Is this a legal kit?

[RC Storick]

Under the current difeinition is this a legal kit? Looks pre-covered and pre painted to me.

Giant ARF

6. Builder of Model:
The CD shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has completely “constructed‟ the model(s) he uses in competition,
including the covering where used,
with “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model starting with no more prefabrication than the amount used in the average kit
(“average kit” is interpreted by Control Line Aerobatics as a model that may consist of precut, unassembled parts or assembled (uncovered) subcomponents such as wings, horizontal and vertical stab, fuselage; requiring a few hours of assembly time and covering).
Models which are completely prefabricated (“completely prefabricated” is interpreted as the model is ready to fly out of the box or in a few minutes (less than an hour) of assembly time.) and require only a few minutes (less than an hour) of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition. (Control Aerobatics additionally interprets that any model, that is pre-covered in the box is excluded from competition).In the case of rubber-powered models (excluding Indoor duration models), commercially available balsa, plastic, and hardwood propellers may be used. Materials and design may be obtained from any source, including kits.
The builder-of-the-model rule applies to every AMA event unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event.

9.2: Team entries are not permitted in Control Line Aerobatics, Indoor Band Launched Glider, or Outdoor Hand Launched events. Models entered in these events must be built according to the “builder- of-the-model” paragraph by one individual who must also be the flier.
The reason I am putting this out here again is I am working on resolving this issue before the 2011 NATS.

[Allen Brickhaus]

Is this a Yak type?

Allen Brickhaus

[RC Storick]

Is this a Yak type?

Allen Brickhaus

This is how the Yatsinko kits are obtained. Same format. Illegal under current interpretation.

Oh and by the way you can not take one of these and cut holes in the wing cover it and it be legal. Same as a ARF from anyone of the company's that make them.Either the AMA upholds the current ruling or they water it down to appease the 2%. Either way I should have a ansewer by Tuesday and the world is watching!

[jose modesto]

What if it looks like the inside of the fuse. One further what if it's molded with raw balsa exterior no finish on exterior surfaces. A model like this meets Bill's current rule and the AMA BOM.
A kit that is in molded shells with raw balsa exteriors that require complete building and FINISHING should be allowed. The kit consist of 16 molded raw exterior wood  shells ,formers ,stringers,lost foam jig and plans. this is a builders kit.
Roberts since you are working on a rules proposal for the future, consider the kit above and see if there is a place for such kits to be made BOM legal. under current AMA BOM kits are legal.
Jose Modesto

[RC Storick]

I guess you don't see the wing as covered? Or am I seeing things? THIS KIT DOES NOT QULFIY FOR BOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Now if this was 4 wing parts top and bottom inboard and outboard quarters needing joining UN finished they might qualify for BOM but as its shown it does not, unless I am brain dead and cant read and interpret the written word.

I am not speaking of any future kits that might become available as with molded parts, I am addressing the current situation for the 2011 NATS.

[Bob Reeves]

Sure looks like a kit to me, for some reason some of you guys have a burr under your saddle. What's the deal with being so against new technology? Makes no sense, this kit might produce a better airplane than you can build using 50's technology, is that what you are afraid of? So what, in my opinion it's the same as using a piped PA verses a ST 60.

[RC Storick]

Sure looks like a ARF to the rest us. Just following the rules as written. As stated before if this is allowed to be legal under the rules what is to keep someone who built one of these and made a mistake in construction from Flying the exact same model that has been bought pre flown pre trimmed and ready to fly?

It is not fair to the rest of the fliers who have complied with the rules to allow this to happen. There are many hobbies that require no skills but this ain't one of them.

[PerttiMe]

Q: Is this a legal kit?
A: (as heard here many times) Depends on what class you want to fly in.

[RC Storick]

Q: Is this a legal kit?
A: (as heard here many times) Depends on what class you want to fly in.

For J.S.O. You could fly this plane in intermediate or advanced but not in J.S.or Open. you could fly the plane all day long at local contests.

[jose modesto]

Robert looking for an answer on the raw balsa molded shells 16 pc's with out exterior finish in your view legal?.
The kit of the Yak above(shark presented) in 2005 was made legal by the Nat's ED.
so yes it was legal up until Bill's new ruling.
presented is a shell wing pictorial on the type of kit that I think should be considered when the new rules are adopted.
Molded balsa wood shells with fiberglass cloth outer surface. The Kit comes in four shells, ribs, spars,yatzenko type take apart system
and a Bob Hunt lost foam wing jig.
The building aligment and finishing of the wing is by the builder. I cant see why not,but lets discuss
Jose modesto

[jose modesto]

additional photos
Completed wing panels with take apart system
Second photo showing open bay wing panels and fully sheeted wing panels. the open bay wing panels should not be an issue with BOM compliance, the fully sheeted wing panels may have detractors

[RC Storick]

Robert looking for an answer on the raw balsa molded shells 16 pc's with out exterior finish in your view legal?.
The kit of the Yak above(shark presented) in 2005 was made legal by the Nat's ED.
so yes it was legal up until Bill's new ruling.
presented is a shell wing pictorial on the type of kit that I think should be considered when the new rules are adopted.
Molded balsa wood shells with fiberglass cloth outer surface. The Kit comes in four shells, ribs, spars,yatzenko type take apart system
and a Bob Hunt lost foam wing jig.
The building aligment and finishing of the wing is by the builder. I cant see why not,but lets discuss
Jose modesto

Its not Bills new ruling it the AMA's rule book no one gets it! We will not buckle this time! The 05 ED made a mistake! so its time to erase that mistake.Remember I was there looking at your kit in the box. No such thing appeared. Yours was 2 wing half's and a fuse and some components. your shark was in a more built state than this one shown.

[RC Storick]

Its not Bills new ruling it the AMA's rule book no one gets it! We will not buckle this time! The 05 ED made a mistake! so its time to erase that mistake.Remember I was there looking at your kit in the box. No such thing appeared. Yours was 2 wing half's and a fuse and some components. your shark was in a more built state than this one shown.

You see in this picture how the person is putting in the ribs? As long as your kit comes in a un-assembled state it would be legal. When it comes like a shark its not.

I know you have a lot vested in this. And I don't begrudge you for trying to clear this up. But read close we are not talking about your planes. The airplanes in question are Yatsinko's

[jose modesto]

Robert you asked the question about the kit. The answer is yes the kit was legal (2005 to 2010) until Bill R. passed a new rule. the rules bans fiberglass and painted exterior flying surface kits.
My question to you is the same. In your view does a molded all exterior balsa shell kit(16 pc's) as i have described qualify under your new thinking on BOM.
The kit described above is made of raw balsa exterior shells, the builder has to build all components,Allin and paint. what should i modify to meet your future BOM. Robert any suggestions.
Jose Modesto

[RC Storick]

Robert you asked the question about the kit. The answer is yes the kit was legal (2005 to 2010) until Bill R. passed a new rule. the rules bans fiberglass and painted exterior flying surface kits.
My question to you is the same. In your view does a molded all exterior balsa shell kit(16 pc's) as i have described qualify under your new thinking on BOM.
The kit described above is made of raw balsa exterior shells, the builder has to build all components,Allin and paint. what should i modify to meet your future BOM. Robert any suggestions.
Jose Modesto

Apples to apples Please read above. The Yatsinko was not legal in 05 just no one would speak up. Things change. I am not the driving force behind this. But I am a voice who has my opinion.

I think one of the biggest disqualifiers is will you be offering this kit and A RTF mode? If so then that lays a diffrent light on things.

[RC Storick]

Robert you asked the question about the kit. The answer is yes the kit was legal (2005 to 2010) until Bill R. passed a new rule. the rules bans fiberglass and painted exterior flying surface kits.
My question to you is the same. In your view does a molded all exterior balsa shell kit(16 pc's) as i have described qualify under your new thinking on BOM.
The kit described above is made of raw balsa exterior shells, the builder has to build all components,Allin and paint. what should i modify to meet your future BOM. Robert any suggestions.
Jose Modesto

It was covered out of the box then as it is now and according the the Offical AMA rules it does not meet them. Everyone has just turned a blind eye. Well eyes are opening.

[jose modesto]

"The BOM rule will be strictly enforced at the 2011 Nat's. Kits/airplanes that have the flying surfaces covered when purchased/acquired do not qualify for BOM.  Gel Coat or primered - painted airplanes ,or solid hard finished surfaces such as molded fiberglass or Carbon Fiber molded surfaces will not be allowed under BOM. Gel Coat is part of an actual type of finish of the flying surfaces, over the covering. On many planes it the finish. Airplanes that are pre-painted with primer also represent a type of finsh over the covering of the flying surfaces"

Robert the ruling above from Bill would actually outlaw the wing panels that Sina is constructing in the photos by the phrase "or solid hard finished such as molded fiberglass or carbon fiber molded surfaces will not be allowed under BOM."
Robert our challenge is how do you get to ban the Yatzenkos as you stated, and not not lump all other molded kits. my intention is to supply builders kits for Nat's competition, in molded balsa as the above reads they are illegal kits.

[RC Storick]

"The BOM rule will be strictly enforced at the 2011 Nats. Kits/airplanes that have the flying surfaces covered when purchased/acquired do not qualify for BOM.  Gel Coat or primered - painted airplanes ,or solid hard finished surfaces such as molded fiberglass or Carbon Fiber molded surfaces will not be allowed under BOM. Gel Coat is part of an actual type of finish of the flying surfaces, over the covering. On many planes it the finish. Airplanes that are pre-painted with primer also represent a type of finsh over the covering of the flying surfaces"

Robert the ruling above from Bill would actually autlaw the wing panels that Sina is constructing in the photos by the phrase "or solid hard finished such as molded fiberglass or carbon fiber molded surfaces will not be allowed under BOM."
Robert our challenge is how do you get to ban the Yatzenkos as you stated, and not not lump all other molded kits. my intention is to supply builders kits for Nat's competition, in molded balsa as the above reads they are illigal kits.

I am working on it

[jim gilmore]

Just to be clear ..the conversation here is about...kits....
If you make your own parts..ie molds ,wings skins you can build and fly it ?

[RC Storick]

Just to be clear ..the conversation here is about...kits....
If you make your own parts..ie molds ,wings skins you can build and fly it ?

Yes! You can build and fly anything you want using any type of construction you want. Molded,carved built up, chiseled, stamped, cut, pressed as long as you are the one doing it!

Maybe the statement was made in the heat of the moment and not thought out well enough to include new ways of doing things. But take this to the bank in 2012 it will be a well thought out rule.

I by no means want to hold back people from builing anything in any way they see fit. I do however have a problem with someone else doing it for them.

[jose modesto]

Robert. the Yatzenko kit shown by Orestes was ruled legal by the event director in 2005(Orestes 2005 advance champion with a wood and dope Brodack Legacy). the model was constructed and entered in competition  in 2006 to six place,2007 and 2008 won the walker cup, in 2009 second place, 2010 3rd in the world.
In the history of the event no model or new building system had ever been presented to the AMA for BOM approval  prior to competition, until Orestes did so in 2005. Robert when the model was flown the model was LEGAL I cant let you say otherwise. Your personal feelings and the actual ruling are at odds.
 Further AMA in 2005 made legal all those professional built models,Quickbuilts and composite wings and fuses that were commercially available.
 Robert the AMA ruling had nothing to do with the Sharks but with the multitude of models with prebuilt parts not constructed  by the pilot.

In order to ban the Shark a very wide net was cast,so now you have to create and interpretation to the interpretation. the Sig mustang would fall under this rule. (fiberglass wing tips flying surface)

Imagine that Orestes moves up from advance  in 2006 with the shark and comes in at 34,38,42 place and no Yatzenko's win advance, would anyone care "NO". its not just about the BOM model is about "winning"
Jose Modesto

[Balsa Butcher]

The event director was wrong in 2005. Glad the rules will be followed in 2011.  

[RC Storick]

The event director was wrong in 2005. Glad the rules will be followed in 2011.  

Yes they will be.

[RC Storick]

Robert. the Yatzenko kit shown by Orestes was ruled legal by the event director in 2005(Orestes 2005 advance champion with a wood and dope Brodack Legacy). the model was constructed and entered in competition  in 2006 to six place,2007 and 2008 won the walker cup, in 2009 second place, 2010 3rd in the world.
In the history of the event no model or new building system had ever been presented to the AMA for BOM approval  prior to competition, until Orestes did so in 2005. Robert when the model was flown the model was LEGAL I cant let you say otherwise. Your personal feelings and the actual ruling are at odds.
 Further AMA in 2005 made legal all those professional built models,Quickbuilts and composite wings and fuses that were commercially available.
 Robert the AMA ruling had nothing to do with the Sharks but with the multitude of models with prebuilt parts not constructed  by the pilot.

In order to ban the Shark a very wide net was cast,so now you have to create and interpretation to the interpretation. the Sig mustang would fall under this rule. (fiberglass wing tips flying surface)

Imagine that Orestes moves up from advance  in 2006 with the shark and comes in at 34,38,42 place and no Yatzenko's win advance, would anyone care "NO". its not just about the BOM model is about "winning"
Jose Modesto

It not about winning its about following the rules unless you cant see by the AMA's own wording. It ain't my set of rules. I didn't write them I just follow them and expect other to do so as well. End of disscussion.

[Clint Ormosen]

The pic in the OP looks like ARF pieces to me. Doesn't even look like a piece of sandpaper would be required to "build" it.

[SteveMoon]

That is a kit. An ARF is Almost Ready-to-Fly. What is shown
in the picture is far from Almost Ready-to-Fly.

Later, Steve

[Brian Massey]

Personally, I like the BOM rule. I know there are good reasons for people liking ARFs and the like, and more power to them. However, if I may draw a somewhat loose analogy . . . I've put on, and been involved with perhaps 25 to 30 car shows. In the show you will have some very well done restorations, and I mean taken apart down to the last bolt. So "Joe" parks with pride his 2 year just completed project, an '87 Fiero. In pulls Fred with his brand new (147 miles on the clock) Solstice, and parks next to him. The Solstice is spotless, and Fred has even taken the time and effort to detail his brand new pride and joy! Who should the trophy go to? I can tell you this, Joe was *issed, and deservedly so.

Bear in mind that Fred has every reason to be proud of his car, just as every modeler has the right to be proud of his/her well done arf. But, I say keep the BOM rule intact. Even though I'll probably never make it back to the Nats, I'm trying hard to better my building skills and improve each plane I build; if for nothing more, just my own personal pride.

And, as has been stated, it is about following the rules. When the time comes, then work on changing the rule.

Just my .02 cents worth.

Brian

[Steve Fitton]

Strictly speaking, the ARF components in the picture do not meet the Nats BOM requirements as published in the rules.  Having said that, it still looks like that would be a cast-iron nightmare to build without some detailed instructions!

[Steve Hines]

Sure looks like a lot more work than I put in to the Sig Mustang wing. Putting in the bell crank and sheeting the was fast. Most of the time was waiting for the glue to set.

[Clint Ormosen]

That is a kit. An ARF is Almost Ready-to-Fly. What is shown
in the picture is far from Almost Ready-to-Fly.

Later, Steve

Sorry Steve, but I don't see how it could be much of a kit if no shaping of any parts is required. The wings are already smooth and primed, tail surfaces are already shaped and smoothed, ect, ect. It's an ARF. Admittedly, it has a few more parts than most ARFs, but it's a far cry from a kit.

[RC Storick]

Your kit as shown with 16 molded unfinished raw wood pieces would be legal. The modeler would have to assemble and align all parts and apply the finish. This in mine and almost everyones eyes would fall under BOM.

The Sig mustang you are talking about is in no way like the picture I have shown as the wing must be sheeted and finished. The picture shown does not need 1 piece of sandpaper or any paint to be ready to fly.

I don't want to bust anyones balls and make them use 1950 technology but it seems that if we cant get a clear ruling we might have to.

Somehing to the effect of all models will be stick ,tissue and dope. But we do want advancement just no bending the rules once written.

This can all be blamed on the flaunting of the 05 ruling one airplane was deemed legal so others saying one person got away with it we all can. Human nature. Oh well

Robert. the Yatzenko kit shown by Orestes was ruled legal by the event director in 2005(Orestes 2005 advance champion with a wood and dope Brodack Legacy). the model was constructed and entered in competition  in 2006 to six place,2007 and 2008 won the walker cup, in 2009 second place, 2010 3rd in the world.
In the history of the event no model or new building system had ever been presented to the AMA for BOM approval  prior to competition, until Orestes did so in 2005. Robert when the model was flown the model was LEGAL I cant let you say otherwise. Your personal feelings and the actual ruling are at odds.
 Further AMA in 2005 made legal all those professional built models,Quickbuilts and composite wings and fuses that were commercially available.
 Robert the AMA ruling had nothing to do with the Sharks but with the multitude of models with prebuilt parts not constructed  by the pilot.

In order to ban the Shark a very wide net was cast,so now you have to create and interpretation to the interpretation. the Sig mustang would fall under this rule. (fiberglass wing tips flying surface)

Imagine that Orestes moves up from advance  in 2006 with the shark and comes in at 34,38,42 place and no Yatzenko's win advance, would anyone care "NO". its not just about the BOM model is about "winning"
Jose Modesto

[Chris McMillin]

The ED didn't "flaunt" the rule, Bob. He made an interpretation. Just like Bill is making one that is more to your liking.
That is all.
BTW, that "paint" looks like primer to me.
Chris...

[Chris McMillin]

While I'm at it,
Making pre-sheeted foam wings illegal is BS. They've been legal since I've been going to the Nats, 1966. Some ED made an interpretation. He was George Aldrich.
Bill's deal will really tick a lot of people off, and then we'll have even fewer people interested. Allowing the creep in kits is natural. They are getting better and stiffer and more in line with the materials of the future.
You balsa bugs remember why there isn't an Adamisin fibreglass and foam kit? Too much prefabrication. Where is that flyer now. F-ing GONE! Archie and the kids dominated F-40 Pylon making their own cf racers. This event is not benefitting  from their expertise anymore.

Are you guys sure you want to go this direction?

Chris...

[john e. holliday]

Well guys/gals go read the AMA rules now.   Seems our illustrious tech director has decided to revert back to the 2004 BOM rules.  Now as I read the original rule and it has never been enforced, all our planes will be illegal.   The word that stands out is "COVERING".   How many know how to make their own covering.   Also remember Balsa is a covering and material.   Do we grow our own trees and process the wood?   I know I am nit picking, but, the way I read the rules for BOM, we have never been in compliance with it from the day I started modeling.   But, go read the newest rule and the read it again.

[Brett Buck]

The ED didn't "flaunt" the rule, Bob. He made an interpretation. Just like Bill is making one that is more to your liking.
That is all.

   TO be entirely clear, the 2005 "interpretation" (now, mercifully, gone) was a mostly a function of the AMA, and was their response to threats of endless protests by a few people - in what was an very charged environment where people had to be escorted off the property and absolutely everyone expected trouble.

     First, they cut off model protests early in the week (probably not in accordance with the rules) and then, as a group effort by a number of people, they made the "interpretation" (and later got it approved by some board charged with such things,something like a year later).

    Almost everyone found the interpretation less-than-ideal. The anti- modeling group said it was so watered down that you might as well have gotten rid of it, the pro-modeling group thought it allowed things like the Yatsenko kits and ARCs (which I believe may have been invented to exploit this loophole) and we all found that unfortunate. I don't fault anyone, or rather, any *pilot* for taking advantage of the new rules (Orestes being the biggest beneficiary among the pilots), but that doesn't mean that the rule was a good one or a good idea, or good for the event.

   Note that as a result of this ruling, the *only* change that almost anyone will see is that they don't get appearance points for their ARC anymore. Essentially a moot point for local contests. For the people who might have otherwise entered Yatsenko kits, high0end ARCs, etc, at the NATs, need to find something else because it seem to be pretty unequivocally illegal now.

     Brett

[Brett Buck]

Well guys/gals go read the AMA rules now.   Seems our illustrious tech director has decided to revert back to the 2004 BOM rules.  Now as I read the original rule and it has never been enforced, all our planes will be illegal.   The word that stands out is "COVERING".   How many know how to make their own covering.   Also remember Balsa is a covering and material.   Do we grow our own trees and process the wood?   I know I am nit picking, but, the way I read the rules for BOM, we have never been in compliance with it from the day I started modeling. 

   That's not nit-picking, it's just wrong. You can certainly torture the interpretation until you come up with any crazy result, but that doesn't really help anything. It means you have to, among other things, cover your own airplane, which is what almost everyone already does. It doesn't mean you have to make your own covering.

     Brett

[Larry Fernandez]

I dont know why I am bothering to answer this question as Mr. Storick will probably delete my post as he usually does.

The question is " Is this a legal kit?"

Since I dont make the rules, my say does not much matter. However, since I have been building kits of all sorts for most of my life, Plastic model plane kits, plastic model car kits, wood plane kits, car kits and fullsize plane kits, (RV-4) Heathkit Stereos(remember those)and on and on.

My answer is yes, this is without question a kit.
It still needs to be built and finished.

I hope one day I wake up and understand what the big deal is here.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

[John Stiles]

I dont know why I am bothering to answer this question as Mr. Storich will probably delete my post as he usually does.

The question is " Is this a legal kit?"

Since I dont make the rules, my say does not much matter. However, since I have been building kits of all sorts for most of my life, Plastic model plane kits, plastic model car kits, wood plane kits, car kits and fullsize plane kits, (RV-4) Heathkit Stereos(remember those)and on and on.

My answer is yes, this is without question a kit.
It still needs to be built and finished.
 
I hope one day I wake up and understand what the big deal is here.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

AAAAAmen!