Author Topic: The "Arf becoming an ARC" (Read 1513 times)

Bill Little · « **on:** September 30, 2007, 12:49:16 PM »

This has caused a stir. I really do not want anyone to misunderstand where I am coming from. I feel we should just clarify where some of the *questions* have germinated from. I have copied the following and I did not take it *out of context*, simply quoted where CLPA is mentioned.

(“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)

The problem in *MY EYE* is that there is NO PART IN WRITING that a model "precovered in the box" (quote from the rule) can be uncovered , recovered and get appearance points (or for that matter be NATS legal for age group categories). If someone does that, and someone else has read the rule AS IT IS WRITTEN, then there can be a STRONG ARGUMENT for the ARF/*converted* to ARC will be protested.

I do not care, I am just POINTING OUT that an iterpretation will be made, not a written rule book decision, if the converted ARF is passed into AP judging.

REMEMBER the only place ANY MODEL AIRPLANE can be DISALLOWED TO FLY (DQ'd) is in AGE GROUP COMPETITION at the NATS.

PAMPA Classes allow any one to fly anything ( as long as it is "safe") with just the loss of AP.

I want everyone who is interested to fly in all the contests possible! But the rule doesn't state clearly IN WRITING, that the scenario is allowed. This just means that if it is clearly allowed it is an *interpretation*, and that should NOT be necessary. The rule should be clear and followed to the letter, that's all.

Peace!
Bill <><

Circlejerk · « **Reply #1 on:** September 30, 2007, 03:18:06 PM »

Bill, exactly my point in the other thread. The rule isn't clear. Adding to that, how do balsa covered wing cores fit into the scheme? They do come from the box "covered".

Bill Little · « **Reply #2 on:** September 30, 2007, 10:18:24 PM »

Quote from: Circlejerk on September 30, 2007, 03:18:06 PM

Bill, exactly my point in the other thread. The rule isn't clear. Adding to that, how do balsa covered wing cores fit into the scheme? They do come from the box "covered".

Hi Ben,

Unfortunately, *covering* is also not clearly spelled out!

I feel pretty safe to say that *covering* where it is used here is meant to be our *finishing materials*. Silkspan, tissue, plastic films and such, but it is not spelled out. Balsa *covered* foam wings do not apparently fall into the meaning of *covering* in this new rule as it is written.

From all accounts this *rule* was hastily passed (somehow) before the NATS (2 years ago??) when there was wide spread rumors that there were going to be numerous protests over certain planes that were going to be entered. These being mainly *kits* that the Yatsenkos provided instead of their turn key models. That is all past history and we have a written rule, now. But in the haste to avoid the confrontations of the protests, some key wording and clarification was missed!

phil c · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2007, 10:00:04 AM »

"Marry in haste, repent at leisure" has been a part of the rules since the beginning. This isn't the only rule that was hastily drafted and filled with ambiguities. Unfortunately, now that it has made it into the rules, getting it out or fixed is darn near impossible.

The bottom line is that if you have a pre-covered ARF and want to fly it legally in a contest that requires BOM, take the covering all off, down to the bare wood. Take the box and parts over to a buddy's house. Sell it to him for a dollar, have him repack the stuff in the box and buy it back for $1.50. Then there is no question that you did not get it "pre-covered in the box".

john e. holliday · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2007, 10:40:04 AM »

Still bending the rules in away. DOC Holliday

Circlejerk · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2007, 11:49:39 AM »

I like Phil's idea. Why not strip it and take a picture for the judges? Wouldn't it be simple to have the rule state that using the precovered parts doesn't qualify as opposed to the current phrase.

In my mind, the craziest part of this whole thing is that the prevailing and long standing interpretation of this rule is and has been that the "modeler" isn't required to finish his/her own airplane and yet the rule is concerned about using film covered components in final assembly. How nuts is that!

Randy Powell · « **Reply #6 on:** October 02, 2007, 04:38:00 PM »

I've been working with some folks to come up with a clearer rule. It presupposes a few things, but I will probably post what we have for comment in the next couple of days and let you guys tear it apart. I can say that it will make everyone unhappy, but maybe that's the point. Everyone might be unhappy, but it's the fairest to the largest number of people.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #7 on:** October 16, 2007, 08:55:32 PM »

Quote from: Ty Marcucci on October 02, 2007, 04:49:58 PM

This entire argument about ARF, ARC, etc is really quite silly, but it is in the same vein as I have read in MAN 1948. It seems that many were really upset when die cutting came along, as "real " kits had printed wood, which was bad enough to the purists that liked just wood and plans. Still a few of us around, it seems. Then, God forbid, here comes laser cut kits. Then the world comes to an end, the new millennium disaster to end them all, ARFS.

Well put TY!

...and so it goes. You know our friends in RC have been building "kits" with pre sheeted flying surfaces and fiberglass fuselages for decades. I think that MAYBE we have collectively held back the state of the CLPA art by discouraging or FORBIDING kit makers to offer similar content in CLPA kits. CASE IN POINT my nephew won Advanced with what was essentially the prototype for a kit that would include a glass fuselage and plug-in wings. The he was told in NO uncertain terms that such a kit would fail BOM. He did sell a few but folks, you have been cheated out of a really advanced design that would also fit in your econobox. WIth kits like this available others no doubt would have followed suit. Think about it the next time you ship your 1 piece bird out to VSC!

Folks, I cannot think of a good reason to hold back the state of the art. I love building in wood and will continue to do so, but I am also building my first glass fuselage bird. I have not laid up the fuselage yet, but know within maybe 1/2 oz how much it will weight. I am also sure it WILL be straight & strong. This will also be my 4th take apart, the 3rd with plug-in wings.

While features like this might be the future of CLPA, the truth is they are the present (more accurately the past) in RC.

We gotta get back in front of the curve...

Tom Perry · « **Reply #8 on:** October 18, 2007, 04:52:20 AM »

Kind of takes some of the meaning out of the term re-kitting don't it?

Jim Pollock · « **Reply #9 on:** October 18, 2007, 09:14:11 PM »

Ty,

The plane Dennis is talking about is the Gemini. I posted a picture of one that Todd Lee build circa 1990 or so.
So, for the second time here it is again..........

Ron King · « **Reply #10 on:** October 22, 2007, 10:44:16 AM »

Quote from: Jim Pollock on October 18, 2007, 09:14:11 PM

The plane Dennis is talking about is the Gemini. I posted a picture of one that Todd Lee build circa 1990 or so.
So, for the second time here it is again..........

Cool plane. I'm sure the paint scheme gives it the illusion of another taper, but it sure looks like my Gemini MTS RC sailplane from 1982. Love that high A/R wing.

Ron

L0U CRANE · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2007, 03:52:17 PM »

Ron, just to keep this as the bottom of the thread:

Covering: Can we interpret that to mean it needs no further prep before it can flown? Foam core panels, pre-sheeted with balsa, need sealing, finish and fuelproofing to get to that condition, so certain ARCs and other kits which have bare balsa-sheeted-foam wing panels are more alike in this one sense. Precovered with a fuel-proof film is different. Current ruling says if it was precovered in the box, it isn't eligible for competition.***

The current interpretation ruling by AMA from a Nats a year or so back became as effective as a formal, two-year proposal cycle rule change on January 1, the following year. See AMA Rulebook, Competition General, page 5, Off Cycle Proposals. This spells out three types of rule changes made outside the formal process:

Safety/Emergency Proposals (are put in effect immediately)

Urgent Proposals

Interpretative Proposals

Urgent and Interpretative Proposals (are in effect when announced, and be come mandatory on January 1, the following year. The time between announcement and mandatory status allows for review, refinement and revision.)

So, unless another emergency ruling occurs, as of the Jan 1 following the present CLPA Interpretation ruling is as binding as any other rule in the book.

*** In CLPA, AMA Skill Class events state the Appearance Points condition regarding BOM; only AMA Event #322 - the basic set of rules - requires Age Classes and BOM. The Nats is almost invariably the ONLY contest where AMA #322 is flown. Anyone else who wishes can sanction and fly under AMA #322 rules, but I haven't heard of it happening lately.

Author Topic: The "Arf becoming an ARC" (Read 1513 times)

Bill Little

The "Arf becoming an ARC"

Circlejerk

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

Bill Little

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

phil c

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

john e. holliday

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

Circlejerk

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

Randy Powell

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

Dennis Adamisin

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

Tom Perry

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

Jim Pollock

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

Ron King

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

L0U CRANE

Re: The "Arf becoming an ARC"

Author Topic: The "Arf *becoming* an ARC" (Read 1513 times)

Author Topic: The "Arf becoming an ARC" (Read 1513 times)