Author Topic: Looking into a BOM solution (Read 13671 times)

RC Storick · « **on:** March 01, 2011, 04:46:53 PM »

Seeing as it is a land slide to keep it lets look into a solution. I have added a pole with choices on how things should change. Please vote as your reps do read this and will get a idea on where we stand.

If another option write in your suggestion

Clint Ormosen · « **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2011, 02:35:03 AM »

Hmmm...... Not sure how to answer this poll because there is no "none of the above" option.

(Edit) I see Robert has added the "none of the above" option. I have now voted same.

M Spencer · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2011, 03:02:26 AM »

As a 'forigner' who wouldnt have flown six planes he didnt build , ands had the (miss-?) fortune to build about a hundred and fifty
Id have thought that the ' appearance points ' bit would have it so that that evens things out . No build , No points.

Although anything that encourages entrants obviously is perhaps healthy .

Personaly I cant help mirth and or derision at someone thinking 'they did it ' at world champs level , if they indeed had not built the thing .

Perhaps a ' pilots ' and a constructors, actually ' constructor or designer ' Champion as in motorsport.Combined for Overall Champ .

per designer , say 10 Wewage (Design) entries , their points would go to 'that camp' ,
maybe spice things up a bit and create some HEALTHY intrest / rivalry .

Whats youre best machine ? as per Ferrari , " The Next One ! "

Alex Becerril · « **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:14:51 AM »

Allow any control line model of legal size and engine in compliance with lines lenght, pull test, etc. to fly
AP only to those who build the model from a flat box or from scratch, Pre-built and molded components are ok for AP. Isn't easy?

John Leidle · « **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:28:18 AM »

I find myself in agreement with Clint.
John

wwwarbird · « **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2011, 08:06:48 AM »

What happened to the previous replies to this post from yesterday?

RC Storick · « **Reply #6 on:** March 02, 2011, 08:13:33 AM »

I probably dumped them all when sleepy to me to can it.

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:05:16 AM »

Quote from: wwwarbird on March 02, 2011, 08:06:48 AM

What happened to the previous replies to this post from yesterday?

What a great forum we have here.

That is as long as you agree with the moderator.
If not, you get deleted.

Oops I probably should not have said that, Now I'll get deleted again.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

john e. holliday · « **Reply #8 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:06:55 AM »

Junior, Senior and Open only events at the NATS that actually require BOM rule. The PAMPA Skill classes let all fly with no appearance points for the plane that is not BOM. I too thought I had posted on this. But, I voted.

RC Storick · « **Reply #9 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:13:10 AM »

Quote from: Larry Fernandez on March 02, 2011, 09:05:16 AM

What a great forum we have here.

That is as long as you agree with the moderator.
If not, you get deleted.

Oops I probably should not have said that, Now I'll get deleted again.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

As long as I agree with you its ok right? Please

jose modesto · « **Reply #10 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:53:45 AM »

Robert if it's a land slide nothing is broken LEAVE IT ALONE.
The greatest contest with the best flyer's,the most successfull NAT'S competition and we are trying to fix it?
except for Bill's interpretation nothing was wrong with BOM at Nat's
Jose Modesto

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #11 on:** March 02, 2011, 10:00:27 AM »

Quote from: Robert Storick on March 02, 2011, 09:13:10 AM

As long as I agree with you its ok right? Please

You can disagree with me all you want. That how ideas are exchanged ( at least that's what they taught me in debate class.)
But if I don't agree with you, I don't have the means of deleting your post the way you do mine.

This becomes a one sided debate if you ask me.( Oh crap, Larry makes a good point, I had better delete it before any one sees it.)

Larry Fernandez, Buttafucco Stunt Team

RandySmith · « **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2011, 11:23:20 AM »

Quote from: jose modesto on March 02, 2011, 09:53:45 AM

Robert if it's a land slide nothing is broken LEAVE IT ALONE.
The greatest contest with the best flyer's,the most successfull NAT'S competition and we are trying to fix it?
except for Bill's interpretation nothing was wrong with BOM at Nat's
Jose Modesto

Jose There was nothing wrong with what BILL did, Bill Rich was charged with running a fair NATs to everyone, that meant following the RULES...It did not and does not matter about the mistakes of the past, You and him can disagree about "what should be" or what happened in past NATs. That is NOT his job, His job was to run the NATs by the rules. He does not need personal attacks on him for doing .. or trying to do what he was asked to do.
It does not matter what You or ME think about the BOM and what should be kept or dumped. NOT his job to go by the PAST, just enforcing the rules was all Bill was trying to do. Bill concern is with the RULES that ARE in EFFECT for the NATs 2011, That is the ONLY year he is charged with running a FAIR contest for all.

Most of The rules are Clear to anyone who wants to read them about most things: If you wanna be a "rules lawyer" and try to read things into this that are not there, or define what definitions are not in normal dictionaries, or argue the past when these rules were NOT in effect, then that is a total waste of time, and just a diversion

The AMA rules are below

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,
This is a very clear statement, it means what it says, it is NOT hard to understand this

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).
This means that covered or finished surfaces are not allowed, covered raw/unfinshed ones are OK

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).
Again this is easy to understand, prebuilt , or pre covered models are not allowed
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.
Again easy to understand, having others build your model under the criteria above will not meet the BOM

Many parts of the BOM rules are perfectly clear, other parts are either not clear or not in sync with the rest of it....Can this be written better? YES, that needs to be done, or dumped, something has got to happen with this, Also AMA not letting the ED of the event enforce the rules is breaking the very first paragraph of their own rules!!! Use them or dump them

And again it does not matter, who has done what in the past, or what you and I think about the BOM or what we want to happen to it. The problem is with the AMA, NOT with BILL RICH, I hope this will at least get the Stunt Flyers, Contest board, and especially AMA motivated to FIX this problem that is causing so much problems for us one way or another.

Regards
Randy

jose modesto · « **Reply #13 on:** March 02, 2011, 11:52:07 AM »

Randy you can have an opinion as I can have one. We respectably disagree. My comment only refers to Bill's interpretation not the written BOM.
Talking about BOM lawyers i think the shoe fits.
I don't have any issues with Bill's interpretation with gel coat,painted surface, molded prime surfaces. My challenge is in equating all surfaces that have epoxy and glass as THE FINISH . Just look at Windy he covers molded surface with paper and dope and does a traditional finish he has applied the covering(FINISH)
Look at the photo attached bottom shell legal top shell illegal but in both you have to build the entire wing in a lost foam jig. The rule over reches What about limited government intervention.
Jose Modesto

RandySmith · « **Reply #14 on:** March 02, 2011, 12:15:20 PM »

Quote from: jose modesto on March 02, 2011, 11:52:07 AM

Randy you can have an opinion as I can have one. We respectably disagree. My comment only refers to Bill's interpretation not the written BOM.
Talking about BOM lawyers i think the shoe fits.
Jose Modesto

Hi Jose
Please read my posts again, any or all of them..
No where can you show me where I said you can't, should not, or insinuated that your opinion didn;t matter. You can have any opinion you want, please show me where I said anything about opinions of yours... My post was NOT about my or your opinion, It was about the unfounded attacks on Bill Rich trying to Enforce the rules to make a fair contest for everyone. When Bill took the job, that was the task he was charged with.
You are welcome to any opinions that you want, I hope that is always the case, However you are not welcome to make up your own facts.
You and I may agree on many things about the BOM needs changing of dumping, But trying to insinuate that Bill Rich is making up his own rules is quite a differant thing, He is not

Bill statement was about the BOM and what it says and means.

Jose since you are accusing me of "rule lawering and telling people things that are not true"please show me where I took the BOM in my post and did any "rule lawyering" by making it say something that is does not, I did nothing of the sort.

And Again, It does not matter that I, or anyone else, may think ARFs should fly, or not, at the NATs,or RTFs should fly at the NATs. ANY reasonable person can read the BOM rules and determine that they are NOT legal to fly...

Randy

jose modesto · « **Reply #15 on:** March 02, 2011, 01:03:32 PM »

Randy I only used your words about "rules lawyers" as you used the phrase listed in quotes.
Please read my revised statement. my discussion is about the parts that i show in photos. the rule over reaches. in wanting to band the sharks you also eliminate a model that the pilot Must really build. My models far exceed the completely built ARC that AMA and Bill's rule allow.
William Demauro is building a completely molded SV22 its coming out really nice i will send you photos. I have some questions about leadout place meant as the model is electric and was wondering if leadouts have to be 1/8" dellow wing tip centerline.
Jose Modesto

John Stiles · « **Reply #16 on:** March 02, 2011, 01:15:02 PM »

I have no dog in this hunt, but the way I see it, all components are pre-made, even the balsa boards. Silk, dope, tires, hinges, and hey...never seen the modeler whom built his own engine. Arfs require a fairly experienced modeler to complete. How would you know indeed, if a entrant actually built his/her own model, beyond a reasonable doubt? Lie detector test? Come on....we need to encourage the sport. By those means we encourage the Hobby Shops and part suppliers. These days see many HS's closing their doors or going out of buisiness. The long view in my opinion should be to loosen up on the participents in all events, it's not like the "World Cup" or anything. TJMHO

RandySmith · « **Reply #17 on:** March 02, 2011, 01:42:09 PM »

Quote from: jose modesto on March 02, 2011, 01:03:32 PM

Randy I only used your words about "rules lawyers" as you used the phrase listed in quotes.
Please read my revised statement. my discussion is about the parts that i show in photos. the rule over reaches. in wanting to band the sharks you also eliminate a model that the pilot Must really build. My models far exceed the completely built ARC that AMA and Bill's rule allow.
William Demauro is building a completely molded SV22 its coming out really nice i will send you photos. I have some questions about leadout place meant as the model is electric and was wondering if leadouts have to be 1/8" dellow wing tip centerline.
Jose Modesto

Hi Jose

Since you edited. added, changed your post I will address the changes, Bill Rich did nothing to disqualify anyone from molding parts, Bill Rich did nothing to make any part that the modeler molds illegal.
Everything a modeler molds himself is OK with the BOM.

As Far as the parts you show, If you made them, they are perfectly OK with the BOM to use in your plane. Bill Rich did not say otherwise.

Again is does not matter that the AMA made premade covered or finished molded parts non BOM compliant. Bill Rich did not do that AMA did.

AMA also made buying premade covered or finished airplanes Illegal for Jr. Sr. Open, BILL RICH did NOT.

You know that I will always be happy to help you with about anything. The centerline of the tips vs. Lead Out position would be inline with an electric ship that does not have a pipe/header hanging below, so move the leadouts to the center of the tip.

As far as updating the BOM to meet current construction techniques, That would be something that BILL RICH has zero control over. that is up to the U.S. Stunt flyers, AMA, and the Contest Board

Regards
Randy

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #18 on:** March 02, 2011, 01:49:47 PM »

Just how "flat" is a box?? Truly flat, and it has zero volume. Only slightly "flat" and it could hold some 3" wide balsa sheets. "Kinda flat", and it could have a pre-built wing. "Sorta flat" could hold the pre-built wing and a built-up fuselage- with covering and paint.

Describing the container is no way to categorize an ARF, or a kit, for that matter.

F.C.

RandySmith · « **Reply #19 on:** March 02, 2011, 02:04:24 PM »

"I don't have any issues with Bill's interpretation with gel coat,painted surface, molded prime surfaces. My challenge is in equating all surfaces that have epoxy and glass as THE FINISH . Just look at Windy he covers molded surface with paper and dope and does a traditional finish he has applied the covering(FINISH)"

Jose You can scuff and paint a fully built and finished ARF, that does not make it legal

Jose you can take a Shark that comes white, fly it "as is" that is not BOM legal. I think I know a guy who just put black numbers on his "unfinished" Shark and flew it that way...NOT BOM legal , according to the AMA.

I can buy a Molded plane from Windy or you , or a Shark, or others..cover them with tissue and dope and it still will NOT pass the BOM. Bill made no "interpretation" that changes that in the AMAs BOM statement

Regards
Randy

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #20 on:** March 02, 2011, 02:15:13 PM »

The long view in my opinion should be to loosen up on the participents in all events, it's not like the "World Cup" or anything. TJMHO

[/quote]

WHAT IS TO BE LOOSENED UP?

ANY PARTICIPENT CAN FLY ANYTHING HE WANTS!!!!

IT IS ONLY AT THE NATS, IN THE OPEN CLASS THAT YOU ARE SUBJECTED TO BOM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF YOU DONT FLY OPEN AT THE NATS THIS IS ALL A MOOT POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CHRIST, HOW LONG WILL WE BEAT THIS POOR DEAD HORSE?

??

Larry ("Sick of BOM Discussion") Fernandez

RandySmith · « **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2011, 03:14:45 PM »

Quote from: Larry Fernandez on March 02, 2011, 02:15:13 PM

The long view in my opinion should be to loosen up on the participents in all events, it's not like the "World Cup" or anything. TJMHO

WHAT IS TO BE LOOSENED UP?
ANY PARTICIPENT CAN FLY ANYTHING HE WANTS!!!!

IT IS ONLY AT THE NATS, IN THE OPEN CLASS THAT YOU ARE SUBJECTED TO BOM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF YOU DONT FLY OPEN AT THE NATS THIS IS ALL A MOOT POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CHRIST, HOW LONG WILL WE BEAT THIS POOR DEAD HORSE???

Larry ("Sick of BOM Discussion") Fernandez

Hi Larry

Your my Buddy and I like you much..and your brother.. BUT you can't tell me I cannot talk about the BOM, if you are sick of it, don't read the threads
the BOM needs to be FIXED and the AMA needs to Help. it can be much better than it is now. This needs to be done by US, so we can put and end to the bickering and fighting going on.
Hopefully this may happen now, it is just ashamed that it is dragging on for so many years

I will also say that this thread and others like it plus the polls, would maybe ,be better off in the Rules section and for AMA members only

This is a thread about looking for ways to help, maybe soon it will be all over :-)

Regards
Randy

John Leidle · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2011, 03:22:03 PM »

If a few people want to write a few definitions & enforce the BOM rule it will work , But a blind man can see the way it's written people can & do misintertpet.
John

RandySmith · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2011, 03:42:13 PM »

Quote from: John Leidle on March 02, 2011, 03:22:03 PM

If a few people want to write a few definitions & enforce the BOM rule it will work , But a blind man can see the way it's written people can & do misintertpet.
John

Hi John

The only ones that count are the AMA and the NATs ED so far as the rules go. They are the only ones that can enforce anything

Regards
Randy

Allan Perret · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2011, 04:42:33 PM »

I voted "none of the above" because I dont understand the need or reason for the question.
You have a set of rules, those that comply with the rules get to compete.
No reason to figure out ways to include those that don't comply.

John Stiles · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2011, 04:49:32 PM »

Quote from: Larry Fernandez on March 02, 2011, 02:15:13 PM

The long view in my opinion should be to loosen up on the participents in all events, it's not like the "World Cup" or anything. TJMHO

WHAT IS TO BE LOOSENED UP?
ANY PARTICIPENT CAN FLY ANYTHING HE WANTS!!!!

IT IS ONLY AT THE NATS, IN THE OPEN CLASS THAT YOU ARE SUBJECTED TO BOM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF YOU DONT FLY OPEN AT THE NATS THIS IS ALL A MOOT POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CHRIST, HOW LONG WILL WE BEAT THIS POOR DEAD HORSE???

Larry ("Sick of BOM Discussion") Fernandez

Hey, all I did was give an opinion.....nothing to start yelling about. I won't beat a live horse, and i have 2....if you don't want my opinion to get a cross section of views, don't ask for it. Or better yet, maybe you'd rather I leave and not come back. No sweat of my carcass!

wwwarbird · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:16:29 PM »

Quote from: wwwarbird on March 02, 2011, 08:06:48 AM

What happened to the previous replies to this post from yesterday?

Thanks for confirming my long standing hunch, and with it letting us know that some of our opinions and suggestions apparently don't matter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty obvious the above deletions were no mistake. Unless you're a so-called or self-proclaimed "name" in Stunt competition, your suggestions or opinions mean nothing to those people. Here, sadly, it has been proven beyond a doubt once again.

This whole BOM debate really has become a joke anyway, it just needs to stop.

Build airplanes, go fly, make friends, have fun. That's what it needs to be about.

John Leidle · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:00:12 PM »

Hi Randy,
Thanks for the clarification but I know people on committees that I can't remember the name of are trying to get ruleings on different matters. So if these wise men would sit together and do as I suggest & petition the AMA with their ideas it could happen.
John

Bill Little · « **Reply #28 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:25:22 PM »

Oh well, I shouldn't........

The rule is clear as it is. The rule is CLEAR as it is already written.

Seems there is a problem understanding that what YOU do to YOUR model is "perfectly legal" as long as you are the one doing it.

If you get parts from someone else, and they have any kind of a "finish" or "covering" on them, it isn't legal for you to fly a model with those parts.

That is not twisting anything or reading anything extra into the rule. That is how it is written now.

Bill

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #29 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:56:52 PM »

Quote from: RandySmith on March 02, 2011, 03:14:45 PM

Hi Larry

Your my Buddy and I like you much..and your brother.. BUT you can't tell me I cannot talk about the BOM, if you are sick of it, don't read the threads
the BOM needs to be FIXED and the AMA needs to Help. it can be much better than it is now. This needs to be done by US, so we can put and end to the bickering and fighting going on.
Hopefully this may happen now, it is just ashamed that it is dragging on for so many years

I will also say that this thread and others like it plus the polls, would maybe ,be better off in the Rules section and for AMA members only

This is a thread about looking for ways to help, maybe soon it will be all over :-)

Regards
Randy

Hi Randy, I really do see your point.
Its just that we have been rehashing this BOM issue since I started flying over ten years ago
I have flown many, many contests here on the left coast, and I have never heard of any complaints or protests
I hope that those like you, with the passion for building and flying, will sort this out soon so we can put it to rest.
But I also know that you can never please all of the people all of the time, so no matter what is done, we will always have people sniveling and complaining about this rule and we will be reading about it on these forums forever.
Maybe I see things in a simple, black and white sense,
Build your plane and fly it with your appearance points.
Or don't build your plane and fly it without appearance points.
If someone says they built their plane then their word is good enough.
Around here, everyone knows who is building what, so there are no surprises. I know many who
are flying hand me downs or ARF's and they always let the officials know.

Good luck to those sorting it out.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

John Leidle · « **Reply #30 on:** March 02, 2011, 11:48:31 PM »

Bill, I disagree with you that it is written clearly.
John

Bill Little · « **Reply #31 on:** March 03, 2011, 12:24:20 AM »

Quote from: John Leidle on March 02, 2011, 11:48:31 PM

Bill, I disagree with you that it is written clearly.
John

No problem, John.

Tell me about what it is that you don't see as clear. Maybe at least the two of us will get something worked out between us in that area!

I used to think it needed a lot of defining, but breaking it down into the major parts, I have changed my mind.

Thanks!
Bill

John Leidle · « **Reply #32 on:** March 03, 2011, 09:18:12 AM »

Ok Bill, your reading comprehention might be better than mine,,, I didnt go to Law School @ Northwestern. This might take me a good while.
John

Bill Little · « **Reply #33 on:** March 03, 2011, 09:24:13 AM »

Quote from: John Leidle on March 03, 2011, 09:18:12 AM

Ok Bill, your reading comprehention might be better than mine,,, I didnt go to Law School @ Northwestern. This might take me a good while.
John

I'm not looking to argue with you, seriously.

Bill

jose modesto · « **Reply #34 on:** March 03, 2011, 10:51:02 AM »

Randy thanks for the SV22 info. We are building 2 composite SV22 and don't want to damage a great flying model
Now Randy. The true story of that model (SHARK). For all you guys that were at the 2007 Team Trials will remember me bringing the model
to the pavilion and presenting model for review and BOM approval for the following Nat's Many of you handled the parts. The model required the installation of take apart hardware and alignment of wings and stab in 3 axis. The green light was given to the model(MODEL IN WHITE PRIMER) Just to be clear the model was presented and approved as Nat's BOM for 2008
The model in question was first finished in duplicolor spray cans Lacquer (2009)the clear was sprayed out of spray can in the parking lot at the Nat's hours before appearance judging, clear never hardened and the oil residue made it sticky. the reason for second finish 2010. The intended model for 2009 Nat's was the Shrike, a building error in the bellcranck to flap pushrod prevented the model from being consistent at all pullouts.(dint glue the ball link properly into carbon fiber tube and it was sliding when i gave controls)

That particular model was stripped of all finish then finished in Brodack white, if you guys paid attention you would of seen the three places(turtleneck) were I went through the finish and the silver base came through. Further the nose of fuse(take apart) is painted in a different white (auto paint) You would have also noticed the different whites. The top clear was auto 2 part first time for me, the bottom was never sanded or rubbed out 14 appearance points
a couple of photos attached
Photo#1 Shark at 2009 Nat's fully painted in Brodack white,Dupli color spray can and Brodack ms Ashley red on fuse. This is model that was clear coated 2 hours prior to appearance judging with duplicolor spray can clear.
Photo #2 Repainted model after completely striping of ALL FINISH 2010 Nat's Look at the turtle deck in front of fin you can see the silver were i went through to silver (Yatzenko only use white auto primer)
Photo#3 stripped wing at take apart location.

Jose Modesto

Alex Becerril · « **Reply #35 on:** March 03, 2011, 02:48:06 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on March 02, 2011, 09:25:22 PM

Oh well, I shouldn't........

The rule is clear as it is. The rule is CLEAR as it is already written.

Seems there is a problem understanding that what YOU do to YOUR model is "perfectly legal" as long as you are the one doing it.

If you get parts from someone else, and they have any kind of a "finish" or "covering" on them, it isn't legal for you to fly a model with those parts.

That is not twisting anything or reading anything extra into the rule. That is how it is written now.

Bill

Hi
What about a RAW WOOD SHARK KIT; LEGAl OR NOT?

RC Storick · « **Reply #36 on:** March 03, 2011, 03:00:43 PM »

Quote from: Alex Becerril on March 03, 2011, 02:48:06 PM

Hi
What about a RAW WOOD SHARK KIT; Legal OR NOT?

As long as its not covered and needs to be fully assembled by the flier (and by assembled I don't mean screwed together) All shells and wing quarters must be glued and jigged by modeler. Then covered and painted I think (don't quote me) that would be OK.

And good documentation would be helpful. Just as you can not take a ARF and recover it and it be legal. Same as a RTF refinished.

Bill Little · « **Reply #37 on:** March 03, 2011, 03:51:50 PM »

Quote from: Alex Becerril on March 03, 2011, 02:48:06 PM

Hi
What about a RAW WOOD SHARK KIT; LEGAl OR NOT?

HI Alex,

I do not know what the raw wood Shark kit would have for parts, etc.. But the rule says "not finished or covered". Raw wood is not finished or covered. The rule does not state exactly how many parts the model must contain, but it cannot be pre-assembled as a whole plane.

Parts with "Pre-finished surfaces" that you buy from someone else is not legal. If you mold your own parts, like Jose, Windy, Dave Midgley, and others, then you're good to go. But, you cannot BUY those parts and use them unless the outer surface of the part is in a "raw state".

That is why I have been saying the rule is clear........ if you "make" it, it's legal. If you BUY it with anything at all resembling "pre-finished or covered" parts, it ain't. That includes primered or gel coated parts.

Built up raw wood wings and raw sheeted foam wings are legal. Just nothing applied to the balsa (or whatever wood used) that is considered a "finish". Primer or gel cost is a "finish".

Pretty simple, actually.

Bill

jose modesto · « **Reply #38 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:08:08 PM »

Robert the Kit can be made as an ARC with pilot assembling completed components. It DOES NOT have to be in individual shells. AMA BOM is clear on ARC component kit. The assembly of individual shells is not required. 1.5+ hours of skilled and COMPLETE FINISH is all that's required to meet AMA BOM.
Traditional BOM as you believe will require individual shells and full construction. Current BOM allows Full components built by others and some assembly and paint by pilot. The above is not in dispute.
Jose Modesto

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #39 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:31:34 PM »

BOM is not only not enforceable, it's not even definable.. Apparently!

I'm very confused as to why Windy's molded shell design isn't completely legal. It's simply another advanced method of building a wing, clearly the product of a lot of effort, expense and fine craftsmanship. (It's inspired.)

Splitting hairs about this subject is what makes it so frustrating. I think the answer may be simply to build away and ignore petty notions - after all, if you are the BUILDER OF THE MODEL, what's the problem? Who's getting skinned? (pun intended..) Nothing prevents any other modeler from doing similar. No one seems to have any problems with precut foam wings, even the pre-sheeted ones, which have been around for decades. (Maybe it's legalized by simply not saying much about it?)

L.

"Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand." -Mark Twain

RC Storick · « **Reply #40 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:39:55 PM »

Quote from: jose modesto on March 03, 2011, 06:08:08 PM

Robert the Kit can be made as an ARC with pilot assembling completed components. It DOES NOT have to be in individual shells. AMA BOM is clear on ARC component kit. The assembly of individual shells is not required. 1.5+ hours of skilled and COMPLETE FINISH is all that's required to meet AMA BOM.
Traditional BOM as you believe will require individual shells and full construction. Current BOM allows Full components built by others and some assembly and paint by pilot. The above is not in dispute.
Jose Modesto

If a shark comes to you unfinished are you disputing that it could not be screwed together and flown un finshed?(even tho no one would do it,still could be done) Screwing the 5 components together does not consitute building the model. That is not splitting hairs. All the planes you have shown, All the planes that windy builds CF covered are planes that meet the builder of the model. Why because you built them. How hard is that? What does not meet the rule is if you sell a complete plane that just needs to be painted. Its not assembler of the 5 components and painter of the model.

RandySmith · « **Reply #41 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:40:13 PM »

Quote from: Larry Cunningham on March 03, 2011, 06:31:34 PM

BOM is not only not enforceable, it's not even definable.. Apparently!

I'm very confused as to why Windy's molded shell design isn't completely legal. It's simply another advanced method of building a wing, clearly the product of a lot of effort, expense and fine craftsmanship. (It's inspired.)

Splitting hairs about this subject is what makes it so frustrating. I think the answer may be simply to build away and ignore petty notions - after all, if you are the BUILDER OF THE MODEL, what's the problem? Who's getting skinned? (pun intended..) Nothing prevents any other modeler from doing similar. No one seems to have any problems with precut foam wings, even the pre-sheeted ones, which have been around for decades. (Maybe it's legalized by simply not saying much about it?)

L.

"Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand." -Mark Twain

Hi Larry

There is nothing that is not legal about molding your plane parts...nothing...never has been against the BOM rules to mold your own plane or parts.
That is perfectly OK with AMA.

I hope your doing better :-)

Regards
Randy

John Leidle · « **Reply #42 on:** March 03, 2011, 08:54:07 PM »

Hi Bill,
I know your intend is not to argue with me or anyone. The thing is ,I am slow moving here so for me to open the rule book & read the info might take a while,
Talk later buddy, john

wwwarbird · « **Reply #43 on:** March 03, 2011, 10:32:57 PM »

I think there should just be a PPV cage match at the 2011 NATS to settle it once and for all. The guy with the most glue and dope will win. Then later, there can be a lengthy debate and large court battle over whether the undisputed winner should be accused of "doping" or not. Or maybe it would be whether he brought his own dope or not, or if he mixed it himself, or watched it dry himself, or...

Nobody's gonna "win" here guys, get over it.

jose modesto · « **Reply #44 on:** March 04, 2011, 05:41:57 AM »

Mr. Cunningham. The BOM discussion is what can be supplied by manufacturers. Randy is correct in that an individual can build anything and in anyway he wants as long as its safe.
BOM has been evolving for the last 44 years. The approval of new technologies has always been done by first violating the rule. Then the rest of the contestants follow along the rule breaker, creating a new fact on the ground. These mass violations of BOM create a new fact never reflected in the AMA BOM law this is were we are today. In 2005 AMA amended the BOM rule to reflect the current state of CLPA.
Foam wings,component kits,ARC,Professional built wings,composite models etc. All items listed were violations of BOM until the majority accepted them as BOM compliant.
The challenge is that the written (AMA) rule was never amended, giving the opportunity to some if they ban together to say that a new technology is against the written AMA BOM.
Today the BOM discussions centers again on a new technology Molded Planes. The biggest difference in this technology is the cost which makes it exclusive and not widely available to most. This new technology makes finishing easier,planes repeatable, Can replace a part that are damaged as models are plug in take apart, by being a Glass/wood/glass matrix models are fuel proof and can last for a long time.ETC.added a couple of photos for Derek take a look at take apart system any comment as you have built similar
photo#1 Sina's take apart lost foam wing jig composite shell construction with Walter Umland laser cut ribs
Photo#2 close up prior to gluing
Jose Modesto

Derek Barry · « **Reply #45 on:** March 04, 2011, 06:38:56 AM »

Quote from: jose modesto on March 04, 2011, 05:41:57 AM

Mr. Cunningham. The BOM discussion is what can be supplied by manufacturers. Randy is correct in that an individual can build anything and in anyway he wants as long as its safe.
BOM has been evolving for the last 44 years. The approval of new technologies has always been done by first violating the rule. Then the rest of the contestants follow along the rule breaker, creating a new fact on the ground. These mass violations of BOM create a new fact never reflected in the AMA BOM law this is were we are today. In 2005 AMA amended the BOM rule to reflect the current state of CLPA.
Foam wings,component kits,ARC,Professional built wings,composite models etc. All items listed were violations of BOM until the majority accepted them as BOM compliant.
The challenge is that the written (AMA) rule was never amended, giving the opportunity to some if they ban together to say that a new technology is against the written AMA BOM.
Today the BOM discussions centers again on a new technology Molded Planes. The biggest difference in this technology is the cost which makes it exclusive and not widely available to most. This new technology makes finishing easier,planes repeatable, Can replace a part that are damaged as models are plug in take apart, by being a Glass/wood/glass matrix models are fuel proof and can last for a long time.ETC.
Jose Modesto

WOW! cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat until you beat everyone into submission. That is the rule change process?

Also, building a take apart (out of balsa) still allows parts to be replaced.

Chuck Feldman · « **Reply #46 on:** March 04, 2011, 06:41:33 AM »

On and on. The ball keeps rolling on. Someday (soon) the ball will reach the valley and roll to a stop. But then some fool will come along and kick the ball. Then the ball is rolling again. Then someone else will see the ball rolling and just before it stops someone else will kick it. Then another maybe just to keep it rolling. So how long should we kick the ball? When the ball is worn out will we get another one to kick around? Doesn't seem like the ball ever gets lost. If it did would we go hunt for it. What if the ball fell down a mine shaft? Would someone go get it. Who built the ball? Who cares? I elected to let anything fly.
Hmm it turns out that that is the second highest on the poll by just a whisker. It is so windy down here in south Florida that we are not flying. It is supposed to stay windy for the rest of the week. But the sun is out and the temperatures are nice. Good blue sky and puffy clouds. There are lots of tourists here from the north. They mostly like the weather. The golfers and fishermen aren't real happy with the wind but they put up with it. Did you notice that the PGA has the Honda Classice playing down in West Palm Beach. Yesterday Jack Nicklaus was partnered with Tim Tebow. Tebow is very popular here so he and Jack had lots of attention yesterday. The NFL is in a dilemma about there contract. I bet they settle it before we settle the BOM. Hey they are working on a real problem. They are not arguing over who built the football. But it doesn't matter until they get to the super bowl. Then the BOF rule comes into play. I bet you didn't know that did you? LOL

jose modesto · « **Reply #47 on:** March 04, 2011, 07:19:21 AM »

Derek. Its the history of the event. If you don't like the history i cant help you, but the history of BOM changes are fact NOT fiction.
A foam wing in 1968 was not part of an average kit,it was not built by the pilot,it was not presented to AMA for inclusion as a BOM acceptable alternative building method.
The contestants made it BOM by changing the facts on the ground. More and more guys realised that Foam wings had an advantage over what was available in kits and began to use them. At no time did anyone petition AMA to include Foam components, by their use the rule was changed.
if you want to call that "cheating" that's your word. I call it disorganise progress.
The above has been the acceptable way to introduce new technologies into the CLPA event.
sheeted foam components,ARC, Professional built components, Quick built kits,molded models ETC. NONE initially BOM legal
I understand that the history goes against your movie plot,But the History of the CLPA event is not in dispute.
Did the first guy to use new technology "cheat" NO they understood how the event could change and proceded to change it.
The most influential person in creating new technology in the CLPA event is BOB HUNT 1) TRIPPLE CORED FOAM WINGS 2) LF built up Wing Jig
To the point that his fully sheeted,wings, flaps, stab elevators became BOM legal (1970's) If you read the rule of the time (1970's)there is no way that they were legal. pilots change the facts on the ground and agreed among themselves that this method was alright by them. That's how rules in CLPA are changed. FAct's,FACT's,Facts Fact's
Jose Modesto

Derek Barry · « **Reply #48 on:** March 04, 2011, 07:59:38 AM »

Quote from: jose modesto on March 04, 2011, 07:19:21 AM

(1970's)there is no way that they were legal. pilots change the facts on the ground and agreed among themselves that this method was alright by them. That's how rules in CLPA are changed. FAct's,FACT's,Facts Fact's
Jose Modesto

Not so many agreeing with the sharks. Not enough to win by overwhelming landslide like the foam wing I think...

I am not going to get back into this with you Jose, We will see what happens at the NATS.

jose modesto · « **Reply #49 on:** March 04, 2011, 09:06:07 AM »

So Derek your point is that AMA BOM can be violated as long as the majority agrees. The first to use the technology is against the BOM.That is my point in how the AMA BOM has been changed through out CLPA history. I'm glad you finally understand and agree with me. Derek that was not so painfull to admit.
Did you take a look at take apart system any input,Advise. Since yours failed at worlds I'm looking for your knowledge on were its weak and what we should reinforce.
The irony of this discussion is that the Sharks ARE THE ONLY NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ITS USE IN COMPETITION. I guess we should of followed to tried and true tradition of CLPA of just using the new technology and changing the facts on the ground.
Photo #1 TA system glued in wing panel
Photo #2 completed wing panels prior to Closing top shell
Photo #3 same wing panels with cutouts to convert to built up wing.
The wing shown above is illegal under the new interpretation of BOM all though the pilot has to build it. Kit= four shell,laser cut ribs,4ea 3/16"x3/16" wood spars 4 each 1/8"x1/8" spars, shear webs and lost foam cradles. A complete ARC is legal and this kit wing is NOT this is my narrow dispute with the new BOM interpretation.You can also cut out solid panels and build it as a built up wing Photo attached.
Derek really asking for input as you have done this before
Jose Modesto