stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Shorts,David on August 21, 2021, 01:08:20 AM
-
I drank caffeine tonight, so here goes. I don't want to say anything negative about most people, but I will say some positive things. And I don't want this to discourage anybody, because there's nothing wrong with arfs and rtfs at all and many of us have been grateful for them at times. But...
There used to be a time I bought arfs and planes built by others. I loved flying and had no interest in how planes were built. In fact, I thought building from a kit, let alone scratch building, was insane.
For me, the joy of flying a plane is really about fifty percent of the joy of modeling. Well, that's pretty good, but if I didn't build it, it drops to about twenty five percent. After all, I'm just reeping the fruit of someone else's work. It's like karaoke. Sure, it's fun and all, but performing with a band that practiced, is live, and maybe even wrote the tune just destroys singing karaoke for me.
The 100 percent joy comes from building, maybe even designing, then flying and working on something I built. Now I've unlocked even more joy.
I have a few friends into jeeps. They will tell you, real jeeps aren't bought, they're built. It unlocks more joy
Here's another thought. If I build and fly a strega, if I win. Windy can share in part of my success. But if I actually fly Windy's plane, who really earned the trophy, the guy who designed and spent a hundred hours, or the guy who wiggles his wrist for six minutes?
Arfs and rtfs are still nice. I flew arfs for years but any praise of the plane belonged to someone else. I just enjoyed half of a hobby.
Some people don't like the BOM rule. Well, let's put it this way, I don't just want to fly against you, I want to build against you too. Wow, that's a different level of competition at that point. If you want to sing karaoke, that's cool, I do to from time to time too. Just know that I've got a band and we write originals too. (Oh, and one of the secrets to a long life is always having something on the workbench.-its a true study in nonegenarians)
-
As a guy who is busy as hell with 5 kids, demanding work and many other time intensive interests, I have really enjoyed flying the many planes that I have purchased or have been given (resurrected...) since returning to the hobby 7 or 8 years ago. Yes, I have built several planes during this period as well. Without those purchased/gifted planes, though, there is zero chance that I would have progressed as rapidly or had as many chances to even fly.
The discussions and preening about who gets to be a true enthusiast of the hobby fall pretty flat to my ears. One could argue, "don't be offended", however it denigrates those who love this hobby but have limitations of time, space, building skill or an allergy to the building materials/dust/smells.
I guess Miles Davis was an amateur because he didn't build his trumpet.
I suppose John Coltrane could have been better if only he had manufactured his saxophone.
-
I drank caffeine tonight, so here goes. I don't want to say anything negative about most people, but I will say some positive things. And I don't want this to discourage anybody, because there's nothing wrong with arfs and rtfs at all and many of us have been grateful for them at times. But...
There used to be a time I bought arfs and planes built by others. I loved flying and had no interest in how planes were built. In fact, I thought building from a kit, let alone scratch building, was insane.
For me, the joy of flying a plane is really about fifty percent of the joy of modeling. Well, that's pretty good, but if I didn't build it, it drops to about twenty five percent. After all, I'm just reeping the fruit of someone else's work. It's like karaoke. Sure, it's fun and all, but performing with a band that practiced, is live, and maybe even wrote the tune just destroys singing karaoke for me.
The 100 percent joy comes from building, maybe even designing, then flying and working on something I built. Now I've unlocked even more joy.
I have a few friends into jeeps. They will tell you, real jeeps aren't bought, they're built. It unlocks more joy
Here's another thought. If I build and fly a strega, if I win. Windy can share in part of my success. But if I actually fly Windy's plane, who really earned the trophy, the guy who designed and spent a hundred hours, or the guy who wiggles his wrist for six minutes?
Arfs and rtfs are still nice. I flew arfs for years but any praise of the plane belonged to someone else. I just enjoyed half of a hobby.
Some people don't like the BOM rule. Well, let's put it this way, I don't just want to fly against you, I want to build against you too. Wow, that's a different level of competition at that point. If you want to sing karaoke, that's cool, I do to from time to time too. Just know that I've got a band and we write originals too. (Oh, and one of the secrets to a long life is always having something on the workbench.-its a true study in nonegenarians)
I'm with you David. And I'll go you one farther. When I was in Glider competition I got the greatest joy out of "Designing and Scratch" building my own competition glider. The frosting on the cake was winning and having the "only" glider that wasn't a look alike of all the rest.
Keep up the good work, Jerry
-
I'm with you David. Current culture is of instant gratification. Including ready to eat frozen foods.
Bought AFRs or RTFs, at the sacrifice of satisfaction only a builder enjoys! E-RC club here is almost entirely RTF and hovering toys.
-
I entered this hobby as a kid(5th grade) in 1960. I built the most crude crap imaginable. Totally unflyable. Received zero help at home- Dad totally disinterested. Joined my first club in 1965 after repeatedly getting kicked out of a nearby park for making noise. There I saw some beautiful aircraft and asked lots and lots of questions from the adults. Most were helpful, others had sealed lips. I met really good builders who had big families(like John D'Ottavio with 6 kids). He gave me unlimited building advice, but never worked on my ships. Back then, almost everyone built their own.
In the late sixties, I bought two aircraft( Detroit Stunter and Smoothie) that weren't built by me. They were tattered up ,oil soaked heavy beasts that I detested. Building each and every R/C Pattern, Scale and U/C Stunter and combat ship since 1969 has been the only way for me. Now a days, I do tap into others, like Bob Hunt, for different techniques and approaches to building.
-
I guess Miles Davis was an amateur because he didn't build his trumpet.
I suppose John Coltrane could have been better if only he had manufactured his saxophone.
Hi Brent, my garage still has about 50% hand me downs and arfs. I just discovered a greater joy when it was my first airplane in the sky rather than someone else's. But heck, I didn't grow the tree or plane the wood. And some guy in Oklahoma make my belcranks, etc. Yes, we have to fit our schedules.
-
As a guy who is busy as hell with 5 kids, demanding work and many other time intensive interests, I have really enjoyed flying the many planes that I have purchased or have been given (resurrected...) since returning to the hobby 7 or 8 years ago. Yes, I have built several planes during this period as well. Without those purchased/gifted planes, though, there is zero chance that I would have progressed as rapidly or had as many chances to even fly.
The discussions and preening about who gets to be a true enthusiast of the hobby fall pretty flat to my ears. One could argue, "don't be offended", however it denigrates those who love this hobby but have limitations of time, space, building skill or an allergy to the building materials/dust/smells.
I guess Miles Davis was an amateur because he didn't build his trumpet.
I suppose John Coltrane could have been better if only he had manufactured his saxophone.
Oh, come on! He did not say one negative thing about anyone, just that you miss out on part of the experience, which is undeniably true. You are making a choice, no one said it was the wrong choice, far from it. And the event has gone far out of its way to accommodate you and those like you, including changing the rules to permit you to do what you want. Before 1974, if you don't have you own airplane, you don't fly. Not any more.
No one looks down on you and there is no sanction for doing what you want, you are always very welcome.
The reaction (as many times before) - nasty little mocking comments? This is not a new phenomenon, but I have never understood it or the logic behind it.
I fail to understand why there is so little tolerance for people wanting to enjoy their hobby the way they enjoy it - and anticipating the counter, David said absolutely nothing negative about other people's choices, he is just relating his own enjoyment of his choice. How has this hurt you? And, why are you getting offended by what someone else says?
Brett
-
I fail to understand why there is so little tolerance for people wanting to enjoy their hobby the way they enjoy it - and anticipating the counter, David said absolutely nothing negative about other people's choices, he is just relating his own enjoyment of his choice. How has this hurt you? And, why are you getting offended by what someone else says?
Brett,
Gee, these are great words and I read them a few times so they would sink in.
Thank you.
-
Half the guys at the rc club think a kit is just a baby fox.
-
Yes, I was thinking of the rc clubs where nothin is built by the flier, and if you show up with a forty sized plane you build, it's quaint or overlooked.
And they all, universally, *tell you how much it cost, in the first two sentences, whether you ask or not*, as if the cost is some figure of merit that reflects some sort of accomplishment. I haven't seen that sort of stuff happen in CL, at least, not yet.
Brett
-
Windy summed it up best when he said, "There's room in the hobby for everyone!". It holds even more weight at our
current shrinking numbers.
-
We are at a point where we simply welcome a live body with a plane to fly.
We WOULD be intrigued by a dead body flying a plane but not everyone would be welcoming.
-
I mean if we ARE going to play elitist there are countless variations of even that statement.
I build my own stuff except motor
I know guys who build their own motors.
Take a look at the "russian cement mixer" thread. He did everything except combine the air molecules to his design.
People like that dont upset me, they inspire me.
I know plenty of Nats winners who havent built their own wings,
This is an old argument. I build therefore I must be an elitist?
I think the purety of stunt is indeed in the expectation, and sense of achievement of a new plane. I know plenty of people who fly a range of planes, RTF, Hand me down planes, and I welcome anyone who is interested in the sport.
What I Don't like, is when these people tell me that a prebuilt plane is better than my own. Ive flown a few of these RTF designs and they virtually ALL flew the same way. (Which isnt a bad thing and yes im fully aware the last few world champions have flown this style of plane )
If I honestly felt that they flew better than what I was able to build then id switch, its JUST that simple. This stunt scene is a competition environment, make no mistake, Im here to win.
You learn alot more about the system when you can alter anything on it at any time without needing the mold.. ,
RTF crash it ? Send it back to Europe..
I grew up pre-prebuilt and there just wasn't an option. If you wanted to fly on Sunday you had to build it first.
-
Windy summed it up best when he said, "There's room in the hobby for everyone!". It holds even more weight at our
current shrinking numbers.
I'm with you Kevin. As long as the pilgrim standing before me has a keen heart and a handle attached to a CL model ( built borrowed, bought or purloined) he will always be a welcome brother of mine. If flying a selfie, more kudos where due.
-
> I'm with you Kevin. As long as the pilgrim standing before me has a keen heart and a handle attached to a CL model ( built borrowed, bought or purloined) he will always be a welcome brother of mine.
John,
Well said. One step further, we have several members of our club that enjoy other aspects of the hobby like collecting, engine setup and helping run contests. Are we happy when they stop by the field with a kit or engine we've been after, or show up at the shop and diagnose a bent rod on an engine, using mechanical feel developed over many decades? Yes.
Peter
-
Personally I almost view our hobby as two hobbies in one. When I am building I am an engineer, machinist, architect, artist trying to produce my ultimate creation. When I am flying I am a skater, dancer striving for perfection. I love both equally and for that reason I personally have no problem with the BOM rule. I know this thread is not specifically intended to be about the BOM but it is at the heart of it. I think it is hurting us more now than helping. When we had the 40 point rule there was reward for all phases of building but now there are only points for "shine". We also allow a good part of the plane to be pre-fab. I think there needs to be a separate award for appearance from flight score. It has taken me a full 40 years to come to this conclusion. Society has changed but the urge to compete is still with us. When we encounter curious people who might be drawn to the sport we forget that we don't really have hobby shops worth a damn any more and most young adults are used to being able to buy most anything ready to go. I know it is a long road from 1st flight to the 500 club but adding to that the task of learning to build a plane capable of it has to be a turn off to those recently bitten by the CL bug. I have a grandson who would be a natural and really wants to learn to fly. I know he will not continue as soon as he has to build his own. We are rapidly running out of quality Balsa. Molded and composite is out of reach for the average builder but if we could develop our own pre-fab industry around those of us who can produce , things change dramatically.
Sorry to go on a "rant". I just don't want to see our hobby die because we are so wrapped in tradition that we don't recognize what is, at least in part, killing it.
Ken
-
* removed *
-
(Clip)
When your National Champion gets away with flying what is clearly a Yatsenko Shark and noone *really* cares because he has won so many and won the worlds.
Our Current National Champion knows what our AMA rules are.
(Clip)
Unless you know absolutely for sure that our National Champion did not build his airplane, you are absolutely wrong to claim otherwise. For your information, our current National Champion did build his airplane, that looks like a Shark, in accordance with our AMA BOM rules.
Our current National Champion knows what our AMA rules are.
Keith Trostle
Chairman
AMA Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board
-
Let it die.. bom rule is only hurting you.
I can tell you from an Outside perspectives
When your National Champion gets away with flying what is clearly a Yatsenko Shark and noone *really* cares because he has won so many and won the worlds.
Im sorry, but when you started to allow people to have other people building whole wings, stabs, fuses and you assembled and painted it.. thats not what I consider being a Nats champion.
Personally.. If I ever did win the Nats with a plane I didnt even build the wings myself for.. I wouldnt consider myself a true Nats champion.
People turn a blinde eye to this and its annoying.
I put hundreds and hundreds of hours into my planes and im competing against someone who just "signs a cheque""
Im talking in Australia NOW:
Our Nats have been won multiple times by someone flying a Yatsenko shark. He has a fleet of them now.
I know of many pilots at the World champs who said similar.. that if you fly a prebuilt plane you dont really understand stunt.
I dont care if you beat me on the scoreboard, doing with a shark proves that you dont have the skills required to compete with ME on the same field.
If thats elitist SURE.
I THINK YOU SHOULD BUILD THE WHOLE DAMN THING.
Ive accepted it, but just also know officially I dont respect anyone in this event who flies a plane they didn't build.
You win ? I say you cheated
You outflew me? I say you couldn't build your own plane and outfly me , so you had to get someone else to build it.
I am reminded of the motto at the Alaska Repertory Theatre.
" We don't care how they do it in New York"
-
Ohh Im sure it was "in accordance with the rules"
Unless you know absolutely for sure that our National Champion did not build his airplane, you are absolutely wrong.
By MY DEFINITION, there have been countless Nats winners who have uses wings built by someone else.
Sure thats allowed, and its not even frowned upon, I get it.
I source my balsa and foam, built my own cutter, I cut my own core, physically cut my own ribs, lay them in the cradle I cut, glue them all together.
Im not dismissing guys who cant build a straight, light competitive wing..but dont sit there and tell me that building hasnt been compromised even " in accordance with the rules" by allowing ANY prefab parts.
Its pretty simple for me.
Did YOU BUILD the WHOLE plane ?
Its integrity at the end of the day, I wouldn't ever ask or expect the rules to change to allow someone else to FLY it for me, or even let me FLY 1 part of it.. why is this argument any different.
Your entirely open to your opinions.. and i will admit that plenty have won the Nats " in accordance with the rules"
But was it " in the spirit? "
unless it started as a pile of balsa and ended up :
as a completed plane
100% built by the pilot
Then 100% painted by the pilot
And 100 % trimmed by the pilot
And 100% flown by the pilot
I dont think deviation of this is open to interpretation.
National champion used to mean ( to me ) the pinnacle of skill in every area.
Not "we have changed the rules to soften this"
Ok lets forget USA for a moment, the FAI and the pinnacle of this Worlds have been reduced to a flying event.
Its accurate to say there have been "world champions who have built their own planes and others who didnt build their own planes"
Its not a big deal.... Im probably just bitter and resentful I haven't won anything, so dont take what I have to say with any authority..
-
Half the guys at the rc club think a kit is just a baby fox.
I was invited to attend my local RC clubs annual Christmas dinner and bring one of my planes. The president at the time is the local hobby shop owner, and RC Pylon flier at the Nats, who knows me. Most club members brought their planes, but a CL plane was the star of the show. They were all impressed with it, then I let them hold it feeling the weight. They were totally impressed that something that looked like that could be so light.
They knew building, but did not excel at it, and most bought RTF's, but still truly appreciated a "real" modeler. Their words, not mine!
So, don't paint them all into the same corner.
-
Ohh Im sure it was "in accordance with the rules"
Unless you know absolutely for sure that our National Champion did not build his airplane, you are absolutely wrong.
By MY DEFINITION, there have been countless Nats winners who have uses wings built by someone else.
Sure thats allowed, and its not even frowned upon, I get it.
I source my balsa and foam, built my own cutter, I cut my own core, physically cut my own ribs, lay them in the cradle I cut, glue them all together.
Im not dismissing guys who cant build a straight, light competitive wing..but dont sit there and tell me that building hasnt been compromised even " in accordance with the rules" by allowing ANY prefab parts.
Its pretty simple for me.
Did YOU BUILD the WHOLE plane ?
Its integrity at the end of the day, I wouldn't ever ask or expect the rules to change to allow someone else to FLY it for me, or even let me FLY 1 part of it.. why is this argument any different.
Your entirely open to your opinions.. and i will admit that plenty have won the Nats " in accordance with the rules"
But was it " in the spirit? "
unless it started as a pile of balsa and ended up :
as a completed plane
100% built by the pilot
Then 100% painted by the pilot
And 100 % trimmed by the pilot
And 100% flown by the pilot
I dont think deviation of this is open to interpretation.
National champion used to mean ( to me ) the pinnacle of skill in every area.
Not "we have changed the rules to soften this"
Ok lets forget USA for a moment, the FAI and the pinnacle of this Worlds have been reduced to a flying event.
Its accurate to say there have been "world champions who have built their own planes and others who didnt build their own planes"
Its not a big deal.... Im probably just bitter and resentful I haven't won anything, so dont take what I have to say with any authority..
OK, I'll bite on this big shiny lure. Where do you draw the line? Lets say I go and design my aircraft from the ground up, with a mind to make it out of composite. I don't have a CNC so I farm that part out, and then go about making the wings, fuse and stab, all controls tank etc. eBasically I build everything except for the powerplant lines and wheels.
Becuase it's not carved from a single log of balsa, am I cheat? Because it's virtually indestiguishable from a Yatsenko (cos i liked the style) am I a cheat?
If I'm time poor and money rich, and would rather spend my time flying than building, and I buy a Yatsenko am I cheat?
If I build my balsa model from a RSM kit, am I cheat?
If someone apart from me cuts my cores, am I cheat?
I think you're holding up a very fine screen for modellers to filter through. Most if not all would probably fit into the category of 'cheating' by your measure.
In my opinion, if you have a model, and fly it better than me, you deserve to win. If you bought it, fine, you are entitled to your choice. If you built it, that's awesome. All power to you, but I'm not going to cry and split hairs over who built what.
-
Ok lets forget USA for a moment, the FAI and the pinnacle of this Worlds have been reduced to a flying event.
Agreed, it is absolutely a flying event. Whether you or I or anyone else agrees with that or not, that is what it unashamedly is. I think you’re on thin ice using words like ‘cheat’ and ‘integrity’ in regard to flyers who fly in this flying event, when they’re in strict accordance with both the rules and spirit of the event as it’s conducted.
-
Two thoughts.
Model aviation is a fun hobby, as it is less expensive compared to other vehicle competition, such as Formula 1 racing. There's a series on Netflix that shows the 8 figure budgets required to compete there, the teams of up to one thousand people. The sub two second pit stops are quite something, as are the complexity of the driver's controls. Achievement in that sport, like many motor sports, is a team effort, requiring many skilled people. Is it so unreasonable to expect that certain tasks such as casting model engine blocks or cutting foam cores are performed by other team members than the pilot?
A second thought is about what happens to stunt planes when their builders are unable to fly them. I'm aware there are two schools of thought on this, either they should be passed on to able pilots, or the leadouts should be cut so they can not be used again. Perhaps it's being frugal to a fault, but I think the best tribute is to continue flying them.
Peter
-
...
They knew building, but did not excel at it, and most bought RTF's, but still truly appreciated a "real" modeler. Their words, not mine!
...
Back when I flew with an RC club, about 10% of the members built their own planes to some degree (and we had one guy who was afraid to even assemble ARFs, even though in my opinion he would have been an excellent builder). Everyone appreciated the kit- and scratch-built planes, even the ARF pilots.
-
Agreed, it is absolutely a flying event. Whether you or I or anyone else agrees with that or not, that is what it unashamedly is. I think you’re on thin ice using words like ‘cheat’ and ‘integrity’ in regard to flyers who fly in this flying event, when they’re in strict accordance with both the rules and spirit of the event as it’s conducted.
I was never making a point about rules or cheating. But I am saying, if you buy a vector, or a shark, or a Cox PT-19, you miss the "bonus" joy of seeing what you built fly.
I'm sure I'll fly a plane built by someone else again at some point, and I'm sure I will miss the thrill of having built it myself.
After all, I could read books about MT Everest, watch videos about it, and win the world championship of Everest Trivia. But the guy who climbed it has something I don't.
It's the joy of modeling that I enjoy. Not just the joy of piloting. And most events, clubs, and people are welcoming either way.
-
It's the joy of modeling that I enjoy. Not just the joy of piloting. And most events, clubs, and people are welcoming either way.
I am with you 100% but the point I was clumsily making in my earlier post is that the new blood that is coming in is more attracted to the flying than the building and we need new blood.
KenC
-
For me, I'll never be a world class pilot and I'm 100% ok with that, I just enjoy being in my shop thinking up ideas and building, My planes are not 100% will never be on the front row but they look and fly good, as has been stated many many times by many many builders. There really is nothing like seeing something you built take flight.
-
I am with you 100% but the point I was clumsily making in my earlier post is that the new blood that is coming in is more attracted to the flying than the building and we need new blood.
KenC
There’s a guy I’m building airplanes for that 100% fits this. He has no ambition, or time to build. From what I’ve seen in videos he has sent me, he’s a natural flyer and has progressed rapidly from a rank beginner barely able to keep the plane in the air more than a few flights at a time, to a good intermediate flyer in a year’s time. I love to build, but flying is where you’re going to end up finding more participants in this day and age, and at the end of the day, getting people flying will grow the event. As they progress they may take to building, but that will take time
-
I have introduced almost 10 prospects to control line in the last two years with my musciano trainer and testors sophomore 29. All enjoyed the first couple of flights and liked watching me fly the pattern, but when they understood the effort needed to go to further and the time involved, they quit. Most are into quick gratification and not willing to make the commitment.
The pop culture is the cancer that gets in the way.
-
As far as the issue of builder of the model versus buying an already to fly airplane, that is not really the issue. The issue is whether or not you are willing to put the time in and the effort for perfect practice in in order that you can compete at the level of a Paul Walker, Dave Fitzgerald, Ted Fancher, Brent Buck, Orestis Hernandez, need I say more.?
When I was really serious about fllying, I borrowed a cavalier 670 that a friend of mine had and practiced with it and could go to meets such as the East Coast ones at Huntersville, Jacksonville, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and compete at the level of finishing in third place without builder the model points.
Builder of the model only becomes relevant at the level of the top Flyers win only less than five points separate them from each other.
Builder the model also is relevant if you want to be able to personalize your aircraft to yourself. Ready to fly models do not lend themselves to personalizing the airplane to your flying style. When you build a model yourself, you know the power plant, the. fuel system, the controls, everything about the model and you are able to personalize it to yourself. Purchasing a ready to fly model does not lend itself to that reality.
-
If you didn’t grow the balsa tree yourself, it’s not BOM legal…
-
One advantage to building your own stunt ship, is knowing that you’re going to have an ax that you can keep sharp and cut as much lumber as possible. What I mean by having a sharp ax is you keep working with the airplane that you built, improving it, making it fit your flying style, and it is just like a lumberjack who forgets to sharpen his ax. He may work as hard as anybody else, but he does not cut as much lumber as the ones who sharpen their ax.
-
I have introduced almost 10 prospects to control line in the last two years with my musciano trainer and testors sophomore 29. All enjoyed the first couple of flights and liked watching me fly the pattern, but when they understood the effort needed to go to further and the time involved, they quit. Most are into quick gratification and not willing to make the commitment.
The pop culture is the cancer that gets in the way.
Until Americans value Freedom and rugged individualism again, individual effort sports and hobbies will be supplanted by wokeness, political correctness, and social justice foolishness. What we do here is perceived as white supremacy, not improvement of the collective. Collectivism is the cancer we must overcome.
Doubt me, look at the recent olympics. Wokeness was valued over individualism and excellence. Megan Rapinoe, Gwen Perry, and Raven Saunders are the best examples of olympians that hate the USA and have said so.
-
As far as the issue of builder of the model versus buying an already to fly airplane, that is not really the issue. The issue is whether or not you are willing to put the time in and the effort for perfect practice....
This is a given for the person that has decided that they have a shot at joining that group. But what about the guy who can't put together an IKIA bookshelf but finds flying really fun and wants to compete. He is going to quit well before he gets the "Stunt Virus" which leads one to make that commitment. In the 60+ years I have been at this I have never seen anyone go from a level fight beginner to what is now Expert in anything less than two or three years. Let's get new blood into the sport and wait till they are addicted before you start making the "commitment" speech. In fact, if you need to make the "commitment" speech you probably talking to the wrong person.
For the most part, I am playing Devil's advocate here. Since my fire I have been regulated to borrowed ARF's for my "fix". Competed only once and basically said "never again" with an ARF. I am as close to the grow your own balsa tree type of guy as you can find. Since the 60's I have not competed with a plane that I not only built but also designed except for one contest where I flew an ARF Nobler in classic.
So why am I against the BOM in it's present form? I want to see our hobby outlive me.
Ken
-
This is a given for the person that has decided that they have a shot at joining that group. But what about the guy who can't put together an IKIA bookshelf but finds flying really fun and wants to compete. He is going to quit well before he gets the "Stunt Virus" which leads one to make that commitment. In the 60+ years I have been at this I have never seen anyone go from a level fight beginner to what is now Expert in anything less than two or three years. Let's get new blood into the sport and wait till they are addicted before you start making the "commitment" speech. In fact, if you need to make the "commitment" speech you probably talking to the wrong person.
For the most part, I am playing Devil's advocate here. Since my fire I have been regulated to borrowed ARF's for my "fix". Competed only once and basically said "never again" with an ARF. I am as close to the grow your own balsa tree type of guy as you can find. Since the 60's I have not competed with a plane that I not only built but also designed except for one contest where I flew an ARF Nobler in classic.
So why am I against the BOM in it's present form? I want to see our hobby outlive me.
Ken
Again I will say again, it isn’t BOM that is the enemy, it is the pop culture of instant gratification. I have got over 10 to soloing straight and level, but inverted flight , let alone just doin a loop, discourages them. Why? No willingness to stay with it. Most want it now.
When they can loop and fly inverted, they want to go further and the stunt pattern just follows. Then some want to build their own to have something better. Few have the intestinal fortitude to stick it out.
Blaming BOM is like the SJWs blaming the country for their unwillingness to truly be an American and strive for individual excellence.
-
I don't know that the BOM rule is much of a stumbling block for most these days. With only a very few exceptions locally, the Nats OPEN event is the only place where it is applied. PAMPA events don't require it. At the Nats, Advanced allows bought, begged, borrowed or stolen airplanes as long as they receive NO appearance points. That in itself makes it nearly impossible to win or place very highly unless you build the airplane and receive those appearance points. I have always been pro-BOM but having attempted MANY times over the decades to get new people involved, for many its a bridge too far to expect them to build very much. The younger people didn't usually grow up with a home workshop nor parents who valued this skill set. To think they can or will provide the space, accept the mess and acquire the materials and tools to build may look like a mountain to new folks. I also realize we tend to push new people into competition. In the beginning they just want to play with their toys. Maybe they should just be allowed that space. The rest will follow if the interest is there. I think we can't afford to shun ANYONE who has interest in our sport regardless of how big a bite they are wanting to take. Things and people have changed. The best thing I think is for us to accept that and try to adapt somewhat if we have to. Those who become 'lifers' will build at some point when they find that HUGE dimension of our hobby benefits them.
Dave
-
As a guy who is busy as hell with 5 kids, demanding work and many other time intensive interests, I have really enjoyed flying the many planes that I have purchased or have been given (resurrected...) since returning to the hobby 7 or 8 years ago. Yes, I have built several planes during this period as well. Without those purchased/gifted planes, though, there is zero chance that I would have progressed as rapidly or had as many chances to even fly.
The discussions and preening about who gets to be a true enthusiast of the hobby fall pretty flat to my ears. One could argue, "don't be offended", however it denigrates those who love this hobby but have limitations of time, space, building skill or an allergy to the building materials/dust/smells.
I guess Miles Davis was an amateur because he didn't build his trumpet.
I suppose John Coltrane could have been better if only he had manufactured his saxophone.
The premise of this thread is flawed. It is not modelers vs pilots, it is the pop culture of laziness and instant gratification and the unwillingness to persist that is the enemy of sports, hobbies, and the search for personal excellence.
-
Can someone explain this "WOKE" crap to me please?
I looked up "WOKE" in my unabridged dictionary and it says "AWAKE". How is being awake a political thing?????????????????????????????
Jerry
PS: Thank you.
-
Can someone explain this "WOKE" crap to me please?
I looked up "WOKE" in my unabridged dictionary and it says "AWAKE". How is being awake a political thing?????????????????????????????
Jerry
PS: Thank you.
“Woke” is the sad state of being properly aware of perceived but false social injustice like systemic racism, ageism, white privilege, prejudice both known and unknown and the belief that whites are oppressors and everyone else is oppressed such as critical race theory and the belief that hard work, persistence, freedom, individual rights, and the search for personal excellence is racist.
-
It has long been obvious that there is a wide range of opinion about what is acceptable. I am personally comfortable with what we have (a reasonable definition of what can and can't be pre-fabricated, and a clear statement about how building and flying is the intent). Given that, I am not going to be pointing fingers, and encourage everyone else to not point fingers, at individuals, just because you don't like the rule (either too strict/exist at all, or too lax).
I really don't appreciate brickbats tossed at Orestes. He has gone to more effort to show his work than any of the rest of us have - Warren has never checked my build pictures, since there aren't any - and made the grade. He knows and understands the rules, he signed a document saying he was going to follow the rules, so as far as I am concerned, that's good enough for me, case closed.
Otherwise, I would be at least as aggrieved as anyone else, because he has beat me out of multiple Walker Trophy wins and at least a few team spots. *I* lost those contests, and *I* am responsible for those, not anyone else, not sneaky rules violations, nothing but *not building and flying well enough to win*. I lost the 2008 NATS by 1.25 points - while making at least 30 points worth of correctable errors. The Shark didn't cause those.
I haven't been victimized, and by extension, *neither has anyone else*. Orestes Hernandez is a stellar competitor and fine and honorable man. Anything who might imagine he does not deserve what he has gotten in stunt *doesn't know what he is talking about*.
Brett
-
“Woke” is the sad state of being properly aware of perceived but false social injustice like systemic racism, ageism, white privilege, prejudice both known and unknown and the belief that whites are oppressors and everyone else is oppressed such as critical race theory and the belief that hard work, persistence, freedom, individual rights, and the search for personal excellence is racist.
Socialism/Communism are (stupid) ideas intended to address class warfare. The USA is a classless society, "all men are created equal" and "equal protection" make class distinctions wrong and illegal.
So, to implement socialism/communism, you first have to *create* class warfare. Enter the "woke" movement - everyone is out to screw everyone else, white men are the ultimate culprits behind it all, and for someone to succeed, someone else has to lose, because life is a zero-sum game. Take it seriously, and you *will* have class warfare - at which point the socialists/communists can swoop in with their solution.
Of course, it doesn't and can't solve the problem, all it does is pick different winners and losers, and in every single example so far, *greatly polarized* society into oligarchs and crushed almost everyone else into grinding inescapable poverty, while dragging down the entire system to second-world levels, far worse than it was originally.
They have been surprisingly successful, but make no mistake, class/race/sex distinctions in the law are opposed to *every single formative principle*, and were the *alternate* and *far superior* solution to the ills of class warfare common in the Old World. The founding principles of the republic *are the correct solution to the problems of class distinction*, they set out to solve it once and for all, and as long as we all understand that, it does.
Brett
-
I've got more pleasure from reading this thread than from almost anything else I've read in recent times. The enthusiasm, the intensity, the passion with which people state and defend their views is just another sign of what makes our hobby such a great 'total leisure activity', as somebody once called it. For me, the main satisfaction is in 'doing my own thing' - it's years since I've built a kit, and I've never bought a bellcrank in my life - but that has a lot to do with growing up in a working-class family in the 1950s, when money was short and you did everything the cheapest way possible. Now I can afford anything I want to buy, I still find myself making things from scratch with whatever materials I have to hand (I'm just finishing a C/L handle), simply for the pleasure of using such skill as I have to make something that's exactly what I had in mind, and not somebody else's idea of what I should have.
To sum it up, I think aeromodelling is about being creative, in one way or many ways - just like any other art form, except that you generally don't get very far trying to fly a portrait in oils (or a sculpture in marble!).
-
There is a "solution" (which is really one man's idea of what everybody else thinks is stupid LL~). Drop the BOM and appearance points at all but the Nats and the "Classic" events. Replace it with a separate award for "appearance". Competitions are at heart a flying event. We do this pretty much already in all but Classic and Expert but it is a local thing. I know that this will not set well with the older group (me included) but it will help with the attendance. Ever hear of someone not flying a contest because they were not awarding appearance points? I haven't.
Just a parting note - there is not anybody that is wrong in how they feel about this topic.
Ken
-
Again I will say again, it isn’t BOM that is the enemy, it is the pop culture of instant gratification. I have got over 10 to soloing straight and level, but inverted flight , let alone just doin a loop, discourages them. Why? No willingness to stay with it. Most want it now.
But, when they can loop and fly inverted, they want to go further and the stunt pattern just follows. Then some want to build their own to have something better. Few have the intestinal fortitude to stick it out. I am not talking about competition but about just Sunday Flying and doing the pattern for the pure enjoyment of Aerial Ballet.
Blaming BOM for the decline of the hobby is like the SJWs blaming the country for their unwillingness to truly be an American and strive for individual excellence.
The premise of this thread is flawed. It is not modelers vs pilots, it is the pop culture of laziness and instant gratification and the unwillingness to persist at anything that requires work and a pursuit of excellence that is the enemy of sports, hobbies, and the search for personal excellence.
What is wrong is when we let our "Feelings" guide our logic. That is why the pop culture has run over the American Way of Freedom and Rugged Individualism and Enlightened Self Interest. I am not talking about selfishness and narcissism but about what Dr. Jordan Peterson has described as getting one's own house in order (Informed Self Improvement based on objective truth) before you start telling others how to get their act together.
Logic and experience reveal the truth about why our hobby is declining. Pop Culture and its subversive attack on the American Way.
-
The Truth about the decline. When I got into control line it was 1954. At that time the big new thing was aviation. New airplane designs were coming out every day. Speed records were being set daily. Every boy (and girls) wanted to be a pilot. So interest in model airplanes was high. Cheep functional RC systems were yet to be invented. So control line modeling was the BIG deal. Now the new thing on the block is electronics. Every day new and wonderful electronic devices are showing up. Along with this it's almost impossible to "build your own". Drones are the exciting new thing. One would be hard pressed to build, from scratch, a drone. At best you can assemble one from manufactured parts. So the natural evolution is for young people to become users not builders. And yes they are growing up in a fast pace world of "I want it right now!"
So like most thing of the past, control line airplanes are enjoyed by only a few. As the world moves on so does the youth of the world. Nothing anybody can do about it. The bottom line is stop worrying and griping about the decline of our hobby. Go build something and fly it. The NOW generation will do there thing and we control liners will do our thing. Stop worrying about things you can't change and just enjoy life. Tight lines and safe landings to all.
-
Tom, I have to disagree with most of what you’re saying. Aviation, and more specifically, model airplanes, is not interesting, nerdy, and not cool. That’s just a fact of life these days. The amount of people that become interested in model airplanes is incredibly small, and those interested in control-line precision aerobatics, much much smaller. I love all things aviation, I live and breathe this stuff. I enjoy working air traffic, talking to airplanes, seeing different planes, and building and flying model airplanes. That’s an interest someone has to be pretty much born with, and then fostered.
I have spent my breaks at work pitching props, balancing props, and doodling on my computer with paint scheme ideas. Today I’m going to put together a free flight airplane. It’s an inherent interest I have. One of my coworkers saw my stuff on the breakroom table one day and wrote on a paper plate “loser lounge.” It was hilarious but at the end of the day, messing with this stuff qualifies you as a nerd (in my age group) and I’m completely okay with it.
If somebody is actually interested in stunt, they will come back and continue on in their interest. You cannot force it on people, they will end up resenting it and not want to participate. Trying to associate the woke, socialism/communism, and all of their faults, with people not interested in flying model airplanes, is an incorrect assumption. My friends spend a lot of their free time playing video games and watching/playing sports. That’s not an issue of socialism, it’s part of today’s culture. It’s a dopamine problem because, like you said, it results in instant gratification, and our brains become addicted to the screen, and the Xbox/PS5.
I do applaud you in getting those 10 people to learn how to fly, even if the interest hasn’t stuck. It’s more than I have done over the last 15 years I’ve been flying stunt. I want to get a flight streak and LA 25 to have just in case somebody is interested. One of these days, I’m sure somebody will eventually start coming back and want to continue, but my prediction is it’s going to take a special person that will come back to fly and continue learning, and eventually building. Building an airplane is probably the most daunting task for new pilots, and an ARF is probably the best way to go about teaching them how to fly. If it crashes, you just go buy another one and continue on with learning. If you have to build a new plane after every crash, that would be incredibly discouraging to a beginner
-
Tom, I have to disagree with most of what you’re saying. Aviation, and more specifically, model airplanes, is not interesting, nerdy, and not cool. That’s just a fact of life these days. The amount of people that become interested in model airplanes is incredibly small, and those interested in control-line precision aerobatics, much much smaller. I love all things aviation, I live and breathe this stuff. I enjoy working air traffic, talking to airplanes, seeing different planes, and building and flying model airplanes. That’s an interest someone has to be pretty much born with, and then fostered.
I have spent my breaks at work pitching props, balancing props, and doodling on my computer with paint scheme ideas. Today I’m going to put together a free flight airplane. It’s an inherent interest I have. One of my coworkers saw my stuff on the breakroom table one day and wrote on a paper plate “loser lounge.” It was hilarious but at the end of the day, messing with this stuff qualifies you as a nerd (in my age group) and I’m completely okay with it.
If somebody is actually interested in stunt, they will come back and continue on in their interest. You cannot force it on people, they will end up resenting it and not want to participate. Trying to associate the woke, socialism/communism, and all of their faults, with people not interested in flying model airplanes, is an incorrect assumption. My friends spend a lot of their free time playing video games and watching/playing sports. That’s not an issue of socialism, it’s part of today’s culture. It’s a dopamine problem because, like you said, it results in instant gratification, and our brains become addicted to the screen, and the Xbox/PS5.
I do applaud you in getting those 10 people to learn how to fly, even if the interest hasn’t stuck. It’s more than I have done over the last 15 years I’ve been flying stunt. I want to get a flight streak and LA 25 to have just in case somebody is interested. One of these days, I’m sure somebody will eventually start coming back and want to continue, but my prediction is it’s going to take a special person that will come back to fly and continue learning, and eventually building. Building an airplane is probably the most daunting task for new pilots, and an ARF is probably the best way to go about teaching them how to fly. If it crashes, you just go buy another one and continue on with learning. If you have to build a new plane after every crash, that would be incredibly discouraging to a beginner
Matt,
What you have said does not dissuade me one bit in the objective observed truth that I have written about. I was an AFJROTC senior instructor for 8 years at a local high school and watched teens, grades 9-12, turn down opportunities one after another because of the pop culture and the desire for having it now. I coached a Varsity Sporter Class Air Rifle Team of girls and boys and saw the same problems, but succeeded with 10 % of the cadets that I got to try out air rifle. What turned the page was winning. We ended up after 3 years of effort by winning at the state level and then at the national level. We were first in state for three years and 10th in the nation out of 3000 schools for the same period. But, desire and persistence and perfect practice could not be substituted for.
The same applies to control line aerobatics.
In the real aviation world, pilots are perceived now by youth as only glorified bus drivers. Aviation is of no interest to many because it takes education, investment of time and resources, and persistence. Then when youth get into military or commercial aviation they want the perks now instead of submitting to the apprentice of experience and time that piloting takes. The Pop Culture is the cancer that causes this. Just look at America's Got Talent and The Voice. Instant Gratification. The Pop Culture is the search for 15 minutes of fame and not the reward of the realization of personal improvement and the attainment of excellence after hard work and persistence.
Frustration was the key impediment of the 10 plus that I introduced to the hobby. They couldn't wait to attain the next level of inverted flight and looping. The belief was and is that more money is the answer which is a false promise. Don't believe me, just look at Washington DC and the proliferate spending that is ruining the nation.
-
Drop the BOM and appearance points at all but the Nats and the "Classic" events. Replace it with a separate award for "appearance". Competitions are at heart a flying event. We do this pretty much already in all but Classic and Expert but it is a local thing.
Ken
Ken,
You just explained an approach for a rules change that is absolutely not needed. In some areas of the country, local contests already forego appearance points and the BOM requirement which is an option for any contest just as you mention. For those who still want to hold contests with the BOM requirement and award appearance points, they can do so. Not doing so does not require a formal rules change. There is no need to change the rules because some elements want to do so because they can proceed with contests that do not apply the BOM rule.
The Nats is a different situation where by a 70 year tradition, there are still age categories and the BOM requirement reigns supreme. Until there is a complete replacement of the "old guard", it will always be that way. The Nats is still a model airplane event, not a flying event.
Keith
-
“Woke” is the sad state of being properly aware of perceived but false social injustice like systemic racism, ageism, white privilege, prejudice both known and unknown and the belief that whites are oppressors and everyone else is oppressed such as critical race theory and the belief that hard work, persistence, freedom, individual rights, and the search for personal excellence is racist.
Thank you Tom and Brett. Your explanations are excellent.
I R now edgeamacated.... n~
Jerry
-
Ohh Im sure it was "in accordance with the rules"
Unless you know absolutely for sure that our National Champion did not build his airplane, you are absolutely wrong.
By MY DEFINITION, there have been countless Nats winners who have uses wings built by someone else.
Sure thats allowed, and its not even frowned upon, I get it.
I source my balsa and foam, built my own cutter, I cut my own core, physically cut my own ribs, lay them in the cradle I cut, glue them all together.
Im not dismissing guys who cant build a straight, light competitive wing..but dont sit there and tell me that building hasnt been compromised even " in accordance with the rules" by allowing ANY prefab parts.
Its pretty simple for me.
Did YOU BUILD the WHOLE plane ?
Its integrity at the end of the day, I wouldn't ever ask or expect the rules to change to allow someone else to FLY it for me, or even let me FLY 1 part of it.. why is this argument any different.
Your entirely open to your opinions.. and i will admit that plenty have won the Nats " in accordance with the rules"
But was it " in the spirit? "
unless it started as a pile of balsa and ended up :
as a completed plane
100% built by the pilot
Then 100% painted by the pilot
And 100 % trimmed by the pilot
And 100% flown by the pilot
I dont think deviation of this is open to interpretation.
National champion used to mean ( to me ) the pinnacle of skill in every area.
Not "we have changed the rules to soften this"
Ok lets forget USA for a moment, the FAI and the pinnacle of this Worlds have been reduced to a flying event.
Its accurate to say there have been "world champions who have built their own planes and others who didnt build their own planes"
Its not a big deal.... Im probably just bitter and resentful I haven't won anything, so dont take what I have to say with any authority..
PJ, I was editor of Stunt News in 2006, 2007, and 2008 and remember the tempest in a teapot that Rich Peabody and others tried to create out of whole cloth about Orestes Hernandez and his Shark. I interviewed Warren Tiahrt and Orestes Hernandez about the Shark and wrote about the false controversy and smear that had no basis in fact in the Nov/Dec 2007 issue of Stunt News on pages 4 and 5. Bottom line is you don't know what you are talking about and are stirring up a false narrative that is beneath you.
Here is the truth as I discovered it: Orestes Hernandez…In His Own Words
(Orestes Hernandez is the 2007 US Control Line Precision Aerobatics Champion. He is also a member of the 2008 United States World Championship Team.)
I’m originally from a small town named Florencia, in north central Cuba. When I was a young man, about 14, a guy came to my town with a model. I remember it well. It was a Nobler. My friend, Jorge Perez, and I started that day to build and fly models with small engines. (Before that we used a PVC plastic tube with batteries inside and one small toy car engine and a little prop. It was my first “model airplane”. It only ran…it never flew because there was no wing in it.) We flew combat for two years. I was the pilot and Jorge was the mechanic, but I always wanted to do one model for stunt. It took a long time to get my first model, a Nobler, constructed. It was almost ready and stored under my bed when I came home one day to see the model broken in pieces in the wastebasket. My parents said they destroyed it because I never paid attention in school and the only thing I thought about was model airplanes. I cried when I saw it and was sad for a long time. Maybe nobody here feels something like that. Things change, though, and my parents are now very proud of me because they know I really love airplanes and am a good flyer. After that I finished high school and entered the military university to be an engineer in motors and fuselages, MIG 21s to 29s and new models to come. In my third year there, for I do not know what reason, they changed me to another profession—electronic high and super high frequency radar. I did not like that and I quit the course. I finished my education in the civil university as a Civil Engineer (structure specialist) but I never got aviation out of my mind. I built a hang glider but never flew it. People thought I was crazy I came to the United States in January of 1998 from Cuba. In August of 2001 I got to hold a handle for the first time after almost 20 years. I remember I flew a Nobler, and in my first flight I made some loops and inverted flight. That flight had been in my mind for the last 20 years, the years without ever holding one handle in my hand. The next week I started flying a Caudron and with that model I flew the complete pattern, even before I finished my first gallon of fuel. After I arrived in the USA I met Orestes Perdomo. With his help I started flying stunt in August of 2001 at Tamiami Park in Miami with my friend Josias Delgado. Enrique Diez, another aeromodeler from Cuba, flew with us then also. Orestes Perdomo told me that there are stores called hobby shops where I could buy kits to build models. From that moment things were fine. I remember Orange Blossom Hobby Shop in Miami where I bought my first Legacy kits. At the time, I was living in upstate New York, in Watertown, and Orestes Perdomo gave me instructions over the phone for building my first model for the 2002 NATs.
January 2002 was my first contest--the King Orange International. I flew one model of Orestes Perdomo’s and without appearance points I got sixth place in Advanced. It was my first experience in my life in stunt competition. In 2002, in my first NATs, I flew a Legacy. I remember buying the Legacy kit in the Orange Blossom Hobby shop. As I remember, I was in the Top Twenty, eleventh place in Advanced I think, but I’m not sure exactly. In the 2003 NATs I was in second place. That was the year of the strongest wind. I remember Kent Tysor was first in Advanced. In 2004 I got to first place (Advanced National Champion) with a Legacy. (At this moment I have two Legacys in my house ready to fly.) That year, 2004, was when I meet Yuriy Yatsenko and I started at that time to work with the Shark Project. 2005 was my first year in Open. I finished in sixth place, so close to the top 5. I flew a warm-up flight for the judges that year in the finals. Fourth place in 2006 was better than the year before but in 2007 I was out of practice all year after the 2006 NATs. I knew I had to get to work. From June 7 to July 1 I made 125 flights, as I remember now. My goal was to keep the fourth place, like the year before. For me it was impressive when I got the first place. I know I worked hard for that. Nobody can do it without much practice, I think. After the 2007 NATs and before the teams trials I spent four gallon plus of fuel--150 flights plus practice in Muncie. This year I think I was the first to arrive in Muncie. After my second practice flight at this year’s Team Trials I met Paul Walker. He was the first person on the field after me. We went to dinner that first night, too, and I want to say that I learned very much watching Paul’s flights and David Fitzgerald’s too.
I have been asked about the Yatsenko Shark I fly. I picked the Shark because the first time I saw the model its fuselage form impressed me. I always try to do something impressive. I had started to build a Caudron but when I discovered the Shark I never finished the Caudron. I will do that soon. Maybe the Caudron will be as lucky as the Shark. At the World Championships in 2004 Yuriy said that they would make kits for me when I insisted that I would need a kit airplane for the US NATs. I was friendly with the Yuriy’s people in Muncie and they seemed to feel good about my experiment with the Shark. Now I think Yuriy is working on a project to make kits available for everyone. I’m not sure when he will finish that project. At this time I have three Sharks done…one per year.
I don’t remember exactly how many hours it took to build the last one but I’m sure I had more than three hundred hours in the first one. The wing is made like a sandwich—two pieces of fiberglas over foam molding. The fuselage and stabilizer are balsa wood with fiberglas molding. The sections were aligned in a jig. The jig is easy to make. You just need a table and some little pieces of wood to align things. I used the Yatsenko controls supplied with the airplane. The paint scheme is my own and uses urethane car paint. My engine is a Discovery Retro. There’s nothing special about it. I use Randy Smith’s PA needle valve and glow plug and Omega FAI fuel. For me, the best prop is the Andreiy wide-tip prop. People ask me how it felt to win the Open competition at the NATs, the Walker Cup, and a place on the World Team. It felt especially good to win the NATs because the members of the 2006 US World Team were there and they are very good flyers. I have a good feeling for a lot of people who congratulated me when I got first place, some of them many times. I will never forget that day nor the day I made the US Team and I thank all the people who helped me in the last six years. I wish the best for everybody.
- Orestes Hernandez
-
Ken,
You just explained an approach for a rules change that is absolutely not needed.
Keith
I agree 100% that a rule change is not needed because most of our contests are run using PAMPA format with local rules except for the NATS. I have changed my view on this 180 degrees in the last couple of years. I was not paying attention when the 40 point rule was thrown out. Had I been I would have opposed the change and if you look at the lineup at most contests today you can see why - no originality and not even many cockpits that weren't carved. I am more concerned with the continuation of the sport/hobby than I am maintaining traditions that I feel will not survive once we are gone. We also have the issue of where do all of those beautiful planes go when their owners are no longer around. I would have gladly bought a couple from known sources when I lost my fleet but instead I had to sit it out because I could not build. I tried one contest using a borrowed ARF. Not pretty.
I recently had the opportunity to fly one of the Russian ARF's. Real eye opener.
Having said all of that, in the words of Dennis Miller, "this is just my opinion and I could be wrong!"
Ken
-
PJ, I was editor of Stunt News in 2006, 2007, and 2008 and remember the tempest in a teapot that Rich Peabody and others tried to create out of whole cloth about Oriestes Hernandez and his Shark.
...
Just a small glimpse of the enormous iceberg that PAMPA has had to deal with for what is approaching *40 years* now and has on several occasions nearly destroyed the entire event - not to mention distract some of the principles from the far more important goal of *learning to trim, set up engines, and fly* competitively, greatly to their own detriment.
Some of the major players made *exactly the mistake I warn people about all the time* - that is, to win at stunt you need to assume that the results are entirely under the your control and that if you aren't winning, the reason is that you did not fly well enough, regardless of what anyone else is doing. I know from direct questioning that some of the people who did this to themselves *still don't get it* even when I explained exactly what their problem was and how it came to be - it was still mysterious forces operating against them.
Even after Baron won the '96 NATS on pure merit, they completely misinterpreted that as "we are finally getting somewhere" and they *redoubled their efforts*. Thus *guaranteeing* that they would continue wasting their time trying to manipulate people off-the-field, instead of putting their effort to something useful. No one had to conspire against them, they were conspiring against themselves very effectively.
I have a reasonably complete explanation and history of the "stunt wars", but the details are largely moot at this point. A few people (like Peabody) aren't ever going to give it up, because they are so invested in the fighting that they either don't know or don't care that the war is long since over.
Brett
-
Im not here to argue. I didnt start the original thread. Im not trying to diminish Orestes or his achievements. Im not naive, the guy is a champion.
Im passionate about stunt and I would prefer to see everyone developing. My ultimate fear is : We will collectively loose something if people arent developing and building their own stuff.
Im going to conceed ive had to sit and have a long think about what exactly my problem was.
Stunt is a multidisciplinary sport. You need to be proficient in many areas just to be able to be competitive.
Im entitled to compete and build and enjoy the hobby as much as anyone, and Ive never said my opinion is ever gospel. Im happy to be wrong, Im not TRYING to be controversial.
Is it wrong that I enjoy seeing OTHER peoples new planes?
Is it wrong that I get inspiration from people like Al Rabe ?
Is it wrong that I get motivation from seeing NEW ideas?
Is it wrong I want to dream oneday ill have that "perfect" setup?
I feel that the shark is a 20 year old design and there are hundreds of them, Im just trying to maintain one of the original elements of our beloved stunt hobby - uniqueness.
-
Im not here to argue. I didnt start the original thread. Im not trying to diminish Orestes or his achievements. Im not naive, the guy is a champion.
(Clip)
OK, so you are not here to argue. However, you took the opportunity to belittle Orestes Hernandez and his achievements in winning the United States National Stunt Championship. You had no knowledge of how Orestes built his airplane which was in accordance with our AMA rules. At least you politely removed your erroneous statement from this thread. Thank you for that.
Keith
-
Actually everything in that article I had read before.
I knew that information, I was AT the competition in 2004 flying in expert when Orestes flew the Legacy in advanced. I also flew against Yuri and his Shark in 2004.
Please dont proclaim to know what I do and dont comprehend.
You have every right to be proud of Orestes and his World championship status. Once again I was physically THERE watching that competition and he was clearly the best pilot and flew the best corners and bottoms and deserved to be considered "World Champion"
I didnt "belittle" anyone, if that was your interpretation of my comments, then your entitled to form them, but Im telling you that was far from my point.
Its not about who flies what.. this thread was about modellers vs Pilots. I agree it was probably a baited thread that I fell for.. ( well played )
What do you want me to say ?
Im happy about giving up any advantages I thought I had gained over 30 years of personal development to people who can buy a competitive alternative and be in the air alot faster amd bypass the learning curve?
Its more about :where is the future if innovation dies?
Thats not an unfair question.
-
[quote author=Tom McClain link=topic=60052.msg620094#msg620094 date
The premise of this thread is flawed. It is not modelers vs pilots, it is the pop culture of laziness and instant gratification and the unwillingness to persist at anything that requires work and a pursuit of excellence that is the enemy of sports, hobbies, and the search for personal excellence.
That's just a great quote.
So, a few reflections,
1. If you love cl, try not to get so mad at someone with the same passion? Just different perspectives is all. It's not like we're arguing over coke vs Pepsi.
2. Matt and Tom, Matt, you may have misread what Tom said because you two said the same thing about aviation not being as cool to kids as it used to be. Also Matt, Woke was not part of the discussion, Gerry just didn't know what it was, it was a total aside. And nicely defined.
3. Our hobby in decline? I can hardly believe it ever got popular based on just how incredibly prohibitive it was and remains to this day. It's the single most difficult hobby to get involved in I've ever heard of...times 5! Which makes us all people of great fortitude, like, way over the top fortitude.
4. If we were serious about growing,
A. We would hold an event a year at a local venue, church or school yard.
B. We would have a tough beginners arf available for any newbies. Think Chinese foam rtf nobler Jr .
C. We would create a school packet (I'm hoping to demo one this year at my elementary) for use by scouts or after school programs that teaches some science, building, and flying. Schools have millions in their STEM funds for such purposes. Estes rockets has tons of school materials that programs frequently use. AMA has material too that I will use and modify for control line if I get to it.
D. I was keeping this secret and invested some money in it years ago, but we could easily (to a programmer) create a fun 2D flying game using the accelerometer by tipping the phone like a cl handle, that is secretly a control line trainer. And it will make tons of money. I have all the details if someone wants to contact me on that one. Just play the game bike race on a phone to know what I'm getting at.
5. Back to the original thread, here's another thought, some say they don't have time for building. But there are many others who are having such a great time building, they have no time left for flying. Building is not the obstacle to the hobby. Building is of itself a rewarding hobby. Obviously not for everyone as has been stated.
-
(Clip)
I knew that information, I was AT the competition in 2004 flying in expert when Orestes flew the Legacy in advanced. I also flew against Yuri and his Shark in 2004.
Please dont proclaim to know what I do and dont comprehend.
(Clip)
I didnt "belittle" anyone, if that was your interpretation of my comments, then your entitled to form them, but Im telling you that was far from my point.
(Clip)
I have no idea what you do or do not comprehend . I do know that you slandered our current National Champion. What you saw and experienced in 2004 has nothing to do with what you wrote on this thread on Aug 23, 2021 at 04:03:38PM:
"When your National Champion gets away with flying what is clearly a Yatsenko Shark and noone *really* cares because he has won so many and won the worlds."
You questioned the integrity of our current National Champion. He did not "get away" (your words) with anything. Now, you state that you "knew that information". So, if you knew that Orestes built his model, why did you suggest otherwise? You were wrong and your implication was totally inappropriate.
Your retraction of your statement from this thread is a poor excuse for an apology.
Keith
-
We are builders/ modellers first. Starting from childhood. Building sand castles in the sandbox, plastic display models, free flight models, CL, RC models. Gradually we came to the point of first flight. Was it our own model or somebody else model - it did not matter. We started enjoying flying. If rules of competition required certain features or BOM, or else- there is always a choice to participate or not to participate in the competition. For recreational flying for own pleasure it’s a different story.
Jerry
-
[quote author=Tom McClain link=topic=60052.msg620094#msg620094 date
The premise of this thread is flawed. It is not modelers vs pilots, it is the pop culture of laziness and instant gratification and the unwillingness to persist at anything that requires work and a pursuit of excellence that is the enemy of sports, hobbies, and the search for personal excellence.
That's just a great quote.
So, a few reflections,
1. If you love cl, try not to get so mad at someone with the same passion? Justp different perspectives is all. It's not like we're arguing over coke vs Pepsi.
2. Matt and Tom, Matt, you may have misread what Tom said because you two said the same thing about aviation not being as cool to kids as it used to be. Also Matt, Woke was not part of the discussion, Gerry just didn't know what it was, it was a total aside. And nicely defined.
3. Our hobby in decline? I can hardly believe it ever got popular based on just how incredibly prohibitive it was and remains to this day. It's the single most difficult hobby to get involved in I've ever heard of...times 5! Which makes us all people of great fortitude, like, way over the top fortitude.
4. If we were serious about growing,
A. We would hold an event a year at a local venue, church or school yard.
B. We would have a tough beginners arf available for any newbies. Think Chinese foam rtf nobler Jr .
C. We would create a school packet (I'm hoping to demo one this year at my elementary) for use by scouts or after school programs that teaches some science, building, and flying. Schools have millions in their STEM funds for such purposes. Estes rockets has tons of school materials that programs frequently use. AMA has material too that I will use and modify for control line if I get to it.
D. I was keeping this secret and invested some money in it years ago, but we could easily (to a programmer) create a fun 2D flying game using the accelerometer by tipping the phone like a cl handle, that is secretly a control line trainer. And it will make tons of money. I have all the details if someone wants to contact me on that one. Just play the game bike race on a phone to know what I'm getting at.
5. Back to the original thread, here's another thought, some say they don't have time for building. But there are many others who are having such a great time building, they have no time left for flying. Building is not the obstacle to the hobby. Building is of itself a rewarding hobby. Obviously not for everyone as has been stated.
All of what you suggest has happened since the advent of Control Line in the 1940s with Jimmy Walker and the American Junior Company, Stanzel, Cleveland, Enterprise, Top Flite, SIG, Veco, Fox, the list is endless as well as the huge meets where up to 100,000 people would show up for the Plymouth Internats as well as the first AMA National Meets that were hosted by the US Navy at Willow Grove, Chicago, Lake Charles, Washington DC. Aviation was of the major interest because of the two World Wars and the admiration of pilots and anything aviation oriented.
Beginner kits and ready to fly models were available back then. Kids would work their tails off with paper routes and mowing lawns to raise the funds to buy a kit and engine, dope, and fuel and clubs were everywhere.
AMA has school packets but the interest has to be there. Kids are not enamored with aviation let alone the space program anymore. They are on line with social media and the desire for 15 minutes of fame. The Pop Culture has ruined the country.
So, until you can come up with a cure for the pop culture, hobbies are not going to be on interest to kids or their parents.
-
Keith.. Im not the type of person who is going to just sit down and accept misconstrued criticism.
This is what I said
]When your National Champion gets away with flying what is clearly a Yatsenko Shark and noone *really* cares because he has won so many and won the worlds.
I stand by this comment.
By "beef" is.. and has always been with uniqueness.
Ok I named Orestes, I have NO PROBLEM with him, what MY issue was and continues to be is a simple one..
What happens next ??
This is how I recall history and development.
George Aldrich I think Nobler
Bob Gieseke I think Gieseke Nobler
Les McDonald think Stilletto.
AL Rabe I think P51 semi scale
Paul Walker I think Impact
Dave Fitzgerald I think Thundergazer
Bob Hunt I think Genesis
I could continue to throw names about but we ALL know these names and the planes associated with those names. The reason is those people developed their own approach, I feel we are collectively missing out on that.
Thats what is being "let get away with".
Each to their own, but I always thought being National champion or even World champion meant you had it ALL. Plane, design, paint, trim, practice, ability, confidence the whole package from the ground up.
Thats just MY OPINION, its also my opinion that the World Champions in general bring something NEW to the table. The Shark is 18 years old now. Imagine a design winning in 1978 STILL winning unchanged into 1996.
Discount the entire 1980s decade and any development.
That feels like we are missing out.. but it sounds like its just me..
Actually... given the impact was designed close to 30 years ago and Howard still flies it great maybe my own point is invalid.
-
PJ, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t your now-deleted post also impugn the integrity of those competing with Yatsenkos in F2B? Not just suggest that it would be better if everyone designed and built their own models (as your last post implies), but actually use words like ‘cheat’ and ‘integrity’?
And surely it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that someone who builds an existing design is ‘getting away with’ anything.
-
PJ, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t your now-deleted post also impugn the integrity of those competing with Yatsenkos in F2B? Not just suggest that it would be better if everyone designed and built their own models (as your last post implies), but actually use words like ‘cheat’ and ‘integrity’?
And surely it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that someone who builds an existing design is ‘getting away with’ anything.
There are *plenty* of people who figure that, if they don't like the rules and think they should be changed, by extension, everyone who wins while exploiting the rules they don't like is "cheating" (or something less inflammatory).
Just as an example - the case of pre-sheeted foam wings is a classic. Those who think they should be illegal, and also those who think there should be no BOM, tend to point the finger at people using pre-sheeted foam wings as "cheating", thus proving either they are undeserving, or that the rules themselves are bogus and therefore should be done away with. Pre-sheeted foam wings have been around since the early 70's, everyone from GMA on down has found them acceptable under the BOM and it simply isn't a problem in real life. But you can seem *many* threads here, including PJ's original post, that call anyone who uses them "cheaters" and therefore don't deserve what they have gotten.
Same with ARCs - I never once thought that the "2005 interpretation" that allowed ARCs to get appearance points was correct, nor that it was ever really a rule, since it was never even presented to, much less voted on, by the contest board. It seemed like, frankly, an abomination. But, given that it was a de facto rule, I hold no ill will and I don't think less of people who took advantage of it - they followed the rules as they were, not as I wanted them to be. I am *very glad* that it was finally done away with.
It's perfectly fine to think the rules should be different and anyone who does should avail themselves of the rule change process. I figure I will put in mine, everyone else puts in theirs, and let the CB sort it all out. I do have a big problem when you call people operating within the rules, even if they are bad rules, as some sort of sham.
Brett
-
Keith.. Im not the type of person who is going to just sit down and accept misconstrued criticism.
This is what I said
]When your National Champion gets away with flying what is clearly a Yatsenko Shark and noone *really* cares because he has won so many and won the worlds.
I stand by this comment.
By "beef" is.. and has always been with uniqueness.
Ok I named Orestes, I have NO PROBLEM with him, what MY issue was and continues to be is a simple one..
What happens next ??
OK, so now that you have defined your terms and you claim that you did not intend to disparage the our current National Champion who is also the current World Champion. My question to you is why should anyone "care" (your term) if his airplane happens to look like a design from someone else? To forbid the use of a non original design has never been in our AMA rules and has never been in the FAI rules. That has never been a criteria before an individual can enter a contest.
You bring up an interesting point about OUR National Champions by listing a few of them and their airplanes. I have a list of all of out National Champions since the appearance of the Walker Cup (which if for the United States National Stunt Champion). Except for a few names prior to 1956, I think it is safe to say all of these Champions used their own design models to win the Walker Cup. There is possibly one more recent exception and that is Bob Baron who won 1996 with a design that he explained as basically a Pattern Master which is not his design.
Also, it could be argued that the Gieseki Nobler is basically still a Nobler.
But, SO WHAT?
Our current National Champion (and current World Champion) did not "get away" with anything because his airplane "looks" like anothere design. What rule was violated. Where is the "Standard" that requires something "original" before a winning a major contest? I do not know your rules in Australia. Do they require such a standard? If not, then why should you be concerned with what we do here in the United States. You are still completely wrong by suggesting our National Champion "got away with something.
So, what do you think should "happen next"? What is an "original design"? A famous writer of a Control Line column in one of our magazines wrote in the 1960's that you could paint all of the CL stunt ships gray, and you would not be able to tell much difference between them. The improvements that have been made over the years, particularly the last 10 to 20 years is not so much in design but in propulsion systems and trimming.
Your issue (imagined?) still does not warrant your disparagement of a great flyer and a really nice person.
Keith
-
Cool thing. Model airplanes are still incredibly fascinating to kids. Just fly at a soccer field or church as I do and watch the kids put down their phones and watch. They are fascinated, probably all of them. But that's where it ends because the entry point, let alone the knowledge and skills base require human guidance most of the time and is not what the instant gratification generation will commit to.
Here's an idea for a new competition class. Not that it would have enough interest, but you could have an Originals Class. You can only fly planes you designed (including modifications to existing planes to make it your own unique touch.) Just a fun idea of course. I've done six originals in ten years. Two stink, and four were worse. But the two that stink could still make it through the pattern. But number six was showing real promise.
Anyone else ever seen the 4/40 rod snap at the threads between the belcranks and flap horn? It was hardware taken from a brodak arf. Maybe cheap pot metal.
-
Here's an idea for a new competition class. Not that it would have enough interest, but you could have an Originals Class.
What makes an airplane "original"? This is one of the problems when there were 40 appearance points, where 10 of those points were for "originality".
Does clipping the wing tips off of a Nobler make it "original"? For the years that provision was in the rule book, there was never an explanation for what "originality" was.
Keith
-
Here's an idea for a new competition class. Not that it would have enough interest, but you could have an Originals Class. You can only fly planes you designed (including modifications to existing planes to make it your own unique touch.
So, would Bob Gieseki get full credit for originality with his modified (several versions) Noblers?
Keith
-
So, would Bob Gieseki get full credit for originality with his modified (several versions) Noblers?
Keith
When he was at his peak, it wouldn't matter, he would have beaten us anyway! LL~
Ken
-
Considering the fact that I have known Orestes longer than most of the people pontificating about him, I guess I'll jump into this mess. Orestes is a dear friend of mind, and I talk to him quite often. I have known him long before he ever came to his first Nats. Let me first state, that all of you jumping on PJ and telling him he doesn't know what he is taking about, might want to check your own so called facts. The original 2007 winning plane was approved by Warren, which many people believe was a mistake. Orestes did the right thing, and presented his construction photos to Warren, to see if it met the BOM requirements. Warren determined it did, and that was that. What followed in years after were multiple "sharks" and then new variations of the original design. Things really started getting heated about the whole situation around 2010. While at the World Champs, the late Bill Rich and I had a conversation with the Yatzenkos to determine the level of "kit" that people were buying to compete at our Nats. Turns out, the "kit" was a RTF with very little assembly required. They came in a base coat of white, that was absolutely perfect and only required trim colors to be applied for an 18 point finish.
When I got home from the world's, I recruited 2 other people to write a new BOM to specifically ban the molded RTFs from competition. After many tries, we were successful, and that is the BOM we have today. Now, the only way to use one of those models "legally" is if you lay it up in the mold yourself. This is exactly the intent of the BOM!
Orestes has his own molds now, so any future discussion about his plane is moot. However, to blast PJ because of the history of the shark, and it's introduction to AMA stunt, is out of line. I do not believe the original Shark from 2007 met our BOM standards, Orestes knows I feel this way. We have discussed it at length. I came in second to him that year by 1.5 points, but I hold no ill will towards him. He is a gentleman, and a great friend.
Derek
-
What makes an airplane "original"? This is one of the problems when there were 40 appearance points, where 10 of those points were for "originality".
Does clipping the wing tips off of a Nobler make it "original"? For the years that provision was in the rule book, there was never an explanation for what "originality" was.
Keith
I won't be able to give a definition of course. And it wouldn't matter unless anyone is seriously interested in having The class. But for arguments sake...tons of our "original" planes were alterations of existing models. So, I'd say sure. Probably the litmus test would be,
1. "to you knowledge, does anyone else have the exact same model as yours? AND if so,
2. was yours the first?".
I don't think there'd be much interest, but if enough think like PJ there could be enough for a class at a contest here or there. I'd sign up. I don't think there are any people that are so high strung they'd have a fit, at least not in California.
-
Considering the fact that I have known Orestes longer than most of the people pontificating about him, I guess I'll jump into this mess. Orestes is a dear friend of mind, and I talk to him quite often. I have known him long before he ever came to his first Nats. Let me first state, that all of you jumping on PJ and telling him he doesn't know what he is taking about, might want to check your own so called facts. The original 2007 winning plane was approved by Warren, which many people believe was a mistake. Orestes did the right thing, and presented his construction photos to Warren, to see if it met the BOM requirements. Warren determined it did, and that was that. What followed in years after were multiple "sharks" and then new variations of the original design. Things really started getting heated about the whole situation around 2010. While at the World Champs, the late Bill Rich and I had a conversation with the Yatzenkos to determine the level of "kit" that people were buying to compete at our Nats. Turns out, the "kit" was a RTF with very little assembly required. They came in a base coat of white, that was absolutely perfect and only required trim colors to be applied for an 18 point finish.
When I got home from the world's, I recruited 2 other people to write a new BOM to specifically ban the molded RTFs from competition. After many tries, we were successful, and that is the BOM we have today. Now, the only way to use one of those models "legally" is if you lay it up in the mold yourself. This is exactly the intent of the BOM!
Orestes has his own molds now, so any future discussion about his plane is moot. However, to blast PJ because of the history of the shark, and it's introduction to AMA stunt, is out of line. I do not believe the original Shark from 2007 met our BOM standards, Orestes knows I feel this way. We have discussed it at length. I came in second to him that year by 1.5 points, but I hold no ill will towards him. He is a gentleman, and a great friend.
Derek
Well Derek, you have managed to throw shade and smoke on something that has been been settled by many, Warren, Keith, Brett, Randi, myself, and many others, that Orestes did fulfill the 51% criteria in building his Shark. He got the Yatsenkos to do something they did not want to do, namely, provide him with a Shark kit consisting of wing skins, spars, fuselage shells, skins for the horizontal tail, vertical fin, flying surfaces, formers for everything, and then he had to build fixtures to jig all together so that the plane was true. He glued it all together and installed the controls, landing gear, and all the other things we do to build a competition ship.
The Yatsenkos did not want to provide him with kits because they did not trust anyone except themselves to build the Shark correctly.
When I got done with my research interviewing Warren and Orestes, there was no doubt he had met the BOM requirement. If you and others did not think so, you should have challenged Orestes and Warren officially at the NATS, but you didn't. Case closed.
I didn’t need to know Orestes for years to realize he met the requirements of AMA BOM.
This thread is really about why control line aerobatics is dying. BOM was posited as the reason. Wrong!! The reason is the Pop Culture and its corrosive effect on all who do not want to work diligently at something, but seek out the quick and easy way to your 15 minutes of fame on social media. Persistence, diligence, rugged individualism, and the dogged pursuit of personal excellence are sneered at now and thought as Whitey's World and Racist. Newly introduced men, women, boys, and girls to control line want to be able to do all of it immediately and get frustrated when they are confronted with the reality of the need to persist and hard practice.
There are no short cuts skills that require hard work, education, the dogged pursuit of personal excellence, refusal to accept good enough, and the desire to continually improve.
-
Tom,
51% was never part of the BOM. I had heard that when I started but once I read the BOM it was never in there. At least not in my time and I came up through this right at the same time Orestes did.
This thread is not about control line dying. Read the original post again. It's about the joy he gets when he builds his own stuff. Others have changed the narrative.
If I were of the younger generation and read what you have written many times in this thread I would never want to do anything with you.
I get so tired of old guys ripping on young guys for not having the same interests they do. Or going about things the same way. It's so old and tired. I have been reading and hearing that ever since I got into control line. When I first flew control line Bob G was there doing full patterns. I didn't know what that was but I wanted to do it on the very first day I flew. I am sure there were old guys who grew up in the 30s ripping on young boys growing up in the 50s for being "instant gratification and lazy types" I taught my son to build and fly. He mostly built his own profile and soloed on it as well. Took about 6 months of trying to really get flying down. Then he was done. Not because he is an instant gratification kid and lazy. But because his interests lie elsewhere, basketball, baseball, and yes the very dreaded words video games. And sometimes just sitting around doing a bunch of nothing. That's ok too. Alot of good ideas come from really bored kids. He has the rest of his life to work and try to make ends meet.
People get ripped on for video games. But in today's world there is actually alot of skill and insanely quick thinking and decision making going on and to get good at complex online video games where you play live against other people it takes a ton of practice. Many games have a practice SIM so you can home your skills before you enter into the fray. I know this because there are a few games I like to play but at 52 my decision making process cant keep up with the younger guys. My son at 14 can get outplayed by 10 year olds due to their ability to think quickly with clear minds. It is simply amazing at times.
I know Tom dismissed Matt's post but Matt was right on the money.
The real thing that punched control line right in gut was the invention of the afforable radio control system. That right there started the migration away from the circles towards the runway.
I am quite certain in years past there were always those who worked hard and those who hardly worked.
-
Socialism/Communism are (stupid) ideas intended to address class warfare. The USA is a classless society, "all men are created equal" and "equal protection" make class distinctions wrong and illegal.
So, to implement socialism/communism, you first have to *create* class warfare. Enter the "woke" movement - everyone is out to screw everyone else, white men are the ultimate culprits behind it all, and for someone to succeed, someone else has to lose, because life is a zero-sum game. Take it seriously, and you *will* have class warfare - at which point the socialists/communists can swoop in with their solution.
Of course, it doesn't and can't solve the problem, all it does is pick different winners and losers, and in every single example so far, *greatly polarized* society into oligarchs and crushed almost everyone else into grinding inescapable poverty, while dragging down the entire system to second-world levels, far worse than it was originally.
They have been surprisingly successful, but make no mistake, class/race/sex distinctions in the law are opposed to *every single formative principle*, and were the *alternate* and *far superior* solution to the ills of class warfare common in the Old World. The founding principles of the republic *are the correct solution to the problems of class distinction*, they set out to solve it once and for all, and as long as we all understand that, it does.
Brett
I really wish there was a like button because I would have hit it about 1000000000000000000000 times. Great post.
-
Well Derek, you have managed to throw shade and smoke on something that has been been settled by many, Warren, Keith, Brett, Randi, myself, and many others, that Orestes did fulfill the 51% criteria in building his Shark. He got the Yatsenkos to do something they did not want to do, namely, provide him with a Shark kit consisting of wing skins, spars, fuselage shells, skins for the horizontal tail, vertical fin, flying surfaces, formers for everything, and then he had to build fixtures to jig all together so that the plane was true. He glued it all together and installed the controls, landing gear, and all the other things we do to build a competition ship.
The Yatsenkos did not want to provide him with kits because they did not trust anyone except themselves to build the Shark correctly.
When I got done with my research interviewing Warren and Orestes, there was no doubt he had met the BOM requirement. If you and others did not think so, you should have challenged Orestes and Warren officially at the NATS, but you didn't. Case closed.
This thread is really about why control line aerobatics is dying. BOM was posited as the reason. Wrong!! The reason is the Pop Culture and its corrosive effect on all who do not want to work diligently at something, but seek out the quick and easy way to your 15 minutes of fame on social media. Persistence, diligence, rugged individualism, and the dogged pursuit of personal excellence are sneered at now and thought as Whitey's World and Racist. Newly introduced men, women, boys, and girls to control line want to be able to do all of it immediately and get frustrated when they are confronted with the reality of the need to persist and hard practice.
I am fully aware of the decision you guys made, and every single one of you were wrong in that decision. I don't need a history lesson from you, on things I was there for. (I know all about the Orestes only kit) If my memory is correct, 51% wasn't even in the AMA rule, that is something you guys came up with. I will go back and read the rule before we got it changed. Your terrible decision lead to a Nats with no less than 15 RTFs in competition. Congratulations!!
While you and I might agree politically, you are obviously the same asshole you have always been.
Derek
-
I am fully aware of the decision you guys made, and every single one of you were wrong in that decision. I don't need a history lesson from you, on things I was there for. (I know all about the Orestes only kit) If my memory is correct, 51% wasn't even in the AMA rule, that is something you guys came up with. I will go back and read the rule before we got it changed. Your terrible decision lead to a Nats with no less than 15 RTFs in competition. Congratulations!!
While you and I might agree politically, you are obviously the same asshole you have always been.
Derek
I will say it again, you had your chance to challenge the decision made by Warren and Oriestes's Shark as not BOM, but you and others remained silent. Case closed.
Talk about sour grapes, and then you resort to use of profanity. How droll and base. Profanity is the refuge of those who cannot back up their argument in the arena of ideas. I base my decisions and discourse on proven and demonstrable facts not feelings. How you reacted to my message tells me loads about your character or possible lack of.
-
Tom,
51% was never part of the BOM. I had heard that when I started but once I read the BOM it was never in there. At least not in my time and I came up through this right at the same time Orestes did.
This thread is not about control line dying. Read the original post again. It's about the joy he gets when he builds his own stuff. Others have changed the narrative.
If I were of the younger generation and read what you have written many times in this thread I would never want to do anything with you
I get so tired of old guys ripping on young guys for not having the same interests they do. Or going about things the same way. It's so old and tired. I have been reading and hearing that ever since I got into control line. When I first flew control line Bob G was there doing full patterns. I didn't know what that was but I wanted to do it on the very first day I flew. I am sure there were old guys who grew up in the 30s ripping on young boys growing up in the 50s for being "instant gratification and lazy types" I taught my son to build and fly. He mostly built his own profile and soloed on it as well. Took about 6 months of trying to really get flying down. Then he was done. Not because he is an instant gratification kid and lazy. But because his interests lie elsewhere, basketball, baseball, and yes the very dreaded words video games. And sometimes just sitting around doing a bunch of nothing. That's ok too. Alot of good ideas come from really bored kids. He has the rest of his life to work and try to make ends meet.
People get ripped on for video games. But in today's world there is actually alot of skill and insanely quick thinking and decision making going on and to get good at complex online video games where you play live against other people it takes a ton of practice. Many games have a practice SIM so you can home your skills before you enter into the fray. I know this because there are a few games I like to play but at 52 my decision making process cant keep up with the younger guys. My son at 14 can get outplayed by 10 year olds due to their ability to think quickly with clear minds. It is simply amazing at times.
I know Tom dismissed Matt's post but Matt was right on the money.
The real thing that punched control line right in gut was the invention of the afforable radio control system. That right there started the migration away from the circles towards the runway.
I am quite certain in years past there were always those who worked hard and those who hardly worked.
Doug, you throw invectives at me with no objective examples of what I have said or written that is hurtful or derogatory towards the younger generation. Enlighten me.
-
I will say it again, you had your chance to challenge the decision made by Warren and Oriestes's Shark as not BOM, but you and others remained silent. Case closed.
Talk about sour grapes, and then you resort to use of profanity. How droll and base. Profanity is the refuge of those who cannot back up their argument in the arena of ideas. I base my decisions and discourse on proven and demonstrable facts not feelings. How you reacted to my message tells me loads about your character or possible lack of.
I will stand by and vouch for Derek's character all day every day and then some. I am certain many many many more will do the same. You might want to pay a little more attention.
-
I will say it again, you had your chance to challenge the decision made by Warren and Oriestes's Shark as not BOM, but you and others remained silent. Case closed.
Talk about sour grapes, and then you resort to use of profanity. How droll and base. Profanity is the refuge of those who cannot back up their argument in the arena of ideas. I base my decisions and discourse on proven and demonstrable facts not feelings. How you reacted to my message tells me loads about your character or possible lack of.
There was no way to challenge the ED'S call, because he is given the authority to make the call, as Event Director, in the rule!
Yes I use profanity, mainly because I like it. It says nothing about my character, or my ability to debate. You failed to address the fact that you guys made up your own 51% rule, and now you're using it to justify your terrible decision.
You are correct that I am throwing shade on YOU and everyone involved in that decision, because it created an atmosphere where, skirting the rules was accepted. (PJ'S point) Now you have the nerve to complain about being called on it. By my math, that still makes you an asshole!
Derek
-
Doug, you throw invectives at me with no objective examples of what I have said or written that is hurtful or derogatory towards the younger generation. Enlighten me.
You write in a very derogatory way and constantly state yourself as the end all be all answer to whatever the question and or topic happens to be. There is good example in this very thread. You first posted the reason why CL is dying is because the younger generation are all lazy instant gratification types. Someone else posted what could be another reason and you came back and wrote the very same thing again stating your position was the correct position.
You should go back and read what you wrote. But it wont make a difference because you are always right, except when you stated 51% was observed or whatever you said about it.
51% was never in the rule and if you used that to make a decision about the BOM you were wrong to do so.
-
I will say it again, you had your chance to challenge the decision made by Warren and Oriestes's Shark as not BOM, but you and others remained silent. Case closed.
Talk about sour grapes, and then you resort to use of profanity. How droll and base. Profanity is the refuge of those who cannot back up their argument in the arena of ideas. I base my decisions and discourse on proven and demonstrable facts not feelings. How you reacted to my message tells me loads about your character or possible lack of.
Sorry, not buying that line. He defended his position quite well before he decided to add his personal assessment of you at the end. LOL! People who pick on language in the middle of an argument usually have no argument so they deflect. If we insist on there being a BOM then we have to have the stomach to enforce it, otherwise its just a worthless document that is not fair to the people who do choose to follow it.
-
Sorry, not buying that line. He defended his position quite well before he decided to add his personal assessment of you at the end. LOL! People who pick on language in the middle of an argument usually have no argument so they deflect. If we insist on there being a BOM then we have to have the stomach to enforce it, otherwise its just a worthless document that is not fair to the people who do choose to follow it.
What he said.
-
Why would anyone ever think 51% was part of the rule? I do remember it being thrown around when I was first into competition. But then I read the rule and it certainly wasn't in there. I didn't know that was used in that case. Interesting tid bit of information there.
-
Derek, Eric, Doug: BRAVO!
Later, Steve
-
What he said.
y1 y1
-
Hey Tom, let me ask you this. Does all the hard work college and professional athletes put in rugged individualism? Or is that lazy, instant gratification too? I gave way too many friends that have put in hard work to get to where they are right now in this “lazy” generation. Just because they don’t build and play with toy airplanes does not make them lazy
PS. Eric Derek and Doug are 100% correct
-
Orestes has his own molds now, so any future discussion about his plane is moot. However, to blast PJ because of the history of the shark, and it's introduction to AMA stunt, is out of line. I do not believe the original Shark from 2007 met our BOM standards, Orestes knows I feel this way. We have discussed it at length. I came in second to him that year by 1.5 points, but I hold no ill will towards him. He is a gentleman, and a great friend.
I am not here to defend or accuse anyone - but, as you show, the point could have been made *without* throwing out accusations or resorting to fingerpointing and calling someone a cheat. I guarantee that will get about the same response no matter what the topic, because some of us have had to deal with that sort of thing for 40ish years in the nastiest possible way, and have become highly sensitized to it.
BTW, if someone had asked me, back in 2005 (or 96, or 88...) on the general topic of BOM, I might have come to a different conclusion much closer to yours. Point being, once it was decided, it was time for me and everyone else to move on, and work to change the rules, not throw brickbats at those who used them.
I think, ultimately, the right thing was done - get rid of the 2005 interpretation and then write a clear definition. It was unfortunate it took 6+ years, but that doesn't invalidate what happened in between.
Brett
-
I was going to open a new can of worms on a new thread, but this can will work.
1. Sounds like several of you would like to revisit the BOM rule and update it. The past is past, the present will be past, but the future is wide open for rules changes.\
A. Sounds like several of you believe: If you did not lay up the molds yourself, you may not use both wing skins and fuselage skins on the same aircraft.
If so, write the proposal, sounds like there may be support for it. The longer you wait, the harder it will be to change. If that's what I'm hearing.
2. Here's another idea that some may love or hate (I'm undecided), but I'm sure everyone will be very polite in expressing themselves, lol.
Scoresheet change: Remove appearance points. Replace with: Finisher of the model - 10pts (NOT 1-10). Builder of the Model - 10pts (NOT 1-10). Nats still requires BOM. However, 1. we have all seen OPINIONS by the appearance judge dramatically affect the outcome of contests. i.e. Dick Mathis Chizler for example. Bob Barron Monocote for example. Their amazing craftsmanship was not mainstream and didn't get equal points to someone else's amazing craftsmanship.
Does my ugly plane that I slaved over, built from scratch, labored over the paint job, etc, deserve as many points as your museum finish plane? Good question. But I'll guarantee that photos are being taken of yours, while babies are crying at mine. This also rules out many accusations of getting help, not doing equal work, etc. But, it still keeps in essence, we built these planes. We are craftsman. We are artists. We are more than pilots.
Will people stop doing nice work? Not a chance. Jim Aron doesn't make his planes look amazing because it'll put him in the top five or not, he does it because he loves to. And it's obvious from the craftsmanship that most of you are in the same boat regarding your goals although not necessarily the outcome. :) FIRE AWAY - and possibly my 2nd point does have a tad of instant gratification in its core.
-
The 51% BOM idea came from someone suggesting using a rule employed by EAA that a minimum of 51% of the plane had to be built by the builder in order to qualify as a "home-built". That suggestion took root in some minds as being an AMA stipulation.
I think.
dg
-
It always descends into a dick measuring contest where opinions are given not formed.
Let me be clear.. Fly a Yatsenko Shark and you will receive zero respect for your results from me. If you have some form of intellectual issue with my concept of what constitutes a cheat then thats your problem not mine.
This has turned into BOM vs the world.
For such a small group of people YALL seem to be REALLY opinionated but forget Stunt is done in another place other than USA.
-
Tell you what, here is an idea. Next NATS or WORLDs, everybody flies a Shark. That will level the playing field. Let's see who comes out on top. Just a little sarcasm as we are facing down and Cat 4 Hurricane down here.
Mike
-
Tell you what, here is an idea. Next NATS or WORLDs, everybody flies a Shark. That will level the playing field. Let's see who comes out on top. Just a little sarcasm as we are facing down and Cat 4 Hurricane down here.
Mike
Head for the high ground, be safe and good luck!
Ken
-
Head for the high ground, be safe and good luck!
Ken
Thanks Ken. We are riding it out and it is going to be rough.
Mike
-
Time for me to chime in with my Novel idea! LOL. I am from Missouri and it's called the show-me state for a reason. in the words of the late RR (trust but verify) To end this controversy for everyone take a VIDEO of the build. No excuses everyone has a camera (cell phone) Then there are not just pictures and paragraphs of the testimony of a build but a full log should it come into question.
If it walks, quacks and looks like a duck is most likely is a duck.
Occam's razor or the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one." Wikipedia
-
Time for me to chime in with my Novel idea! LOL. I am from Missouri and it's called the show-me state for a reason. in the words of the late RR (trust but verify) To end this controversy for everyone take a VIDEO of the build. No excuses everyone has a camera (cell phone) Then there are not just pictures and paragraphs of the testimony of a build but a full log should it come into question.
If it walks, quacks and looks like a duck is most likely is a duck.
Occam's razor or the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one." Wikipedia
Robert, I'm glad you brought Photos and Builds up. The Forum should have more of this type of participation.
Everyone of these models have a documented Build right here in Stunt Hanger.
If you lack inexperience in doing a "photo build," research these models and view the Builds.
It's so easy to do. A day at a time building and a daily photo explaining the work "you" did.
This alone eliminates all other possibilities and proves beyond a doubt, you are the BOM.
Yes, I'm so excited and proud to be the "Builder" of these models not to mention how enjoyable doing ALL the work is. IMHO, this is what a hobby is all about. ;D
-
It always descends into a dick measuring contest where opinions are given not formed.
Let me be clear.. Fly a Yatsenko Shark and you will receive zero respect for your results from me. If you have some form of intellectual issue with my concept of what constitutes a cheat then thats your problem not mine.
This has turned into BOM vs the world.
For such a small group of people YALL seem to be REALLY opinionated but forget Stunt is done in another place other than USA.
Was reply #18 too subtle?
-
Was reply #18 too subtle?
Thanks for the #18 heads up. I actually performed with a small Dance Company in my really early days.
Ballet and Jazz. Not just enjoying the Arts, but participating in them. These were great years and great gals! ;D
-
Thanks for the #18 heads up. I actually performed with a small Dance Company in my really early days.
Ballet and Jazz. Not just enjoying the Arts, but participating in them. These were great years and great gals! ;D
:) In fairness, it wasn't for you.
And it really has nothing to do with the theatre.
-
:) In fairness, it wasn't for you.
And it really has nothing to do with the theatre.
I always thought Posts where for anyone who elected to reply?
I must have read it incorrectly.
-
I always thought Posts where for anyone who elected to reply?
I must have read it incorrectly.
Oh! Absolutely. No problem there.
Look for a PM.
-
:) In fairness, it wasn't for you.
And it really has nothing to do with the theatre.
Actually, Chuck's reading comprehensions skills absolutely suck. And he had trouble with numbers. He didn't even read the correct numbered post! He just looks for any opportunity to post those same tired of photos of his hanger queens even when the thread is all about flying models, which we know he doesn't do either.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Actually, Chuck's reading comprehensions skills absolutely suck. And he had trouble with numbers. He didn't even read the correct numbered post! He just looks for any opportunity to post those same tired of photos of his hanger queens even when the thread is all about flying models, which we know he doesn't do either.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
LL~ You can't resist. LL~
When are you going to Post photos of the models you've built and contribute to the Forum with a Build? Rumor has it you're really more of a "buyer" than a "BOM."
I may have been mislead? Have I?
BTW. I designed and built these models also. And Yes, I will have "Finishing Builds" when it comes time.
I am absolutely a "BOM."
-
Time for me to chime in with my Novel idea! LOL. I am from Missouri and it's called the show-me state for a reason. in the words of the late RR (trust but verify) To end this controversy for everyone take a VIDEO of the build. No excuses everyone has a camera (cell phone) Then there are not just pictures and paragraphs of the testimony of a build but a full log should it come into question.
So, you think it is a good idea to DQ every single airplane being flown now (aside from yours, presumably)? We going to time-tag it so you know the video is the airplane you have right now, or taken 25 years ago? Can't fake those time-tags, eh? The fuselage I built in 1991 is *identical within about .010"* of the one I built in 2011 and is the one used on the airplane I first flew in 2020, even internally. How would you tell the difference? Unless I had someone else build the second one - or the first one - or the third one.
See the problem?
The more specific and elaborate the rules, the more ways there are to exploit them. The corollary is that making rules more elaborate punishes those who would have followed the rules in any case, and allow those who want to cheat many more ways to do it.
This is, as it always has been, a tempest in a teapot, and "proving" things is not *in any way important*. People sign that they followed the rules, that is good enough. A few people taking extreme positions and getting really angry about it doesn't mean there is any genuine issue that demands a response.
Of course, if someone feels they need to "fix" this so-called "problem", then *write a proposal and submit it*. About 10 years ago, I wrote 12 of them in under an hour, it is not hard. They all passed.
No one ever does it, because *they know that these various hard-core "fixes" are going exactly nowhere*. That's not because of some mysterious evil forces are trying to keep their great ideas suppressed - but because the current arrangement is generally satisfactory to almost everyone.
And for the most part, no one even attempts to make a rational argument for their idea. I mean, look at this thread, where David very innocently and without accusing anyone of anything, says he really enjoys building and flying and what a shame it is some others don't. He didn't call anyone a cheater, he didn't accuse anyone of anything. The result - a flame-fest, probably not in the Top 10 as far as flame-fests go, but still, wildly over-the-top.
Stunt and PAMPA has made some monumental mistakes over the years - not in running the contests, but in *overreacting to minor problems*, trying to *stop the arguments*. Someone might get really mad about something, and for a long time, we treated one or a few people being really mad as if it was some genuine issue that demanded some response. Even when almost everyone agreed that it was either not a problem, or so trivial it didn't matter. But no, we went out of our way to accomodate them, sometimes to the detriment of everyone else who didn't care about it.
Alternately - someone is mad - so what? Does that mean we should make extreme attempts to accommodate them, turn ourselves inside out to address their concerns, or even to point out the flaws in their logic. Examine their complaint, if they make a good point (despite the foaming at the mouth), then, that's worth considering. If they don't - move on.
As always, it takes two people to argue about something, if someone doesn't like "all the arguments", then, just ignore them. Falling all over ourselves trying to "stop the arguing" has gotten us in trouble time and again, and just made the arguments worse.
We have a pretty good system now, the system is not broken in any consequential way. If some (PJ {who I note made his point much better in his last post, although I think he is probably still wrong}, whoever, doesn't like something, OK - noted. They are entitled to their opinions, the rest of us are *also* entitled to their opinions, and for the most part, we have arrived at a situation that is generally satisfactory, and we have a pretty functional system for ensuring it stays that way.
So, aside from finding the accusations unseemly - what the heck are we arguing about?
Brett
-
What are we arguing about?
That is actually a REALLY good point. Ive had a few days to personally reflect on the issue and the problem, and my opinion is only one based on "giving back"
I have completely ignored that the Yatsenko RTF has allowed more people into the hobby, and has allowed others to make gains within the sport at a more rapid rate.
Does this bother me??
What would I prefer??
Noone to fly against or be able to discuss Stunt
Or
A growing hobby with new people..
Im not doing a backflip, I do think building and competition is the core of Stunt and a reflection of personality.
Its a matter of pride.
Here is what is interesting to me... the guys who actually DO build virtually 100% of the plane seem to be more passionate about those achievements. They KNOW how much work is involved in getting even an 18 point 550 capable setup.
Here is an Idea
Why dont we ALL explain why WE enjoy the hobby .
Here is mine :
I Love stunt planes. I fell in love with the beauty of them, from the paint to the flight.
I love building but I can ONLY build stunt planes. My skills at other areas like scale, or RC, is limited.
I enjoy the ability to develop a new design and have something better from year to year.
I enjoy the process of flying aerobatics and enjoy practice and trim.
I flew recently during sunset and felt totally peaceful and that provides me joy.
I enjoy seeing other people like Brett and enjoy listening to his technical understanding of the sport. I share the passion of Derek and have enjoyed his artistic planes.
I dont want to name everyone who does the sport ,but I gain inspiration from these types of people whom.are at the top of their game.
I am in total awe of Orestes and have seen him fly live many times including his Worlds flight. , Ive personallly told him I think he flew virtually a flawless pattern with machine like bottoms and deserves to be a proud World champion.
I can say that and still think flying a shark isnt right.
What I want might not be what someone else wants. I want to share this sport with others who share my views.
-
Those airplanes would have been challenged in the years they snuck in had it not been stopped by a rule change of imposing a $50.00 fee for the AMA to do their job of which you are sure to lose as it is in their interest to keep the $50.00.
The camel's nose is under the tent and soon the whole camel will be in. We have no one to blame but ourselves for letting this happen.
-
So contentious because contests which are sport, are being confused with the hobby of building. BOM rule is not confused about that, but apparently even the best of us are!
Has anyone ever heard of a golfer that made his own clubs? Of course not. BOM is about craftsmen investing talent and meticulous time in their masterpieces.
BOM has nothing to do with elitism. Model BUILDERS are AMA’s roots. In 1963 building was the only way we could fly. I sensed blurred vision of that when AMA officers promoted, “drones are the future of AMA”! A local E-RC, foamy flyer exclaimed to me, “I don’t know why you waste your time building…”.
Guys that speak model airplane, in particular CL, are my best friends and they are best friends! Contests are competition. Let’s not confuse sport with hobby.
I enjoy several SCRATCH-BUILT, CL hand-me-downs, and always welcome at the field even though I never became a proficient flyer.
-
So contentious because contests which are sport, are being confused with the hobby of building. BOM rule is not confused about that, but apparently even the best of us are!
Has anyone ever heard of a golfer that made his own clubs? Of course not. BOM is about craftsmen investing talent and meticulous time in their masterpieces.
BOM has nothing to do with elitism. Model BUILDERS are AMA’s roots. In 1963 building was the only way we could fly. I sensed blurred vision of that when AMA officers promoted, “drones are the future of AMA”! A local E-RC, foamy flyer exclaimed to me, “I don’t know why you waste your time building…”.
Guys that speak model airplane, in particular CL, are my best friends and they are best friends! Contests are competition. Let’s not confuse sport with hobby.
I enjoy several SCRATCH-BUILT, CL hand-me-downs, and always welcome at the field even though I never became a proficient flyer.
I think what we do CAN be defined as either sport or hobby depending on how one looks at it. There is certainly room for everyone and in fact these are the ones who really support the hobby with their dollars. If you are a serious competitor it really only comes as a 'total package' deal. That is why our 'thing' is like almost no other endeavor. National Champion in the U.S. goes to the one capable in every aspect. We are unique in that respect. Most other events and in most other countries FAI rules are flown with no BOM or appearance judging. Very well, but that is a reason to keep our tradition. For some this is nothing but a moot discussion since it really only applies to Advanced and Open at the U.S. Nats. (there are a few local exceptions ).
-
I think, some definitions are not correct. Building model airplanes with a lot of skills is a hobby. And collecting coins or post stamps is a hobby. Flying CL stunt with all physical ability, skills to set the equipment is a sport. And playing chess is a sport. Creating model airplane from scratch, paint it, - is a hobby. But creating “Mona Lisa” is the art.
I think our CL business should be named SPort ART, or symply : SPART.
Jerry
-
I think, some definitions are not correct. Building model airplanes with a lot of skills is a hobby. And collecting coins or post stamps is a hobby. Flying CL stunt with all physical ability, skills to set the equipment is a sport. And playing chess is a sport. Creating model airplane from scratch, paint it, - is a hobby. But creating “Mona Lisa” is the art.
I think our CL business should be named SPort ART, or symply : SPART.
Jerry
I'm a good example of someone who participates in a hobby. My sport is Tennis.
Many of you guys enjoy this hobby as a Sport. But then, is it still a "hobby?"
I have absolutely no interest in building models to participate in the "Sport."
Like I said, my sport is tennis.
-
Somehow, in one of the discussions on the Russian forum, in an attempt to determine who is a real modeler and who is an ARF "tester", people agreed that model builders using CAD systems for design and CNC machines for manufacturing parts cannot be considered modelers in the highest meaning this word.
-
Alexey,
I see your point. CNC cut ribs vs. manually cut would be a manual skill distinction. Myself, I see using both types of ribs would still be "building."
The distinction between having building skills vs flying skills, which are distinct, became abundantly clear to me in 1972 when I was serving as an RC pattern judge as a teenager. Our small group of judges had folding chairs along the flight line. A scale builder was attempting to fly his creation, but having difficulty guiding it, causing us to scramble for cover and duck as the plane bore down on our position. One of the more experienced judges allowed as how scale builders spend less time practicing their piloting skills. Made sense at the time.
Peter
-
In the real aviation world, pilots are perceived now by youth as only glorified bus drivers. Aviation is of no interest to many because it takes education, investment of time and resources, and persistence. Then when youth get into military or commercial aviation they want the perks now instead of submitting to the apprentice of experience and time that piloting takes. The Pop Culture is the cancer that causes this. Just look at America's Got Talent and The Voice. Instant Gratification. The Pop Culture is the search for 15 minutes of fame and not the reward of the realization of personal improvement and the attainment of excellence after hard work and persistence.
Yup, agreed, what you said is correct.
I saw a concrete contractor go through that problem, was hiring foreigners across the border with work visas (yes, legally) to be concrete finishers, because he couldn't find anyone locally who knew how or wanted to learn. Construction pays very good wages, but requires patience to get to the journeyman level. Few are willing to go that extra mile of 5 years of training before gaining a license.
Yet those who do, and marry the right woman (what you see is what you get doesn't work in software nor women), they have all their needs met, live in nice neighborhoods, and children are more likely to grow up successful.
Most would rather play with their intelligent phones and live in the air conditioning comfort of their parent's homes as adults, instead of working in the heat and cold outdoors framing, laying rebar, covering, plumbing, running electrical circuits, along with flat work and soil work, etc.