Please Read the Current BOM Rule 1st

[Rudy Taube]

I may catch flack for this, and I know what you are saying: .... We need another BOM thread like we need another "hole in the head"! But with all the misinformation being spread on this heated topic; 51%, many kit parts needed, recovered ARFs not allowed, etc. etc.  I thought it might be helpful if more people actually read the BOM rule as it appears in the current rule book before they talk about what they "think" the rule is, often a WAG? ;-)

If you have already read the new BOM rules, then I apologize for wasting your time with this post. If you are making posts on this, and you have not read it, as a favor to all of us on this forum, please read it below, TIA :-)

As a CL retread, after 30 wasted years practicing the "Dark Arts", I am disheartend to see how many people on these excellent forums make their heated posts about this very small, but important, part of our rules when it is obvious that they have not read the PRESENT BOM RULE that we have in the CURRENT AMA rule book.

FWIW: Here is the AMA BOM rule, from the AMA rule book:

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

http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/compreg.aspx       on Page 8

 
IMHO:
A Real modeler is someone who knows the rules, stays within the rules, and then has FUN! ....Anything else is a lot like WORK! 

Regards, 

[peabody]

I would sure enjoy seeing the questionnaire that was sent to the CLPACB...as well as a tabulation of the results. My guy NEVER got to vote on either, and he has a working telephone and e-mail address. His questions as to why fall upon deaf ears as well.

[Chuck Feldman]

Lets use the ARF/ARC Strega for the purpose of this comment.

As I read these rules an ARC would be completely legal model at the Nats while an Arf would not be (covered from the the box). With that said, who can tell whether a model was recovered? Was it purchased as arf or arc? (may I see your sales receipt please?)

I believe the Shark (Nats winner 2007) is without covering as it is of graphite construction and the covering (paint} is applied to the graphite.  So then an unpainted Shark is OK but one that is factory painted is not OK. So lets go one more step. I get a shark that is factory painted and strip the paint and repaint it myself. Hmmmm.

Seems like we should just "Forget about it"

[john e. holliday]

Reread the posted BOM rule.  I want to know how the builder makes his/her own covering, ie. silkspan, silk, nylon and monokote.  Yes I am nit picking,  DOC Holliday

[Marvin Denny]

[quote author=I believe the Shark (Nats winner 2007) is without covering as it is of graphite construction and the covering (paint} is applied to the graphite.  So then an unpainted Shark is OK but one that is factory painted is not OK. So lets go one more step. I get a shark that is factory painted and strip the paint and repaint it myself. Hmmmm.

Seems like we should just "Forget about it"
[/quote]

  Covering is normally considered as the silk, silkspan, iron-on covering, and sheeting over the foam wings. Paint coatings are usually construed as the finish and are usually sprayed, brushed,swabbed or dipped on. (I use a mop. or so it appears)
  Nowhere in the current or in past issues of the AMA BOM rule has it EVER required the "Finish" to be applied by the builder.  It says  ..." up to and including the covering where used"... . The "where used"  allows for solid surfaces such as some flaps, stabs, and other surfaces that might receive paint directly onto the surface.  MANY people over the years have employed professional finishers (painters) to do the final painting, coating, and polishing out of their models.  And that includes not only Stunt planes but also speed and racing planes in events that still have/or once had the BOM in effect.
  ANY rewrite or further "intrepretation" of the BOM (in my opinion) should include the requirement of application of the finish.

  Bigiron

[Dick Fowler]

Here is the old versus the new BOM Rule for comparitive purposes.  (Edited to correct an oversight)

Old rule:

6. Builder of Model. The CD shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has completely “constructed’ the model(s) he uses in competition, including the covering where used, with “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model starting with no more prefabrication than the amount used in the average kit. Models which are completely prefabricated and require only a few minutes of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition. In the case of rubber-powered models (excluding Indoor duration models), commercially available balsa, plastic, and hardwood propellers may be used. Materials and design may be obtained from any source, including kits. The builder-of-the-model rule applies to every AMA event unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event.

New rule:

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

[Charlie Pate]

Does a sheeted foam wing count same as covered?

[Rudy Taube]

Hi Dick,

I know you meant well in your post, by showing the OLD rule but your inaccurate labeling of the rules only clouds the issue, although I'm sure that was not your intent.

The reason I made my post was so that we all could start talking about facts, as in the current AMA "BOM Rule", as shown in the current AMA RULE BOOK. Please do not call anything else the "Rule" when it is no longer in the rule book. That would be like someone quoting something from the 1963 rule book and referring to it as "The Rule" and calling everything after it just an interpertation. Please go to the current AMA rule book and you will see that the Old BOM rule no longer exists, it is in the history books, just like the 1963 rules are.

Now, if someone wants to be an investigative reporter and dig to the bottom of the story on how this rule got changed, that would be interesting from a historical point of view, but it would be moot as far as what rule we all are going by now. If someone wants to change it, the AMA has a very detailed set of instructions in the Rule Book on how to make a change, including AMA officials having the ability to participate in the process.

My feeling is that the vast majority of people on Sparky's excellent forum have their hearts in the right place and feel pasionate about this very small hobby/sport of ours. My only reason for making the "risky"   move to start this thread was so that we could all try to deal with the rule as it really is now and stick with the FACTS, not speculation, and not bending, twisting, or misquoting a rule that was not even read by some of those who were talking about it.

[Dick Fowler]

Rudy, it was an oversight copied from another older post of mine. For the record, I don't make it a habit of "blowing smoke".

[peabody]

Whatever your belief about the BOM and the interpretations, contact your District CLPACB member and ask him for a rundown of votes: who voted for what, and while you're at it, let him know how you feel.

[Keith Spriggs]

These threads have been very interesting to an outsider looking in. Just because I have never built a world class model and never flown anything more complicated than a lazy eight it doesn't prevent me from having some thoughts on the subject.

As I see it with the current rules it is actually two contest rolled in to one. One one hand it is your ability to build and on the other hand it is your ability to fly. If winning is everything to someone they may be tempted to push the rules or down right cheat. We see it everyday whether it is an athlete using performance enhancing drugs or someone building a car for NASCAR that is 1/8 inch too low. Hiring a professional painter to finish a model and claiming that you did it yourself is cheating in the same way. The big difference is that it almost impossible for it to be proved that you are cheating. If you take the wrong drugs or build a car 1/8 inch too low it can be proved. Since there is no way that it can ever be proved in every instance that an entrant was the BOM it is something that will have to be lived with or thrown out.

Unfortunately since whether someone was the BOM, how good a job they did, and how well they fly it are all somewhat subjective the winners and losers will never be as clearly defined as they are in some endeavors.

I have no answers and as it should be no input. All I have is appreciation for those that build fantastic models and then fly them beautifully for the rest of us to enjoy. Thanks for your effort.

[Rudy Taube]

Marvin,

RE: your post wanting the rule to address the "finish" on our CLPA planes, here is a quote from the actual BOM rule:

"......that each flier has
completely “constructed’ the model(s) he uses in
competition, including the covering where used, with
“constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to
complete a model starting with......"

It uses the word "completely" then the word "complete". This is a clear statement that the model is "completed" for flight. It does not have to refer to any "finish" other than covering to get the model ready for flight. It is very clear that the modeler "complets" the model, including just tissue (as in an ECL plane?) or 2,000 coats of paint that the MODELER puts on the plane to "complete" it.

IMHO: After reading this rule a few times, it becomes very clear what the intent is, and it addresses the issues RE: the BOM rule. It makes our CD job easier than it was in the past.

[Marvin Denny]

  Rudy, that requirement (Finishing) has been cussed and discussed ever since the BOM requirement has been in the rule book, and almost every time it has been decided that the finish (painting) of the model was not a part of the requirement.  I am going on my experience on this.  I, like you, think that it SHOULD be included and the rule stated such that there could  be NO doubt.
  I have a BOM rule idea that will soon appear here and on other forums (I hope) that might resolve a lot of the current heartburn and problems with the current BOM and the "interpetation" of such.
 If you would like to hear more,  drop me a call at (316)838-8494.  I am in the central time zone.

  Marvin Denny  aka Bigiron

[Bradley Walker]

(“average kit” is interpreted by Control Line Aerobatics as a model that may consist of precut, unassembled parts or assembled (uncovered) subcomponents such as wings, horizontal and vertical stab, fuselage; requiring a few hours of assembly time and covering).

(Control Aerobatics additionally interprets that any model, that is pre-covered in the box is excluded from competition).


These are the new additions.

When were these added?  Who added them?  I knew the rule had been "interpreted" for the Nats (for that use only), but I had no idea THEY CHANGED THE RULEBOOK.  How are they doing this without a formal rules change?

I think the CLACB is just out of control.

BTW, the Shark is painted out of the mold.  It comes out white.

[L0U CRANE]

Brad,

The new wording was an emergency ruling at the Nats... before last, was it?

The CLPA Contest Board doesn't have authority to make emergency rulings, so far as I know, and CLPA/CB doesn't "run" the Nats CLPA events. Sure, some who are on the CLPA/CB might work in the Nats CLPA events - and thanks to them, as volunteers and helpers, the events usually run well.

Emergency rules changes do become part of the current Official Rules when they are announced, I believe, so that's how they came into the present rulebook.

I extend thanks to Rudy for posting the current wording so that at least it is out there for all of us to review. We can still politely disagree on whether and how BOM, and remain flying buddies, can't we?

[Dennis Adamisin]

The really laughable part is that "painter of the model" historically has never really been taken seriously in a discussion of BOM.  Some more factoids for the fire:

* In the early 1960's the Cleveland stunt team flyers freely acknowledged that Emil Cipra had the spray equipment.  Everybody did their own prep but they all went to Emil for paint.  Apparently Joh Havel reminisced about this during his visit to Brodak's this year.  No matter in in 1963 they really did not try to hide it.  Painting had no importance to BOM.

* In 1968 Jim Vornholt was leading the NATs but was protested over BOM, the final ruling was that he had not built the model but he HAD finshed it (i.e., from the covering out).  He was allow to compete but NOT use appearance points because of BOM - and finished 6th(?) as a result.  i.e., Painting did not mean anything for BOM.

* In the early 1980's Windy made no secret that he would put an Imron clearcoat on any airplane that should up at his door.  MANY Windy-painted models went on to earn serious finish scores and win important contests - including the NATs.  Painting meant nothing for BOM.

* In 1997 my Nephew was effectively prevented from selling kits of his Advanced-winning Gemini-3 because his kits inculded precovered foam wings, tail and FG fuselage.  The final assembly & finish, from the wood & fiberglass up was not considered adequate for BOM. i.e., painting meant nothing.

* The "ruling" at this year's NATs was worded such that Designing the paint scheme was considered an important BOM element,  Curiously I did not read (or maybe I missed) whether the model was actually PAINTED by the entrant.  I know that compositie airplanes tyically ARE painted in the mold, the person who actually molded the parts.  If I read that ruling correctly, then again painting is not an important element of BOM.


Thus there seems to be some historic precedent that painting has nothing to do with BOM.


The phrase "average kit" is interesting, it seems that it would allow for the continous improvements of kits that are offered.  I do not HOW in the heck we define "average" but as the quality, content and prefabrication level of kits improve - they are still "legal"  I guess that is how the Strega ARC someone mentioned earlier is "legal" but the pre-covered Strega ARF is not. 


As the SIG for CLPA PAMPA is charged with administration of the CLPA event.  The Contest Board routinely respects the wishes of its SIGs to "accepts" the SIGs' recommended rules.  However in this case it appears that we copped out to AMA for a BOM rules interpretation - and we got what we deserved.


BTW, The only place I am aware of that quotes a "51% content" is VSC.  Are there other precedents?

[Bradley Walker]

I understood the fact there had been an "interpretation" that was handed out in the form of a flier at the Nats.

Now, how in the world did this interpretation go into effect as a written "rule" without a rules change proposal being submitted and approved during the normal rules cycle.

The interpretation is now a "rule" in the AMA rulebook.  That is new...

[Rudy Taube]

Hi Guys,

When I started this thread, I was hoping it would stay on the "BOM Rule That is in the AMA Rule book", and how we will all use it in the future. I hope that this thread can be one where we can dispassionately (ya, like that will happen? ;-) discuss what IS, and what is NOT allowed under the "Present Rule". Reasonable questions will be a big help to all of us as we begin to prepare our planes for competition under this Rule, as it is shown in our AMA rule book.

I think there is a need for a thread where people can go to discuss how the rule will actually impact "them" and their planes status, not some extreme, very unlikely example that is just used to add heat to the discussion. Without the fear of being attacked, or it turning into a never ending downward spiral of discusion about what is, for now, a moot point.

There are MANY other threads with at least 97,000 words (and counting ;-) typed about what should be, or what could be, or "...fill in the blank...". I would like to respectively request that if someone wants to have these exciting, heated, political discuseions, they would please post to the other more appropriate threads, or start a new one? (Sparky is saying: "NO, NO, Please, NO, Not another one!"  )

Both Marvin and Charlie made exactly the kind of posts I was hoping for. They addressed the Rule with specific, reasonable questions that we all need to become clear (as possible) on the answers. As a long time CD I think it will be better for all of us if we spend some of our energy answering these questions now, and avoid any protests or ill will at a contest.

I think if we can keep this "on point" and without heat, we may be fortunate and get some very experienced experts, like Keith Trostle and others to help us answer our questions on this rule.

Regards,  

[Tom Weedon]

Hey, Fellows,
I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but let me prophesy a little. Someday, in the not too distant future, the BOM will be dropped (as is happening in many other model activities).  I like to build; heck, I not only build but I have designed most my pattern airplanes, and some of my sport planes, for the last 20 years, built the forms, jigs, molds, etc, but the day has come where the majority of the pattern and aerobatic models all come from China, prefinshed. I do a lot of scratch building and I have only had one ARF (that needed to be rebuilt) in my lifetime. Times are changing, model aviation is undergoing an evolutionary change. Ask the big wholesellers and retailers in our hobby.

The same economic pressure exists in the C/L world. ARF's are here to stay, rather we like it or not. The day is coming when the BOM rule will be history. Just get used to it.      

[Dick Fowler]

Here is the section from the AMA Contest Board Procedures that covers emergency rule changes. In my mind, its a real stretch  that the BOM change meets the criteria.

7.3.1 Safety/Emergency Proposals
In general, proposals addressing problems which might result in loss of life, affect
people's health or cause excessive property damage may be given Safety/Emergency
status. The intent of a Safety/Emergency Proposal is to quickly modify or enhance an
existing rule to create a safer flying environment -- an actual change in a rule is indicated
in such a proposal. Such proposals will be acted upon in ways described in 8.3.3
following.


I've attached the link on the AMA site for the Procedures.  Provides insight into the process to change a rule...sort of!

http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/Contest%20Board%20Procedures%20Changes_v2final.pdf

[john e. holliday]

I think it is time to put this to rest.  I have been on the AMA site looking for rules proposals for aerobatices.  So far the RC people are the only ones having anything listed.  Now if people would just do alittle search on the this and other forums you could find and read why this interpertation was brought out at that NATS and is/has been published at every NATS since.  I think the main problem has been finally solved with the $50.00 protest fee that has finally been imposed.  Also again if you don't fly/or have Jr, Sr and Op catagories you have nothing to worry about other than the honesty of the individuals who want appearance points for their ARF/ARC planes.  I approached the individuals running VSC about my ARF as I did not think it deserved appearance points, or can you  give minus points.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[Mike Foley]

I understood the fact there had been an "interpretation" that was handed out in the form of a flier at the Nats.

Now, how in the world did this interpretation go into effect as a written "rule" without a rules change proposal being submitted and approved during the normal rules cycle.

The interpretation is now a "rule" in the AMA rulebook.  That is new...

  Dont't think it went inot effect as a written rule. Only "clarified" the written rule.

ARFS= No apperance points
ARCS= Appearance points.

  Though I couldn't care less one way or another. I see the BOMB as dead in a few short years. Economics and demographics will prove this to be correct.

[Rudy Taube]

Guys,

I did not do a good job of saying this in my 1st post starting this thread, for this I apologize. I should have been clear that this was to be a "How To follow the real Rule" thread, not a political thread. I sure don't want to offend anyone, and I am willing to give 10 pounds of contest balsa to anyone who can help make this happen! :-) I'm not sure how to say this, but here goes: I most humbely request that those who want to post your interesting political comments, please do so on a more appropriate "political" thread. 

The BOM is in the rule book now! How, or why it got there, may (or may not?) be interesting, but it is irrelevant to this thread. Please let's have a NON-POLITICAL place where people can go to and see how we CDs are going to implement this rule now that it is the official rule, in the AMA rule book. TIA for your help on this.

Lou had it right when he said: "We can still politely disagree on whether and how BOM, and remain flying buddies, can't we?"    Please, as flying buddies, let's move on to dealing with the present rule constructively so we are all on the same page come contest time.

If you don't agree with my answers please post your answer (with the rule section you used to support it) so we can all form a consensus and learn from each other. If there is something that CDs can not come to agreement on, then we may have to go to our AMA CL reps for help? Personally, I feel that the present rule is very clear (after reading it a few times), and that there will not be any major problems.  ... But I have been known to be both naive, and wrong, in the past! 

There seems to be only several places where there are any questions. Here are a few of them that have been brought up by interested pilots:

QUESTION: FINISH 

Marvin had a good question about finish. Does the modeler under this rule have to be the one who paints (or film covers) his plane? Or can it be done by someone else?

ANSWER: YES, the modeler HAS to paint (or film cover) his own plane.

My answer is based on the fact that the word "complete" was used twice in the BOM. Please see my complete answer in my post to Marvin on this thread.

QUESTION: Is a Balsa Covered Foam wing allowed?

Charlie asked this, and I think many people have this question too.

ANSWER: YES, they are allowed. The rule part for this is below:

"......a model that may
consist of precut, unassembled parts or assembled
(uncovered) subcomponents such as wings, horizontal and
vertical stab, fuselage; requiring a few hours of assembly
time and covering)."

IMHO: It is clear that the term (uncovered) and covering are NOT referring to the balsa sheeting on the foam wing, but to the finish covering used, as in tissue/dope/paint, or film (Monokote), also made clear when they referred to the components .... requiring a few hours of assembly time and covering.."

QUESTION: Can I "uncover" my ARF Nobler, then assemble and finish it myself and still get Appearance points under the current role?

ANSWER: YES ..... (boy, am I going to get letters on this one! ;-)

This question was asked on a different thread. It received mixed responses. The rule quote in the above answer covers this too. The model, after some modeling work by the modeler, ends up "starting" out as basically a legal ARC "kit". One could say that this modeler should even get extra points over other ARC kits in the contest because of his extra labor?  (maybe not?)  

QUESTION: Will Pro built, "Quick build" components ready for assembly, but uncovered,  planes receive appearance points?

ANSWER: YES.

Same reason as above answers. These (Tom Morris, etc.) Pro built planes are no different than a boxed up mass market ARC. ..... Well, maybe $1,000 vs $100 means there is some difference?    But not in the context of this rules thread.

Please post more questions, and agreement, or disagreement with the answers above. If we can stay focused on what the current rule actually says I think we can be a help to those people who want to know how a CD will enforce this rule as it pertains to the plane they bring to the contest. Again, thanks in advance for any help you can give us on this subject.

Regards,  

[john e. holliday]

I see you say it is okay to take an ARF strip it down and recover.  From experience don't tell them you did.  I am from the old school in which a plane that met the BOM was a kit in which you take the parts(die cut or laser cut) and assemble them.  If you want a definition of what a kit is,  look at any of the following kits before laser cutting.  All of kits of following Mfgs:  Sig, Sterling, Top Flite, Brodak, RSM and a few I others that were small kit makers.  But, I do know an individual that admitted that he did spray the colors and final clear coat on several competitors planes that received appearance points.  Of course he flew Int and was not worried about them beating him in the other classes.  I myself now have a kit that is illegal because the spar is finished.  The motor crutch is ready for the engine.  Top and bottom peices already molded.  When and if I get room to assemble it I guess I will not expect appearance points.  By the way I have never asked or expected appearance points for any of my ARF/ARC's.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[Rudy Taube]

Hi John,

Thanks for your comments. I am always interested in hearing from experienced, respected,  modelers like you. Your informative posts have always been very helpful to many of us Retreads coming back to our CL modeling roots. :-)

I was wondering which part of of the current BOM rule you were using to base your decision not to allow appearance points because you used a preassembled motor crutch?  (please see a copy of the current BOB rule in the 1st post of this thread)

What part of the current rule were you referring to that would not allow appearance points after an ARF was turned back into an ARC, then the unfinished modular parts were aligned then assembled then finished by the modeler?

Thank you again for your input. I'm glad to see that a long time modeler like yourself is interested in helping all of us find ways to accurately apply the current BOM rule to our aircraft, as we prepare them for the next contest. The more we can hear from experienced modelers like you, the more understanding everyone will have about the current BOB rule. I look forward to reading what parts of the current rule you used in making your decisions. TIA

Regards, 

[Doug Moon]

Brad,

I went out to the website.  I saw where they announced the ratification of the BOM with the new interpretation.  That has been up there for a LONG LONG time.  If the board ratifies something which they did I guess it then goes in.  I mean if you propose something and they ratify it goes in.

I dont think this interpretation was supposed to be a one time for that contest thing only.  If that were the case the CD/ED can make the determination on his/her own.  No need for the CLACB involvment.  What stinks about that whole thing is there was no publication of it or time for the membership to have any input.  That is why that rule interp. is not accepted by very many as a good thing.  But hey, such as life right?

I still dont understand how the AMA can say we were scared someone would protest so we relaxed the rule.  I dont get it.  Oh well, water under the bridge.

What I cant find on the website is current proposals that have been made?  Do they not publish them until after time to send them in has passed? 

[Dennis Adamisin]

Rudy:
I was remiss before in not THANKING you for this thread.  You posted and posed the questions in the exactly correct context.

Doug:
I guess when an "interpretation" is made (especially when it happens at the NATs)  it becomes the de-facto rule.  At least it is published and we are not guessing (unless the CD does not go online!)

Doc:
The kit you describe does not violate any tenant of BOM that I can see.  If I am CD you can fly in my meet WITH appearance! 

Hey Historians:  Didn't Johnny Casburn's "Miss Behave" come with a pre-built fuselage?  If so were they routinely bumped for BOM?  (I never saw one...)


Does re-covering an ARF make it legal from BOM standpoint?  I think the pragmatic answer is HOW can a CD tell if it is an ARF, ARC or kit?  BTW the Oriental ARF I assembled earlier this year is loosening up its covering.  If I let it sit awhile longer it will turn itself into an ARC!

[Mike Foley]

  I cannot understand why some still try to interpret the BOM differently then the AMA rule.  As I read the rule it is cut and dry. ARF is not worth appearance points whiles a ARC is.  As far as recovering a ARF there is more work involved then a ARC. I can't imagine a person getting appearance points for a ARC Strega while another person gets squat for a recovered "ARF" strega.  Another no brainer question

As far as the whole BOM thing, I couldn't care less if appearance points are involved for anything. To me it is a flying event. Just my opinion and thankfully we can all have opinions. Problem is some people would rather make enemies just because they have differences of opinions.

[Chris McMillin]

Rudy:
I was remiss before in not THANKING you for this thread.  You posted and posed the questions in the exactly correct context.

Doug:
I guess when an "interpretation" is made (especially when it happens at the NATs)  it becomes the de-facto rule.  At least it is published and we are not guessing (unless the CD does not go online!)

Doc:
The kit you describe does not violate any tenant of BOM that I can see.  If I am CD you can fly in my meet WITH appearance! 

Hey Historians:  Didn't Johnny Casburn's "Miss Behave" come with a pre-built fuselage?  If so were they routinely bumped for BOM?  (I never saw one...)


Does re-covering an ARF make it legal from BOM standpoint?  I think the pragmatic answer is HOW can a CD tell if it is an ARF, ARC or kit?  BTW the Oriental ARF I assembled earlier this year is loosening up its covering.  If I let it sit awhile longer it will turn itself into an ARC!

Dennis,

I don't like the current "interpretation", but now that it is a "rule" it's our rule.

I agree with you as far as Doc John is concerned. Is he reading the old rules?

Gene Molnar used to fly his Miss Behave in contests all over CA in the sixties, no BOM beefs a I recall.

A Top Flite ARF Nobler is only available as an ARF, no ARC's, so it is always illegal. The rule says ARF's are illegal and ARC's are OK, I don't understand why people want to argue the point, but some sure do. Buy the ARC, people.

Chris...

 

[John Miller]

I'm happy that the rule as it is now written has been posted. I may question some things, but I can accept it as it is, and as a CD for over 25 years, I will.

Actually, it's not that far off from what I was advocating on the other thread.  I would even be willing to allow ARF's as the builder has to do the final assembly, and most importantly alignments, if Appearance points were changed.

I'd like to see 20 points for Originality, where new, or well modified designs would be rewarded for the effort.
I'd like to see 20 points for construction and finish, where the builder would be rewarded for the quality of effort building, and finishing the plane.

Some one who took an ARC and bashed it to something else, made a new cowl, or used the wing, or a salvaged wing, could be rewarded in both category's.

[Dennis Adamisin]

I'm happy that the rule as it is now written has been posted. I may question some things, but I can accept it as it is, and as a CD for over 25 years, I will.

Actually, it's not that far off from what I was advocating on the other thread.  I would even be willing to allow ARF's as the builder has to do the final assembly, and most importantly alignments, if Appearance points were changed.

I'd like to see 20 points for Originality, where new, or well modified designs would be rewarded for the effort.
I'd like to see 20 points for construction and finish, where the builder would be rewarded for the quality of effort building, and finishing the plane.

Some one who took an ARC and bashed it to something else, made a new cowl, or used the wing, or a salvaged wing, could be rewarded in both category's.

John:
That's IT!  The reason we fly and enjoy Classic is the rich heistory of this event, with innovative designs along the way.  We need to encourage & reward innovation - best way to overcome the attack of the clones!

Mike F:
Flying is a big part of CLPA event to be sure, but somehow it seems like there is more to CLPA than that.  I have been struggling to verbalize this - so if it sounds a little disjointed please bear with me.  I will submit that CLPA is performance-art, with the presentation, including the aircraft and pilot, contributing to the total package.  There are certainly points to be earned on technical merit, but artistic impression means just as much.  Those points need to be earned on the ground and in the air - that is what CLPA is about.

We can probably survive without BOM, but I would hate to see CLPA lose its "soul" in terms of innovation and creativity.  I would certainly hate to see VSC-50 to be a gathering of ARF Noblers because its just a "flying event".   That is why I would heartily endorse something like John suggests - because it will reward the total performance and the art of CLPA design.

Did that make sense?

[Mark Scarborough]

John,
this is exactly what I have been thinking and advocating too. that way you can encompass all facets and keep everyone "happy" except for the purists that dont believe anything that is assembled in any way shape or form should qualify. Not sure if this would ever get past the Nats event, but I certainly see it for PAMPA events.

[Mike Foley]

  Dennis,

I totally agree that VSC would be a boring function if it turned into a AFR ARC event.  I think that is what stands out in classic is all the unique models and finishes.  I have never been to the VSC but someday maybe I will attend before before the majority of the craftsmen are too old and no longer modeling. 

Like I said I personally don't care one way or the other whether the BOM stays or goes.  I just think the AMA rule is pretty cut and dry and unless it is changed, therefore it is something we all have to live with.

Our club is having a contest coming up next weekend which will utilize the PAMP classes of PA and of course AMA rules. Thus ARF's will not be allowed points for appearance while ARCS will be as stated in the AMA rule book

The ARF Nobler comment about being stripped and recovered and not allowed points like another ARC is totally absurd. Of course the Nobler can come in a ARC form.  I guess no one but me has heard of the cottage company that is redoing the ARF nobler into a component ready uncovered model that meets AMA rule requirements?

If interested I may be contacted via email.

Price $250 + 30 Shipping and handling

Now you might think that is expensive but there is a lot of work involved to adequately turn a ARF Nobler into a ARC
The Nobler will even be re-labled to state it is a ARC requiring the user to supply is own favorite covering and finishing method.

[Dennis Adamisin]

Actually the $250 ARC-ized Nobler does not sound unreasonable.  I have not toched one ( and don't expect I ever will) but I understand that the ARF requires MAJOR changes to be a viable CLPA model.

I took advantage of an Oriental ARF to start flying again this year, and it did everything I could have asked of it.  Now I have another classic built and have decomisioned the Oriental.  Its likely future is to be stripped to bare, bashed, and restore to flight status in its new form as an engine tester....

[Wayne Collier]

    "I agree with you as far as Doc John is concerned. Is he reading the old rules?"

I don't know doc's reasoning and I'm not trying to guess it.  From personal experience I've seen people follow the letter of a rule while totally violating the spirit of the rule.  Some competitors will choose to not violate the original spirit  of a rule even if the exact (current) wording allows it. 

Because I have never competed in an AMA or PAMPA contest and don't know whether I ever will my opinion may not count for much. As an onlooker I believe I see three basic perspectives.
    1.  If the contest is about building and designing then flying is the proof of the design.  The same pilot could fly all the planes so that between him and the judges the best plane could be determined.
    2.  If the contest is about flying then who cares who built it.  Chuk the BOM and lets find the best pilot.
    3.  If  the contest is about modeling skill then it seems to me that designing, building, finishing, trimming, and flying should all be part of the mix and the contest should determine the best all around modeler.


    I know that some of these comments are a little bit off the point of the original post.  I just wanted to share some personal thoughts.  In reality I'm currently in no position to take sides. 

[Bob Reeves]

Actually the $250 ARC-ized Nobler does not sound unreasonable.  I have not toched one ( and don't expect I ever will) but I understand that the ARF requires MAJOR changes to be a viable CLPA model.

I took advantage of an Oriental ARF to start flying again this year, and it did everything I could have asked of it.  Now I have another classic built and have decomisioned the Oriental.  Its likely future is to be stripped to bare, bashed, and restore to flight status in its new form as an engine tester....

Dennis the Nobler isn't that bad, the only item that really needs changing is the controls. I have built two of the silly things, want to hear something funny.. The last one I stripped and recovered because I rebuilt the fuselage and cowl for a ST 46... Guess what I recovered it with the same Saphire Blue it had originally. Will probably never fly it in a contest but can you imagine me trying to convince anyone it was once and ARC 

[Bradley Walker]

Actually the $250 ARC-ized Nobler does not sound unreasonable.  I have not toched one ( and don't expect I ever will) but I understand that the ARF requires MAJOR changes to be a viable CLPA model.

that's just silly.

The ARF Nobler is a "viable" competitive model right out of the box (I suggest changing the leadouts) there are several competining very successfully in District 8.  The only problem is that the wing is screwed up, and someone should pull their head out of their patoot and fix the airfoil.

That's OK.  No need for that Nobler anyway.  he hE...

[Bill Little]

As I have always understood the CLPA *EVENT* it is supposed to be an event for "Modelers".  That encompasses all aspects: building and flying.  MAybe my understanding has always been flawed!

As to the BOM, I no longer *really* care.  It has not been enforced in its true written form for decades.  And, as Lily Tomlin used to say...... "and that's the truth."

I will just fly under the rules as they are presented, build my own models (and those for others) and have a ton of fun!  When it is no longer fun, I will no longer participate.

[Bradley Walker]

It has not been enforced in its true written form for decades. 

Word...

[Dennis Adamisin]

Guess I'm guilty of regurgutating what I have heard.  However, I consider removing and replacing the installed  controls to be a "major" change, guess that's all in the eyes of the beholder.  I understand the fuel tank is unusable, suppose there are a few other things too...  On the other hand I have seen two of them that each weighed in at 38oz - and that ain't bad!

(But I still won't have one)

Bob R: GREAT color choice!

[Bradley Walker]

On the other hand I have seen two of them that each weighed in at 38oz - and that ain't bad!

(But I still won't have one)

Considering that G. Aldrich's Noblers weighed 48 oz. I would say that 10 oz on a 520 sq in plane is pretty good improvement.

Hey Dennis!!!  Big fan BTW.  I still have the Eclipse article.  I loved the integrated flaps and high aspect ratio.

I am also a huge fan of your Dad, we go back about 20 years.   I was testing blocked boost ports and wedge heads back in the late 1980's. 

Sorry to hear about your Mom, she was a sweet lady.  She was always so nice to me.

When Adamisins talk, I listen...

[Dennis Adamisin]

Brad:
THANK YOU for the kind words!

I've seen Noblers fly from 36 to 56 oz.  The 36 ouncers were better..!   All seriousness aside, a light Nobler (ARF or otherwise) with a Fox 35 is STILL a pretty potent combination.

[Dennis Toth]

Ya know this big thing that is made over BOM is just trying to hold on to something that should have been thrown out once they dumped the "Originality Point". We need to make it easy for people to enjoy the hobby and competition. If we get 2-5 more people at a local contest because they can get and ARF in the air quick that's great. People who have time and like to build should not worry about getting points because they "built" their own, just like guys don't get points because the "built" their own engines or design the plane. You do that because you like it and that's part of your enjoyment. Other people don't like the building so that's OK. I don't see that any of the ARF's as they come out of the box would be as good as one that is hand built with special wood, supper finish etc.. If the BOM were gone do you really think that Ted, Bred, Bob, Windy or any of the other top guys would not still build their own, of course not. They do it because they think they will have an edge with their own design. Will a buffed out ship get more points for the pattern than something that looks like a 5yr old put it together - always it just presents better. However, if a guy with a talanted wrist has an ARF and wins something we seem to want to somehow say that he would not have won if he had to build the plan! How dare he be able to fly - do you think this is about flying??? We had to slave over a cramped building board while he was out there FLYING!!!! Lets get real if you like to design, build or tinker with engines that's great, if you don't why should we make flyers do this. If all you care about is building we have an event for this its called SCALE. The BOM will eventually go we need to get people involved in flying and competition with a chance a placing then they will likely do the same thing that Ted, Bred, Bob, Windy or any of the other top guys do design and build their own to get a ship they think will give them an edge.

[Rudy Taube]

Hi Chris,

You wrote:
"..... I don't like the current "interpretation", but now that it is a "rule" it's our rule. ..."

Well said. .... I think that reflects the feelings of many CL modelers. It is nice to hear this positive, forward thinking opinion from an excellent builder such as you. This positive attitude from respected CL modelers like you will go a long way toward getting everyone on the same page on this rule, and make it much easier for all of us CDs. :-)

 I have a small question:

You wrote:

"......A Top Flite ARF Nobler is only available as an ARF, no ARC's, so it is always illegal. The rule says ARF's are illegal and ARC's are OK, I don't understand why people want to argue the point, but some sure do. Buy the ARC, people.   Chris..."

I may be confused and did not understand your comments correctly? Are you saying that if Mike Foley takes some Top Flight Nobler ARFs, strips off all the covering, replaces the control system HW with quality HW, fixes any flaws, ensures there are no warps, and basically creates a high quality ARC, that this does NOT meet the new BOM rule as an ARC???
     What is the difference between his ARC product that is delivered to my door or a Brodak ARC that is delivered to my door for me to align, assemble, and finish?
 
If I am missing something, please correct me. My hope is that we all can come to an agreement on these points now, before it gets to a contest protest. To me, a worst case scenario is for a confusing discussion on this rule breaking out during a contest. The last thing a CD needs is to deal with this when they have many more pressing issues to deal with during the contest! IMHO, now is a much better time to take on this important issue and clear up any ambiguity.

Thanks again for your positive comments.

PS: Let me know when you want to fly my ECL, I'll meet you at the field. Eric really liked flying it last week! I think my plane was very happy having someone with talent at the other end of the lines for a change. See you soon. :-) 

Regards,   

[Rudy Taube]

Dennis Adamisin,

Thank you for the kind words, and your positive comments. You and your family have set a high standard for sportsmanship, giving back to our hobby/sport, and sharing your expertise with all of us over the years. Thank you! :-)

Your term: "Performance Art" is a perfect description of our activity. We not only paint interesting shapes against a beautiful blue canvas, but we often use a nice looking paint brush to do it! Your term applies even more so to CL because of our more direct connection with the medium we use in the performance. .... I like your term much better than saying that I fly little toy airplanes! ;-)

Bob Reeves,

I brought your comments up at our club meeting last night. (RE: Your Blue Nobler ARF to ARC to Blue RTF transition)
   Someone made the very good suggestion to take some photos during the "conversion" from ARF to ARC to RTF. During this period of adjustment to the new rule it might be a good idea for anyone who does an ARC of any model that is also available as an ARF to take some photos of the plane and the pilot together during the process. I think this courtesy would be a big help at a contest. It will prevent any ill will and be a big help to the CD and judges. It is easy to do and it is an easy solution to a potential problem .... It would really come in handy if you end up in 1st place with your BLUE Nobler ARF to ARC to RTF!!! 

Mike Foley

With the new rule I better get on your list soon, because my guess is that there is now a good market for a legal, high quality, medium priced, ARC CLPA aircraft that does not need ANY mods to be competitive. .... Please see my email to you. :-)

Regards all,  

[peabody]

Hey Dennis!

I have been making th epoint for years that Windy's planes would look the same BOM or no BOM....crraftsmen will always show off.

[Bradley Walker]

We need to make it easy for people to enjoy the hobby and competition. If we get 2-5 more people at a local contest because they can get and ARF in the air quick that's great.

Bingo.

We are entering the beginning of the sharp decline of the main demographic of stunt fliers.  In the next ten years, there is going to be a huge change in the number of active competitive stunt fliers (watch VSC).  Many people do not want to acknowledge this fact.  To me, it is very evident.  I see it at every contest.

I hear a lot of people throw about the "preserving the hobby" by promoting the BOM, when (at least in Texas) the largest number of new fliers that I see are flying primarily ARF's in one form or another. 

I have to ask, who are these people preserving the hobby for?  The droves of new fliers showing up to the field NOT flying ARF's (that do not exist)?  Or for themselves?

Promoting ARF's may the only thing to save us...  If anything will at all.

[Mark Scarborough]

I will tell you one thing that will gaurantee the demise of our beloved sport. that is people forcasting doom and gloom . Why would anyone invest their time in a hobby that is dying. How about some positive action. Get young people fylying and sell them on the passion you feel (?) for this sport. I am working at least one now and she loves it . How about a positive attitude, wasting your breath about how sad it is that this sport wont be around is doing NOTHING to help it survive. As thumpers momma said, if you cant say something nice,,

[Dick Fowler]

Brad W. - "Promoting ARF's may the only thing to save us...  If anything will at all."



I don't know if ARF's will save the sport but they certainly provide an easy entry into CL flying. The excitement for a new guy is the flying part and ARF"S make it easy to get a plane ready to go. I guarantee that if you took a guy unfamiliar with CL to your workshop and spent four or five hours gluing and making dust,  you can bet the eyes would be glazed over after about 30 minutes. Take the same guy to the field and fire up a stunter and the interest level will peak. The guy wants to try it. Point being... interest level is always higher in flying than building in the beginning. ARF's make it easy. Fly first then build.

[Bradley Walker]

I will tell you one thing that will gaurantee the demise of our beloved sport. that is people forcasting doom and gloom . Why would anyone invest their time in a hobby that is dying. How about some positive action. Get young people fylying and sell them on the passion you feel (?) for this sport. I am working at least one now and she loves it . How about a positive attitude, wasting your breath about how sad it is that this sport wont be around is doing NOTHING to help it survive. As thumpers momma said, if you cant say something nice,,

That is not what I was saying.