehend it in any rational way. The best we can do as educators is to try and see trends and then do our best to prepare our children to cope with constant, rapid change in a world that will use brains more, and hands less.

Your point about craftsmanship still being important is correct. But we have to see craftsmanship in a larger context, and through their eyes, as they see their future, not as we see the present, or our past.

Craftsman = Skilled Artisan.

Some on this forum will see that as someone who creates a model airplane and is able to paint it and put on a shiny finish. But today, and certainly in our children's future a Craftsman, "Skilled Artisan" will be someone who can create computer programs that operate a robot on a production line that builds more robots, or widgets. Or it will be someone who will create holograms used in ways we can't even imagine yet. They are, and will be, the craftsman who use computers to create the incedible CGI we see in movies today, and the amazing 3D CGI we will see in the future. They will be the craftsman who use computers to design and build structures that will be assembled by robotic machines, etc.

The children who use computers today are the Craftsman of the future. The computer games of today allow the user to be much more creative than most adults realize. It teaches many skills that these futrue craftsman will use as they combine their creative skills with their formal educations to prepare for the radically different jobs our grandchildren will have in their future.

I feel we have to be careful that our older generation does not let our natural tendency toward nostalgia cloud our judgement on issues like this. What may have been useful for us most likely will have very little use for our children in their future. The world is changing much too rapidly for skill sets to last that long.

Now, my guess is that you were also referring to some of the character building traits that building a model brings. Like; sticking with a project to completion, a strong work ethic, reading skills, facing a challenge and dealing with that challenge successfully. Yes, these are very important. But all of them can be learned from many other, more forward looking, activities the youth of today can participate in.

I hope this short note has not been offensive or disrespectful in any way, that certainly was not my intent. If the BOM passes into history someday, I don't think it will have any negative effect on all the young people coming into CL.

Thank you again Robert for starting this thread, and allowing us to voice our opinions on this issue, on your forum. Like Steve Moon said, this has been an enjoyable thread. :-)

Regards, H^^

Quote from: Robert Storick on April 19, 2008, 04:28:32 AM
Rudy I do understand what you are saying. However can you tell me what a video game can teach you in the way of craftsmanship? The dumbing down of America must end somewhere. Shoot I forgot who needs craftsmanship everything is made in China.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: dave shirley jr on April 20, 2008, 09:08:44 AM: clint,
I couldn't agree more
Rudy i couldnt dissagree more
i believe (hope) there will allways be those who build true artistic items wether they are classic art, industrial art, model airplanes ,custom cars, fine furniture etc. this is allready a problem in the construction industries, we still need those who can assemble the parts/buildings.and nobody seems to want to put an emphsis on teaching these skills. i think you and i would have a hard time agreeing on the color of the sky. so i will just agree to dissagree.
Dave.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 20, 2008, 11:09:06 AM: Ok, I thought I was done with this, but I couldn't let this comment pass:

>>Yes, there are definitely some ancillary benefits to the skills learned building a model plane. But the main skills are dated, and of very little interest, or value to the youth of today.>>

I couldn't disagree more. The actual skills of building: cutting and gluing wood together and such, well, your right. They are limited in value except to the model plane builder. But the principals are invaluable. Through model building I've learned patience, an ability to take one thing at a time, do it well, then move on. The tenacity to hang with something until it's done. Further it's the ability to visualize a project and see it through to completion. To have something go from my mind to the air and it be pretty much as I visualized it. Diligence, craftsmanship and pride of workmanship are applicable to so many other endeavors.

Those skills are the ones that our society is losing. Interesting that you bring up computers. My son and I, when he was a little guy, built planes together. He learned the skills and may someday come back to flying. He liked doing it, but it was mostly to give us something to do together. He's in college studying audio engineering (mostly computer based these days). He tells me that the skills of patience and doing something right have served him well. He's a meticulous craftsman now and keeps at a project until it's "right". Model building taught him that. But he also tells me that many think he takes things way too far. That he should just be happy with "good enough". He and I both see that as the problem with how people now go about their business. Don't worry about doing it right, just get it done and move on.

I believe that the values that building AND flying teaches and the satisfaction of the process are well worth it. And even if I only get one or two kids to see that, it's well worth it to me. Instant gratification is all well and good. There are certainly times when I just want it now and don't want to wait. But is it a trait that we want society to rest on? Heck, it's one of the reasons that America doesn't save money and doesn't think about the future. They want it now. Make the maximum amount of money now. Don't worry about what may go by the wayside as a result. Don't worry about who gets hurt. Just do it now. We are one of the most indebted countries in the world per capita. And it's not hard to tell how we got there.

OK, I've rambled enough and taken this a bit off track from were I was going, but I think we can all make some small difference. As I say, if I can just get two kids to see the value of learning a skill; learning patience and diligence and some pride of workmanship, then there are twice as many folks that think that way as there were before and we are all better off.

Now I am done.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 20, 2008, 12:53:00 PM: Yes computers are a great part of society. However if your car beaks down will the computer fix it? If we are all salesmen and computer people who will fix the equipment? We still need people with some kind of skills besides computers.

Modeling teaches you basic aerodynamics, Basic engine tuning, Basic drafting skills,Basic design skills,basic painting skills ( along with that comes basic chemistry) Basic math, basic soldering skills. Those builders who become more proficient lean more than basic skills in all these areas. So to me its a no brainer.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Doug Moon on April 20, 2008, 07:34:24 PM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 20, 2008, 12:53:00 PM
Yes computers are a great part of society. However if your car beaks down will the computer fix it?....

No but it sure as heck will help tell you what to fix. Pretty much takes the guess work out of it. #^
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 20, 2008, 07:46:08 PM: I am digital technition qualified and it does not tell you what to fix or where to look except for EFI management systems. So your grasping at straws.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dennis Adamisin on April 20, 2008, 08:59:31 PM: I am going to see if I can write a LONGER post than Rudy! n~

Aeromodeling is NOT a main stream activity - I can happily accept that there are fewer aeromodelers than WarCraft gamers. CL flying, CLPA, and CLPA Competition are progressively more "eccentric" and exclusive fraternitys - that's OK too.Flew my first NATs in 1965 at the age of 11, Looking forward to my next CLPA NATs in 2008. During all of that time CL was going to die within 5 years. Well, like the skydiver who's chute hasn't opened but who hasn't "landed" yet, we're all right so far!

I'm straddling the BOM arguments - making me ROAD KILL for either side! I can tell you that I believe in the BOM, but I am unwilling to stifle the advancement of CLPA products - that in many cases blur the BOM issue.

It is now considered "normal" to allow an ARF or non-BOM'ers to fly but give up appearance points. However, when I started in the mid 1960's if you didn't build then you did not fly either. I don't think those times are ever coming back, & I'm not losing any sleep over it. The point is the interpretation of BOM and its consequences have been evolving over a very long time, and we are unlikely to go back in time.

As our technology continues to improve, it is now feasible to prefabricate major components as well as the total package, and its possible to do it cheaply. There WERE grumblings about BOM when good foam wings became available; seems silly now that so many people have used one. Now technology has advanced to concepts like pre-fabbed Lost Foam wings - 30 years ago THAT might have been perceived as non-BOM - but now its accepted.

BTW, we ain't seen nothing yet. You only have to look as far as our Dark Arts brothers to know that pre painted, molded wings and fuselages are OLD NEWS. Now a "moldie" has won the NATs. SOMEBODY is using up a lot of balsa, and really good stuff is getting too scarce to find. Moldies are here to stay, and contrary to what you have been told it is IMPOSSIBLE to accurately build a moldie outside its mold. So will we allow prebuilt wood or foam wings but exclude moldies just because they require no wood?

Did I mention pre-fabbed Tom Morris control systems? Are these BOM or non-BOM? Pre-bent or composite landing gear? Glass wheelpants? Hard-core BOM'ers (like me) need to accept and EMBRACE the continuing improvement of the state of the art, and realize that the thresholds of BOM are continuing to erode - but that ain't ALL bad!

On the other hand, non-BOM'ers must learn to comprehend this: ITS NOT (just) ABOUT THE FLYING! Nor has it ever been. Read your rulebook; the first manuver is Appearance, and it is the one you have the most control over. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard "I lost the NATs because of Appearance Points". Think about it: if this is simply a flying event but the flying did not provide meaningful separation of the competitors, then it is NOT a flying event at all - because the single "Appearance" manuver with half the available score of any other single manuver determined the winner! Folks, there are LOTS of other manuvers in the pattern that "lost" your NATs. Go practice some more so you can be a flyer too.

The good news is that pre-fabbed components all the way through ARF's makes it easier for more people to participate. The bad news - we are losing the creative spark that has kept the CLPA fire burning for so long. DO NOT underestimate that creative side. No doubt you have heard Ted's comment about all of us flying blue monocoted Noblers at VSC #50! Even here, creativity rears up: How many ARF Noblers have we seen that had the blue monocote stripped off only to be recovered in a different color of monocote or even PAINTED? How come you can call Brodak and find the ARC's in short supply (if they are in stock at all) while they have an inventory of ARF's at (typically) only $5 more? You can argue that ARF-cote is no good, but how do you explain the BLUE monocoted Nobler becoming a RED monocoted Nobler? The easy answer; everyone else has a BLUE Nobler, I wanted a RED Nobler - to be different!

From a performance standpoint, modern airplanes & engines are better than ever, but I will argue that the biggest reason we have a viable Classic event is because those designs STIR the soul. Think about it, do we really fly Classics because we LOVE 40 year old aerodynamics and Fox 35's? Most folks modernize the engines and have discovered that the old birds fly just fine. However, if it was ALL about the FLYING there would be NO Classic event! By comparison (with a handful of exceptions) MOST contemporary designs, are simply appliances. Heck most don't even have canopies!

I say again ITS NOT (just) ABOUT THE FLYING! Nor has it ever been. Non-BOM'ers must learn to comprehend this - that CLPA is TOTAL PERFORMANCE art.

So how can we embrace the advance of pre-fabbed technology while retaining the spark of creativity? How much BOM content can we afford to give up in the name of participation yet still remain a CLASS event?

I think the answer will:

* Ignore BOM because it is difficult to keep up with the state of the art and basically not enforceable anyway.

* Reward creativity and willingness to stand out from the crowd, to rise above the ARFs, ARCs, and clones. Every effort that rises above the standard issue needs to be acknowledged and celebrated. This will remain the first manuver in the pattern and will be called "Appearance".

This sounds like a tough nut to crack, the EASY way out is to simply chuck BOM & appearance points - but I think that will be as serious a mistake as eliminating Originality and Realism points was back in the 1970's. I need to dig-up and re-read Marv's Appearance Point schedule again - I think or next bet answer will look a lot like that...
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 20, 2008, 11:18:09 PM: Dennis,

Yep, it was a long post. ;D

I wrote up Marv's appearance points schedule in the hopes of compromising without giving up the basic idea. Be nice if it went somewhere. The basic idea was reward those that do a good job, regardless of what the job is (ARF, ARC or kit/scratch built).

>>By comparison (with a handful of exceptions) MOST contemporary designs, are simply appliances.<<

Hopefully I fall into the handful of exceptions. HB~>
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bob Reeves on April 21, 2008, 02:17:07 AM: Here are the basics of Marvin Denny's BOM/Appearance points idea.

Bought, borrowed or stolen Ready to fly "0" points.

ARF : wing, fuselage, and tail feathers
built and covered ready to assemble 1 to 10 points.

ARC : (any or all of the following) Wing, fuselage and tail feathers
built and ready to cover. 5 to 15 points.

Kit/scratch built, Fuselage, wing, and tail feathers not pre built or
pre assembled 10 to 20 points. Multi piece parts such as spars,
engine mount crutches, bellcrank mounts, tip weight boxes, and
line guide assemblies may be from purchased sources without
penalty
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Doug Moon on April 21, 2008, 07:38:02 AM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 20, 2008, 07:46:08 PM
I am digital technition qualified and it does not tell you what to fix or where to look except for EFI management systems. So your grasping at straws.

Well I have had better luck than that using the computer to diagnose my nissan and my mits than just the EFT portions of the car. But hey that is just me.

Not trying to say the computer can do anything. Just saying in the day and age of computer run cars without a computer to help diagnose it chasing stuff down could be very hard.

So no, I am not grasping at straws. Not by my experience anyway.

On another note one of the MOST important things model building and construstion will provide someone is PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS!! Problem solvings skills include patience, situation examination skills, thought process to find the problem, then process on what steps to take to correct the problem, the evaluation of the correction to make sure it worked, oh and more patience. BUT having said all that, trimming a model out can provide you with all the same skills as well. Just in a different form.

CLPA is like always solving a problem. Always chasing down an answer.

It provides Problem Solving Skills!
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: peabody on April 21, 2008, 06:33:35 PM: I tend to agree that problem solving is the gratest thing learned from air modeling...although guys that do trains or gas/electric cars or boats possess the same capabilities.

There was an article in the New York TIMES several years ago about the fact that hobbies were dying.....not just toy aeroplanes, but all hobbies...that kids have dveloped "past times" instead...
Playing computer games or surfing the 'net aren't hobbies, they are past times....
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Rudy Taube on April 22, 2008, 12:48:01 AM: Quote from: Robert Storick on April 20, 2008, 12:53:00 PM
Yes computers are a great part of society. However if your car beaks down will the computer fix it? If we are all salesmen and computer people who will fix the equipment? We still need people with some kind of skills besides computers.

Modeling teaches you basic aerodynamics, Basic engine tuning, Basic drafting skills,Basic design skills,basic painting skills ( along with that comes basic chemistry) Basic math, basic soldering skills. Those builders who become more proficient lean more than basic skills in all these areas. So to me its a no brainer.

Hi Robert,

Good points all. For those modelers like yourself; Randy Powell, the Moon's, Dennis A., etc. who I call MASTER builders, you all have benefited from learning the skills you mentioned. And yes I agree with you, some of these skills may still be helpful to workers in our children's future.

With that said: IF, and that is a big IF, young people had any interest in our small hobby, and were coming into it in large #s, then your good points might help the cause of keeping the BOM rule in place. But in our very small part of the aero modeling hobby the average age must be somewhere around 60+. Yes, there are a few young people, but VERY few, and there are a lot of +60 guys. For this average age of 60+ group, saying that learning all these skills will help them in their future (?) may not be enough reason to keep this dated rule in place. I don't think the 60+ crowd is really the future of our country. Plus, we are pretty set in our ways by now. If I have not learned a good work ethic, and problem solving by now, I probably won't learn it in time for it to do me any good in this life time! LL~

I know there are still two other reasons put forward for keeping the BOM rule. I was only addressing the one you brought up.

I do hope that you, and the other master builders all understand that we admire and appreciate the beauty of your work. I have never met anyone who is not in awe of the amount of time and effort you guys put into your works of Art. This discussion is not intended to lessen the appreciation of your artistic efforts. The Master builders we have now will always continue to build their masterpieces, no matter what the rules say, and we will always appreciate that. y1

Regards, H^^
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bob Reeves on April 22, 2008, 07:35:21 AM: Well said Rudy,

If anyone thinks eliminating or changing the BOM rule will result in a field full of ARF Noblers just look at any FAI contest photos. The Stunt Ships you will see are not much different than what you see at the NATS. Builders still build and they have never had a BOM rule.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: SteveMoon on April 22, 2008, 07:58:17 AM: Bob R: You are exactly right! I attended the 2004 WCs in Muncie,
and what I saw were a bunch of beautifully built planes from all
over the world. (Speaking of 'all over the world' I highly doubt that
over half of the CL stunt fights flown each year are flown here in
the US, as some who post on SSW who would have you believe.
There are many competitors the world over.) The French, Japanese,
Czech, Chinese, etc planes were beautiful. And, in almost all cases
the pilot had built his own plane.

The pilots who were flying the Russian and Ukranian take-apart planes
were those who had developed them. Builders will always build. That's
just the way it is. Bob you have succintly presented the best reason
for the elimination of BOM and appearance points. And, this is without
even getting into the quagmire of trying to enforce a BOM rule in this
day and age. This is the main problem I have with Marvin's proposal.
It's just too darn complicated. There will be way too many gray areas
that will crop up over time.

I have advocated or several years now elimination of BOM and the
awarding of a concourse trophy for those that build their own planes,
and I still believe it is the best way to go forward.

Sidenote: Speaking of the '04 WCs; another thing dawned on me
while I was there: I had been lied to for years! For years and years
all I had heard was how the US team could never win because of a
'bias' against the US team. All I had heard was how poor many of the
other competitors from around the world flew, and how some of
'their' best couldn't even win Advanced at the US Nats. Hogwash!!!!!
Those guys can fly! I was astounded by the quality of flying from
around the world. I remember standing with John G, Brad Walker, and
Jose M and watching several flights and it dawned on all of us that
the propaganda machine had been blowing smoke up our a**** all
those years. It was a truly eye-opening experience.

Later, Steve
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 22, 2008, 09:57:56 AM: Steve,

"Melodrama is the battle between right and wrong. Tragedy is the battle between right and right"
---Steven Lassiter
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Michael Floerchinger on April 22, 2008, 10:54:14 AM: I voted to keep BOM, but only because I am old school, I like building, I like flying, the only way I knew to adjust was to build again, different and better. From my point of view it is where everything in life is heading today, immediate gratification, I want it now. For me, for my son and now my grandson it was/is a good lesson in patience, on taking your time in doing something right, striving for the next model to be a little better. I know that this method has helped me all thru my life, patience, working hard to get it right. I was not the best builder but I always tried my best. Not that I did not have any ARFs, but when I flew those planes it just did not seem the same when I flew my own build or design. I do not think the sport will die out, there will be slow periods, I have seen them, I can remember flying at Buder Park by my self. I can also remember a surge in interest and having to wait in line to fly.

Mike
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Rudy Taube on April 22, 2008, 05:51:30 PM: Quote from: Randy Powell on April 22, 2008, 09:57:56 AM
Steve,

"Melodrama is the battle between right and wrong. Tragedy is the battle between right and right"
---Steven Lassiter

Well done Randy! H^^
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: bbaker on April 22, 2008, 06:01:35 PM: what if you had an arf that was crashed then rebuilt but only the ribs are the only part that was re-used everything else was replaced
what would that be considered?
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bill Little on April 22, 2008, 06:50:10 PM: I don't remember what, if anything I have posted to this thread, and since it's now 3 pages long, I don't have the time right now to go back and look (read that: "I'm lazy tonight"! LOL!!)

I strongly believe that Dennis Adamisin wrote a very important opinion that many still do share. "IT'S NOT JUST FLYING EVENT, never has been." PAMPA wrote a set of rules years ago that allowed for ARFS, ARCS, bought planes, borrowed, planes, and even stolen planes (I guess!). You can fly all you want, you just don't get AP. That is fair TO EVERYONE! It is fair in that it DOES ALLOW the person who cannot build (for whatever reason), and it is FAIR to the person WHO DOES BUILD! A part of the definition of *MODELER* as I understand it.

If you desire to be the WALKER TROPHY WINNER, then whay not do what is required. Simple as that. Maybe this doesn't realte to golf and other sports, but I am not going to win the MASTERS. Why? Because I do not have the time to practice, nor do I have the desire to take that time, to become consistent enough to play at that level. Anyway, I am too old now to have ENOUGH time left to get that proficient. Maybe when I was a Head Professional at a Club over 30 years ago, I *might* would have had a chance (LOL!!). So, I know/knew what it would take. My desire was just not that strong. I did have that strong of a desire to play football on Sundays and on TV (NFL). I got that chance, but due to injuries, didn't make it. So be it. IF I had that same BURNING DESIRE to be the WALKER TROPHY WINNER, I know what it would take. It is well known, so what's the problem? We have to pay a price to achieve something worthwhile. Maybe THAT is what's missing..... ??? I was raised by Grandparents. A MUCH older generation that my friend's parents. I learned at a fairly early age that my values were different from my friends. And since I became a teacher/coach, even though I have had a good bit of success, I have noticed that the desire to expend large amounts of energy to achieve a goal is becoming less and less prevalent. So, I can see where the whole drop the BOM has merit in a LOT of people's minds. It is one less hurdle to overcome.

I digress........ so,on the topic of ARF/ARC models, I have no problem, per se. It will help people get into the hobby, come back to the hobby, and help people who WANT to compete get better, quicker. That is good! We need all the people we can get in this hobby. Doug said that the end of C/L might come because WE are going through the natural cycle of life, which, of course, ends with death.

So, my position?? Let ARFs/ARCs fly, (the AMA even allows it to a degree at the NATS!) but do it under the PAMPA rules. No build, no AP. As far as lazy, I don't believe that is a factor, really. I believe it is more a matter of available time as many have said. But if the person with *no time*, starts a kit and spends just a bare minimum of time, he/she will finish that plane in a year or so. Then they have a BOM/AP model. If that person wants to win bad enough, they CAN do that. Let them fly ARFs/ARCS until they are proficient, and keeping them out of the asphalt, then they can enter an age group class at the NATS (or Advanced, a recognized event there) and be in compliance. One a year and in a few years they will have at least a back up. :) (Hey, I found time when I WAS a PGA pro to hit 500 balls a day and play at least 9 holes.)

I had a good friend tell me one time when I was hard up for building time: Get up a *little* earlier, and go to bed a *little* later. Harder to do at my age now, but no sweat when I was in my 30's-40's.

We can all find an excuse, and actually some legitimate REASONS, but we can also find a way to *get 'er done*.

In closing (and you thought it would NEVER end! LOL!!).... I have no problem with ARFs/ARCs, just leave the rules alone and live with them!

Bill Little
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: De Hill on April 22, 2008, 07:34:03 PM: "IT'S NOT JUST FLYING EVENT, never has been."

Wrong.

Roy Mayes (who founded W.A.M.) Wrote new rules which included appearance points in 1947. He was successful in persuading the AMA to adopt the rules in 1948.

It was just a flying event prior to 1948.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Trostle on April 22, 2008, 08:56:16 PM: Quote from: De Hill on April 22, 2008, 07:34:03 PM

"IT'S NOT JUST FLYING EVENT, never has been."

Wrong.

Roy Mayes (who founded W.A.M.) Wrote new rules which included appearance points in 1947. He was successful in persuading the AMA to adopt the rules in 1948.

It was just a flying event prior to 1948.

It was not called Precision Aerobatics prior to 1948 either. So, soes it mean anything that our event has NOT been only a flying event for 60 years? That is longer than many of us can remember. At least longer than when most of us would read or care about rulebooks. Or, in other words, it has been a modeling event, not just a flying event for 60 years. In my opinion, that is significant.

Keith Trostle
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: De Hill on April 22, 2008, 09:43:44 PM: It was not called Precision Aerobatics prior to 1948 either. So, soes it mean anything that our event has NOT been only a flying event for 60 years? That is longer than many of us can remember. At least longer than when most of us would read or care about rulebooks. Or, in other words, it has been a modeling event, not just a flying event for 60 years. In my opinion, that is significant.

Keith Trostle

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" IT"S NOT JUST FLYING EVENT, never has been."

It hasn't been just a flying event for 60 years, that is true;
but the word NEVER is what is incorrect in the above statement.

De Hill
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Randy Powell on April 22, 2008, 10:52:24 PM: De,

Well, it evolved. I suppose it could devolve, too.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Mark Scarborough on April 23, 2008, 08:33:34 AM: De how much of an issue do you think ARFs were in 1948? hmmm I kinda doubt that it was even a consideration whatcha think? from what I understand inverted flight was pretty much a cool times ten trick,, so yeah, I think the statement is still valid,, its a MODELERS event and always has been.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Robert Schroeder on April 23, 2008, 08:46:57 AM: Granted, I'm too late to vote, however I can still reply so here goes.
I'm what is called a retread. I flew in my first Nats in '07. The main reason I am a retread is because I was unable to find anyone with whom to fly in most of the places I lived (retired Army). While in St. Louis I was trying to build but unable to get anything completed prior to being transfered to Columbus, Oh. I was still unable to find anyone with whom to fly. I moved to Northwest Ohio, returned to Columbus to visit friends, went to a hobby shop and found a control line club there. I was quite upset. 3.5 hours driving time is too long to go fly. I have never grally given up the hobby. I've always had a building table of at least a piece of plywood. That was the first thing I did in any house into which I moved, even though I was unable to get much accomplished.

When I started flying in the 50s Models HAD to be built. I went to contests and wondered how anyone could tell if the flyer built the model. The adults weren't talking, however all the kids, I knew, that flew in the contests built their own models. I had a friend who had a father who built all his planes, but he never entered a contest. At any rate, fast foreward to the present. I still have no idea as to who built which model. Those of you who "know" know who built which plane. However, you fly in expert: I fly in beginner.

I now, at least when my DOT physical allows me to drive, drive a truck for a living. It is extremely hard to build a plane in the sleeper of a big truck. Therefore I bought an ARF last year at Toledo. All my planes were crashed and I needed something to fly quickly. The ARF is still in the box. I bought an RTF from a friend to fly for the contest season which I crashed at the Nats. That's repaired and I now have others that are almost ready to fly. My workshop, which takes up room for 3 cars in the garage is finally finished, and I am able to build without being too cramped. I am not and probably will never be an expert builder , finisher or flyer. There is TOO little time. I was unable to fly after the Nats and still haven't flown this year.

When we took on 6 foster kids (a family) flying was out of the question. When I was married to my ex, money was out of the question. With most of the jobs I've had, time was pretty well out of the question.

This all begs the question; should I be for the BOM or not? Actually, I'm for the BOM. I am inherently instilled with the mindset that to compete means that I must have done everything from buying the kit or wood up to the point where I fly MY creation. Where I fly, I'm not subject to the BOM. When offered a plane to fly, I was appalled that I would be able to enter a contest with a plane I didn't build (I guess that shows the last time I flew in a stunt contest). This was while I was still trying to learn the beginner pattern, so, no I had not yet read the rule book.

I guess where I'm trying to go with this missive, is that I'm old school and therefore believe in the BOM rule. Many who came after me are new school or have dropped those thoughts for whatever reason. I seriously doubt I'll ever get to the expert level. If I do, I will have built the plane. If the BOM is still in effect I still will have built the plane.

Opinions are like ********. Everyone has one, even me. I'll do whatever, just to fly and compete. The politics are beyond me.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: De Hill on April 23, 2008, 01:12:16 PM: De how much of an issue do you think ARFs were in 1948? hmmm I kinda doubt that it was even a consideration whatcha think? from what I understand inverted flight was pretty much a cool times ten trick,, so yeah, I think the statement is still valid,, its a MODELERS event and always has been.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take it that you don't believe that stunt existed prior to the 1948 Nats and the beginning of appearance points. Francis Reynolds, Roy Mayes, Bob Palmer, JC Yates, Bud Jamison, Hal Debolt, David Slagle, Leon Schulman, Jim Saftig, and Bob Tucker would be surprised to learn that they weren't stunt fliers!

As for ARF's I didn't mention them.

De Hill
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Trostle on April 23, 2008, 02:27:55 PM: De

Since we are playing with words, I have the following observations which are about as important as an eyelash on a gnat. But here it goes any way.

By the record you present, appearance points were introduced in 1948 into what at one time was called something like the control line stunt event. Sometime between the mid/late 40's and 1952, but I think after provisions for appearance points were introduced into the rulebook, the name of the event was changed to Control Line Precision Aerobatics. At least the 1952 rulebook which we use as our reference pattern for Old Time Stunt listed the event as Control Line Precision Aerobatics and it includes provision for appearance points which evidently was a carry over from 1948 when appearance points were introduced into the event. So, if appearance points were introduced in 1948 and the name of the event was changed later from control line stunt (or whatever it was called in those days) to Control Line Precision Aerobatics (CLPA), that means that our CLPA event has always been a modeler's event and NEVER has been a flying only event. I think it is still safe to say that during the modeling careers of any active stunt flier today and in the terms as discussed here, our CLPA event has NEVER been a flying only event.

Like I suggested above, this is just another unimportant way to look at the words that are being thrown around here.

The following is not addressed to any of De Hill's comments as above.

What I think is significant is that most surveys that I have seen, however poorly or how well these surveys have been conducted on this forum, perhaps other forums, and questionnaires that have been conducted over the years through PAMPA, there has been a majority of responses that favor keeping the BOM/Appearance Pints provisions in our rulebook. And that majority has not been by only a few percentage points. In fact, in the world of surveys, that majority has usually been significant. This, in spite of the very vocal groups or segments around the country that are adamantly against the BOM/Appearance Points provisions in our rulebook who, in my opinion, are more prone to respond to these surveys than those who do favor the status quo.

This fact, together with the fact that any contest can be run with or without BOM/Appearance Points (except for the age categories at the Nats) is good cause for the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board to NOT accept any rules change proposal that eliminates the BOM/Appearance Points from our rulebook.

Keith
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: catdaddy on April 23, 2008, 03:41:35 PM: Quote from: Trostle on April 23, 2008, 02:27:55 PM

the name of the event was changed to Control Line Precision Aerobatics.
Keith

Wonder why they didn't rename it Control Line Precision Aerobatics Modelling? Maybe you can get that changed.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dennis Adamisin on April 23, 2008, 05:28:20 PM: Quote from: catdaddy on April 23, 2008, 03:41:35 PM
Wonder why they didn't rename it Control Line Precision Aerobatics Modelling? Maybe you can get that changed.

Rick
No name change required. It helps me to keep it in perspective by treating "Appearance" as the the first manuver in the Precision Aerobatics event- and everything falls into place nicely. Unfortunately "Appearance" is my toughest "manuver", so I try hard not to let it hurt me and to make up for my shortfalls with everything else that follows.

Robert Schroeder: H^^
I see that this was just your second post here so WELCOME to StuntHanger. Sparky and his moderators keep a pretty durned good forum. A word of caution though, this place can become habit forming (check out my psts in just about 1 year) and cause you to lose building and flying time! Coming back from your time away, you helped confirm what I said that it used to be BOM: no build - no fly!

De
Thank you for the correction. That appearance points pre-dates even a lot of OTS designs is significant. That appeance points pre-date my time on the planet by 6 years means I should have been more careful about saying "always" & "never". I am prone to exageration. b1 LL~

There was a quote from 1948 (Carl Wheeley?) from when the appearance points were first adopted; that quote was shown in this forum last year some time - to the effect that appearance points were being added to improve the models being flown in the Stunt event (whatever name was in place then!) Do you recall seeing that? Anyhow I believe that quote was significant because it seemed to say that the event was evolving into something MORE than it had been.

Like I said in my (too long!) post before I am concerned at how we will manage to balance the advancing technology with traditional BOM concepts. "Moldies" are here to stay. With moldies come big enablers in finishes and easy shine. I think we are going to have to evolve apperance points into things that are harder to buy: creativity, individuality and "signature" designs that excite - just like we have in Classic era birds.

I keep coming back to restoring Originality and Realism to the appearance menu; these are the areas where creativity (original designs) and customization of kits, pre-fabs & moldies can be encouraged, acknowlegded and rewarded.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dick Fowler on April 23, 2008, 06:40:31 PM: Quote from: bbaker on April 22, 2008, 06:01:35 PM
what if you had an arf that was crashed then rebuilt but only the ribs are the only part that was re-used everything else was replaced
what would that be considered?

A really, really, really bad crash!
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dick Fowler on April 23, 2008, 06:42:10 PM: Quote from: bbaker on April 22, 2008, 06:01:35 PM
what if you had an arf that was crashed then rebuilt but only the ribs are the only part that was re-used everything else was replaced
what would that be considered?

A really, really, really bad crash!
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: De Hill on April 23, 2008, 06:54:15 PM: [
Since we are playing with words, I have the following observations which are about as important as an eyelash on a gnat. But here it goes any way.

By the record you present, appearance points were introduced in 1948 into what at one time was called something like the control line stunt event. Sometime between the mid/late 40's and 1952, but I think after provisions for appearance points were introduced into the rulebook, the name of the event was changed to Control Line Precision Aerobatics. At least the 1952 rulebook which we use as our reference pattern for Old Time Stunt listed the event as Control Line Precision Aerobatics and it includes provision for appearance points which evidently was a carry over from 1948 when appearance points were introduced into the event. So, if appearance points were introduced in 1948 and the name of the event was changed later from control line stunt (or whatever it was called in those days) to Control Line Precision Aerobatics (CLPA), that means that our CLPA event has always been a modeler's event and NEVER has been a flying only event. I think it is still safe to say that during the modeling careers of any active stunt flier today and in the terms as discussed here, our CLPA event has NEVER been a flying only event.

Like I suggested above, this is just another unimportant way to look at the words that are being thrown around here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK Keith,

I think we have agreed to split hairs. CLPA is STUNT. Ain't no difference; none. They are two titles that mean the same thing; " A Rose by any other name is still a Rose".

The PAMPA newsletter ( or magazine if you prefer) is named " Stunt News". It is about all things pertaining to Precision Aerobatics (which is Stunt.)

Now I'll get down off my soapbox.

De Hill
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Ted Fancher on April 23, 2008, 09:18:02 PM: FWIW, here are a few facts that may or may not help illuminate the subject.

The earliest set of rules in my collection are from 1949. The following information is taken verbatim from those rules. I don't at this time have anything earlier so will plead ignorance about what preceded the following.

Under the title, which reads "CONTROL LINE PRECISION ACROBATIC REGULATIONS" the first paragraph reads:

"These Regulations were drawn up by the Control Line Acrobatic Rules Committee, Roy E. Mayes, Chairman (emphasis my own) and shall continue in their recommended status until further announcement by the AMA Contest Board."

This states clearly that Roy was the chairman of an AMA Committee, not a WAM infiltrator as suggested earlier.

"APPEARANCE. Models shall be judged for appearance complete and ready to fly, including all equipment and attachments to be used in the accumulation of flight points. Graded scoring between one and ten points shall be used depending upon the degree of excellence of realism, workmanship and finish. No more than four points shall be given for any of these three items, and all contestants shall received at leas a one point total. The points so obtained shall then be multiplied by eight to obtain appearance points, which will therefore range from a minimum of of eight to a maximum of 80. The resulting appearance points are to be added to the contestant's flight points for scoring purposes."

This, of course, proves nothing re the original "stunt" event with whose actual birth date and DNA I'm unfamiliar. I do, however, subscribe to the irrefutable logic that with at least 60 years as the single most successful and long lived "fly by wire" event on the planet tends to suggest that -- like classic Coke -- the formula should only be changed with great trepidation.

Ted Fancher
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dick Fowler on April 24, 2008, 05:33:27 AM: I would have thought the "trepidation" should have set in before the latest 'interpretation" became the rule. We are all currently drinking the "new Coke"... and it ain't the same.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bill Little on April 24, 2008, 09:05:47 AM: Quote from: De Hill on April 22, 2008, 07:34:03 PM

"IT'S NOT JUST FLYING EVENT, never has been."

Wrong.

Roy Mayes (who founded W.A.M.) Wrote new rules which included appearance points in 1947. He was successful in persuading the AMA to adopt the rules in 1948.

It was just a flying event prior to 1948.

Hi De,

When I quoted Dennis Adamisin, I considered the *fact* that *STUNT* (the early event) was not the same event we have been flying for 60 years. In the beginning THAT event didn't have a pattern that I am AWARE of. CLPA, as Keith pointed out, is the event WE are talking about, and it, AFAIK, has NEVER (same word again! LOL!!) been just a flying event. *We* can (and it seems always DO) argue over a gnat's eyelash of semantics. Stunt and CLPA are not the same. *Stunt* is what I did when I was 12-13 years old and just burning out tanks of fuel. PAMPA's newsletter IS *Stunt* News, but I am guessing the generic term was used instead of Control Line Precision Aerobatics News as that is somewhat cumbersome. ;D

I will gladly retract my comment (and inform Mr. Adamisin of our inaccuracies) WHEN and IF it can be PROVEN otherwise. I could not give an obese rodent's posterior what was done before OUR EVENT was established. Nothing personal, but splitting hairs (especially when another EVENT is referenced) is not my cup of tea. CLPA, the *320's* events (IIRC) in the books, have ALWAYS been BOM/AP events.

Again, if I am proven wrong, I will gladly apologize. ;D
Bill Little

P.S. I didn't read Ted's answer before I posted, but I do not see anything in his post which contradicts my quotation and subsequent opinion here.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Ted Fancher on April 24, 2008, 11:25:54 AM: Quote from: Dick Fowler on April 24, 2008, 05:33:27 AM
I would have thought the "trepidation" should have set in before the latest 'interpretation" became the rule. We are all currently drinking the "new Coke"... and it ain't the same.

Strangely enough, Dick, although I doubt you intended to, you prove my point.

Ted
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Chuck Feldman on April 24, 2008, 12:37:06 PM: Dare I make a comment in this thread? Yes I will. It seems to me that we need something to chew on or we are not happy. Well the AP and BOM rag has been chewed on now for years. It must be a terribly tough rag. Seems to me that back in the old days no one cared about BOM. Of course there where no ARFS to buy then either. In 1978 I managed to make to the nationals in Lake Charles. The rag being chewed at that time was SEEDING! Hot Item back then. Maybe we should chew that rag again? But Back in 1978 I flew a Gieski Nobler that I built. I used the following bought part. A Bob hunt foam wing. A friend of mine painted the model for me with K&B epoxy paint. I did not fly well then as now so I did not advance. Oh there where no classes then we all flew in OPEN. There where lots of nice planes. We all exchanged what are ships where. The whole thing was very open about vendor supplied parts etc. In short no one cared. Everyone who set there model down for judging was awarded some points. I do not know how many entered the event back then but based on the debating going on today there must be a lot more Stunt Fliers than there used to be. Think about it. Those of you who know the numbers can quote them. Add up all the classes and throw that number into open like it was in 1978. So I think it is safe to say that at the Nats we have the elite and want to be elite competing in the OPEN Event. It is very tough to get to the top. I am sure that there have been years when the AP have decided the outcome of the event because the flight scores are so close. What is a shame is that it is entirely possible that the best flier with the best flying model may not win. Kind of like some other sports. Say NFL football. The best team overall loses a playoff game and they are out. Yep they call it the big leagues. In closing I think we could have a better sport with out all this debate. It is now 2008. The world has changed. We do not need the AP any longer. May I add this. Our sport emulates the real world of acrobatic competition. They do not require the pilot to build there own plane. Matter of fact most of the planes are flown by pilots who are hired to fly them.

Chuck Feldman
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: RC Storick on April 24, 2008, 01:55:50 PM: Quote
Yep they call it the big leagues. In closing I think we could have a better sport with out all this debate. It is now 2008. The world has changed. We do not need the AP any longer. May I add this. Our sport emulates the real world of acrobatic competition. They do not require the pilot to build there own plane. Matter of fact most of the planes are flown by pilots who are hired to fly them.
I would give up AP if Paul W. or Billy W. would fly my planes. However each plane is purpose built for each pilots specs. If you were a builder you would understand this debate. Everyone needs to get paid for their efforts!
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Rudy Taube on April 24, 2008, 04:15:40 PM: Hi Chuck,

Thank you for the interesting historical perspective in your excellent post.

The main reason I am putting energy into this topic is: as an active CD I would like to have the rules as clear as possible. My guess is that other CDs share this desire. Rules should never be left up to just one person's (CD) "personal" feelings, and that is what we have now. We need to have a CLEAR BOM rule with some form of enforcement (building photos?, DNA tests?, owners finger prints on the balsa, Or? ;-), or we need to join the rest of the world and have more fun and less stress. (at least less stress for the CDs?)

If our society had ZERO technical progress since 1952 then we would have less of a BOM problem, and it probably would not be such a heated issue today. We would just keep on building our blocks of balsa with blue ink lines on the places where we had to cut out the parts, and use hallucinogenic chemicals to hold them together, etc. Now THAT'S closer to true BOM! n~

As you pointed out, we have had progress since 1952. This progress; fully sheeted foam wings, modular parts, plug and play control systems, others finishing and painting the plane, completed planes for sale by pro builders, etc.,etc. has been quietly absorbed by the CLPA community by simply ignoring the obvious breaking (or, extreme bending if you prefer? ;-) of the rules.

We now have a rule in place that address most of the above progress, and makes much of this progress now legal. My point is that we need to make the rules clearer, or at least agree uniformly nation wide on how they will be applied? This will allow us to deal with all the new progress being made now and in the near future. We are about to see the 1st wave of 2nd and 3rd generation ARCs and ARFs. How will we deal with these excellent planes this year and in the next few years?

Our present rule is in effect until Jan 1, 2011. There will be many new developments in CLPA planes before then. We don't even seem to be in agreement on how to deal fairly and uniformly with the new planes we have now. The Moon's excellent new, high quality, Modular Nobler is a case in point. Some are already saying it may not be eligible for AP because it comes with a thin clear film covering THAT STILLL NEEDS PAINTING AND FINISHING, just because the parts have a covering on them when they come out of the box. In fact, the recommended method of finishing is to cover the whole plane with silkspan before final painting. How this is any different than a fully balsa COVERED wing that we have accepted for years, is beyond me. The spirit of the new rules are clear, but the "letter" of the rule is not. How many more innovations are we going to reject in the name of TRADITION?

As an active CD this puts me, and other CDs in a difficult position. I just talked to a good friend in the NE and he said they are very flexible re: the BOM and are just glad that more people are coming out to fly. Some other areas of the country have abandoned the BOM/AP all together. As this trend spreads, it will make it increasingly difficult for CDs of contests between these areas to interpert the rules unless they become more clear, and uniform.

With rare exception this thread Robert started has been a very polite and helpful discussion of this important topic. I hope it will continue in the same pleasent manner.

Again, thank you for your excellent post, I enjoyed it. Your points are well taken.

ROBERT

I agree with you about rewarding hard work, and I think most other's agree with you too. That is why more contests (like ours this weekend, 3) are including concourse awards for the best "LOOKING" planes. This may become the best of both worlds in the future? BTW, the concourse trophy won by Larry Fernandez (beautiful plane!) at the Golden State Champs was as large, maybe larger, than Brett's beautiful 1st place flying trophy.

FFT: If we really want to give "bonus" points for hard work to add to the flying points, it would be only fair (and helpful to CDs ;-) to also give "bonus" points to those pilots who work hard at contests by helping to judge, CD, or help run a line, etc. ? This would be FAIR and may encourage more people to help out? ... Just a thought.

Regards, H^^
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: john e. holliday on April 24, 2008, 04:43:28 PM: Reading this last post of this thread, it hit me. Why not do like the Radio Control Fraternity on some of their events, mainly scale. No flying points. No appearance points. You fly when you want to. Oh, they give away trophies at these fly ins. Best military, best civilian, Pilot's choice, CD's choice, worst crash and this goes on and on. No worry about judges or score sheets. The main requirement other than AMA license, entry fee is that you have to fly the model to qualify for any awards. There is a fun contest going to happen back east I beleive that promotes fun flying, according to ad in CLW(Control Line World). DOC Holliday
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bill Little on April 25, 2008, 07:55:26 AM: Hi Doc,

Fun Flys are FUN!

But that doesn't address our attempting to find the National Champion one time a year. Maybe we need a qualifications system to be able to fly in Open at the NATS, kinda like getting into the MASTERS Golf Tournament or making the FAI team. ???

A lot of that last point is in jest, of course, but who knows?? Of course, to be *Democratic*, we could hold an official voting each year at the NATS to see if the BOM/AP stays in place for the next year's NATS. Hold it each year, maybe one year it gets voted down for the next, but then reinstated for the NEXT year. After all, that is where it really matters. The guys to whom it matters would decide what THEY need to do! I do not see a preponderance of evidence that even equates to the everyday/local contest flier. CLPA sorta governs itself, and I do not believe the AMA would object to the contestants being in charge of that aspect. It makes MUCH MORE SENSE to let the ones it affects make the decision. OK, so call me crazy.......

Bill <><
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dick Fowler on April 25, 2008, 09:23:46 AM: Geez Bill, your suggestion makes way too much sense!
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Bill Little on April 25, 2008, 11:55:45 AM: Quote from: Dick Fowler on April 25, 2008, 09:23:46 AM
Geez Bill, your suggestion makes way too much sense!

Hi Dick,

Remeber, if I say anything that makes sense, it's probably under the *Blind Hog* principle! LL~

Bill
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: billbyles on April 25, 2008, 03:47:39 PM: Quote from: Chuck Feldman on April 24, 2008, 12:37:06 PM
<snip>
May I add this. Our sport emulates the real world of acrobatic competition. They do not require the pilot to build there own plane. Matter of fact most of the planes are flown by pilots who are hired to fly them.

Chuck Feldman

Chuck, your statement above is a non sequitur.

Full-scale aerobatic competition is another world compared to C/L Precision Aerobatics. For one thing, aerobatic pilots are not hired to fly somebody else's airplane. We often loan our airplanes to friends who don't have one, but there is nothing to be gained by hiring a pilot to fly someone else's airplane in FAI acro competition. If you are talking about the "Red Bull Air Racing Series", that is not aerobatic competition...it is a whole different event focusing on the racing around a series of pylons. Professional airshow pilots are often hired to fly somebody else's airplane (I did that for awhile) but again, that is not aerobatic competition. Airshow flying, while aerobatic, is not at all the same as FAI acro competition.

True, the pilot flying full-scale aerobatic competition is not required to build the airplane he is flying, however even the most simple of the airplanes being flown in acro competition are quite complex to build requiring skills (building fabrication fixtures, welding to aircraft quality, woodwork on a large scale, sheet metal fabrication skills, knowledge of composite structures on a large scale compared to models, etc.) way beyond those possessed (or required) by the majority of pilots. A few of the competition pilots do build their airplanes and are able to compete up through advanced class, but they are a very few. In the unlimited class competition the high-dollar monoplanes are required to be competitive, and the majority of those airplanes cost in the neighborhood of $200,000 and up and are primarily fabricated using high-tech composite construction.

Then, assuming that rare individual is able to get it built he needs to paint it. Painting a full-size airplane is not at all the same as painting a model airplane. A full-scale airplane requires gallons of paint, not a pint or quart. There are areas where you can paint it at home, but in most urban areas you can't due to EPA and Air Quality regulations, not to mention overspray of your neighbor's car or swimming pool.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: john e. holliday on April 26, 2008, 08:01:55 AM: I got to watch one episode of the "Red Bull Racing" with the aerobatic planes and still can't beleive what those pilots put them threw. It looks like a lot of forces are put on the pilot as well as the airplane. You have more nerve than I do to fly one of those races. DOC Holliday
Title: Poll is un-ocked
Post by: RC Storick on April 26, 2008, 01:33:48 PM: I will un-lock this for 2 more days.
Title: Re: informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)
Post by: Dick Fowler on May 03, 2008, 09:53:43 AM: Quote from: Ted Fancher on April 24, 2008, 11:25:54 AM
Strangely enough, Dick, although I doubt you intended to, you prove my point.

Ted

Not so strangely enough I don't agree. We seem to have divorced appearance points from the BOM.... I'm not sure that can be done. I have a hard time justifying lavishing appearance points on a model that was "assembled" from a whole bunch of prefab parts and possibly finished by someone other than the "assembler". Under the new and not so improved rule this is acceptable but I'm not convinced that it meets the spirit or the tradition of the "premier event"!

Seems that there has been a significant widening of what is acceptable under the BOM since I left in the early 70's. The ruling made at the NATS a few years ago is proof positive that taking the easy way out isn't always the best solution. It would have been far better to meet the challenge head on a clear the air once and for all... instead we got the new Coke. To continue to defend to the death the new BOM rule and the associated appearance points that are the granted is akin to defending the honor of Heidi Fleiss... a bit too late!