Attn: Everyone that wants to change the rules....

If you really think the rules need changing, first you need to get to the top 20 at the NATS under the present rules.

If you haven't accomplished the above you do not know what you are talking about. If you have accomplished the above then you know how to submit a rules proposal.

Some will never GET IT!

I posted something about changing the rules.

It had nothing to do with if I'll ever benefit from the ideas I gave (probaly not...).

The idea came to me seing Brett's posing about paralax, etc.

Also, from complaints about judging, tha FAI contests being lenient with too wide maneuvers.

If you take a look at what I wrote, you might notice that :

1 - I don't want to change the rules.

2 - Since a lot of maneuvers will force the pilot to respect, in order to be able to perform, parameters that today are rules, and (so I've been told) those same parameters are often not kept, why are they necessary?

If the bottoms, the zenith and the intersections are kept, most certainly not much would change.

And that FAI - AMA thing would get to an end.

In Him,

I think we all nead to remember that discussion of rules, formal proposal of rules, and acceptance of rules by the contest board are three much different phenomena.

Oh boy! Correct statements, but the last statement above regarding no BOM is perhaps misleading.

Indeed, the rulebook does not have any statement anywhere that "the plane must be built by the flyer at least 51%" or any statement that mentions any percentage that must be built by the flyer.

Under Control Line Precision Aerobatics rules for events 322, 323, 324, 325, and 326 which are the PA event, and the 4 skill classes, Paragraph 1:

"All pertinent AMA regulations (see sections titled Sanctioned Competition, Records, Selection of Champions, and Genral) and the Control Line rules shall apply, except as specified below."

In the Sanction Events section of the rulebook for General Information, paragraph 6, the definition is given for the Builder of Model. This paragraph, in part states:

"The CD shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has completley "constructed the model(s) he uses in competition....... The builder-of-the-model rule applies to every AMA even unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event."

For each of the skill classes defined in the rule book (events 323,324,325, 326), there are statements that the builder-of-the-model rule will not apply to these events. The rules also specify that if the contestant did not build the model, no appearance points will be awarded. (There are no appearance points whatsoever of the Beginner event.) The BOM rule still applies to the PA event 322.

Virtually the only contest where event 322 is still flown is the Nationals with the Junior, Senior and Open categories. The BOM rule applies to these events. The Junior, Senior and Open Champions then compete for the Walker Cup to determine the National Stunt Champion. These are separate competitions from the Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced skill classes that are also flown at the Nationals.

Perhaps this is clear to all who read the referenced post. However, I thought that post was somewhat misleading.

As has already been mentioned in this SSW Forum, there are several formal rules proposals that include a change to the BOM rule definition for our PA event, eliminate the BOM rule altogether, and eliminate appearance points altogether. I would suspect that there could be a lively (and constructive) dialog regarding these proposals in this forum. For those who care about such things, their comments should be directed to their AMA CL Aerobatics Contest Board District Representative. It probably would not hurt to pass on your thoughts to your PAMPA District Director. Any such comments should be forwarded to the Rules Committee chairman as well as the competition Committee Chairman. (It just so happens that the Gary McClellan is PAMPA Competition Committee Chairman as well as the Chairman for the AMA CL Aerobatics Contest Board.)

Keith

Lets see...if I interperate this correctly, first you have to out-fly me to win. If you can't out-fly me but can equal me, then you have to out-build me.

Seems fair to me. Nice tie breaker.

If you equal me at both...do we shake hands and do it again?

BTW, this is purely an example, most anyone can out-fly me

George,

Let's take a hypothetical case.

In your system, let's say pilot A gets the same flight points that pilot B received, each receiving 500 flight points. I do not think any judge can say that he saw A fly a pattern that deserved exactly the same points as B. So with your system whoever had the highest "appearance points" would the contest.

Now, let's take another hypthetical case. Pilot X receives 2 more flight points than pilot Y, with respective flight points of 502 to 500. I do not think any judge can say that he saw X fly a pattern that derseved exactly 2 more points than Y. Yet Y received 5 more appearance points than X. Under the current rules, Y wins. That is where some people really get hung up on appearance points where in their opinion, the event should be based only on flying and have nothing to do with appearance. The same argument could be made against your system above.

If appearance points are eliminated as one of the changes pending in front of our Aerobatics Contest Board, I think we should eliminate them entirely. Any pretext to keep some form of recognition of appearance points (like providing for a "Concours" event) or to use appearance as a "Tiebreaker" in the rulebook should be avoided. If appearance points are no longer added to the flight score and if contest management wants to somehow give recognition for appearance, then that group can devise whatever system they choose to do so for their contest. Provisions for such does not and should not be in the rule book (in my humble opinion).

Keith

Completely? or 51% completely? or ?. How did we ever get here from there?

With that attitude, things ought to be real comfortable and cozy for the remaining hand full in a few years!

Crap

My research on PAMPA membership shows no decline over the past 6 years. I went straight to Tom Morris several months ago over this issue and got the membership numbers. So, what database are you operating from. Presently PAMPA membership is at 2200 approximately from last years signup. All I see is a leveling off, not a decline.

All I was saying is those that want change things should make sure they understand the rules as written and have gained the experience necessary before deciding that the existing rules need fixing. Maybe saying Top-20 was a little out of line but it did make the point.

While a little extreme, yes, I think that before one proposes a bunch of rule changes, one should understand the event, participate in it, if not at the highest level, at least actively. You should have participated in real-time discussions at the field and elsewhere.

Once in a while, a suggestion will come out of left field. Usually from someone who is a newcomer, or has dabbled in the event. And while, in some cases, the suggestion may be good, in most cases, the suggestions offered will be way off base. One such example was Ted's suggestion that what was wrong with Combat was the lack of a BOM rule. I'm not slagging on Ted, in fact, that led to a very interesting discussion and thread, which I enjoyed immensely. But it is an example of what I mean.

I guess, when I saw the title of that thread "Stunt is broken.." my inclination was to ask "Why do you think it's broken?" (What happened to it, by the way?)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-27-03 AT 09:37 AM (CDT)

I'm certainly not a top 20 flyer in Stunt, but I have had my share of high and top placings in Free Flight rubber events, Iv'e also CD's event all the way up to the Nationals. I have heard many a complaint concerning rules, their interpritations and their enforcement. During a contest if someone complains in that context (unless there is a specific violation)I simply explain that there IS a protest procedure. Most, when confronted with that withdraw, so it can be that bad. I've recieved comments on changing rules as well and my response is always that there is a procedure for rule change proposals. Discussion here will not in any way effect change, it WILL as demonstrated provoke some heated discussion.

My suggestion then is this. If you have something you'd like to consider, submit it and let it go through the process. There is nothing in the way of rules adjustment that can,t be settled in this or any other forum.

As far as the top flyers somehow controlling the rules, that's not possible, the membership has to vote to accept or reject any rule changes, additions or deletions.

Randy

Actually, any AMA member can make a rules change proposal. It is only the members of the newly formed AMA CL Aerobatics Contest Board that vote on the proposals.

Keith

Randy

Isky,

I'll take the needle in good spirits, however, I don't think we've neccesarily proven that my conjecture was "wrong". There were certainly a lot of opposing points of view from people closer to the issue than myself. Unfortunately, I don't see how any of their conjectures were proven any more than was mine.

The bottom line is that despite all the efforts put into a plethora of alternative combat events over the years (anybody care to guess how many different ones?) intended to renew the past popularity of the event, the effects have been nebulous at best.

The one control line event which has maintained a significant level of popularity just happens to be the one that (despite efforts to eliminate it) continues to revel in the "building" aspect of model aircraft competition.

As I said in my initial post, I'm an outsider who has limited recent personal experience with combat. But I'm also a devoted follower of model building and flying. My experience leads me to believe that "the" thing that can make modeling stand apart form a bazillion other $$$$ driven activities is the aspect of the event that says: not only is my toy better than your toy, it's better because I made it better.

Everybody knows if you bought a Porsche and I bought a Kia you're probably going to beat me to the 7/11. If I built my own racer, however,we won't know until we both get thirsty for the last Bud on the shelves. And if I beat your Porsche and get the last "belch", I'll really have something to burp about.

I really believe that this is the unique thing about modeling, a "specialness" that we discard at our own risk.

I'm afraid combat discarded a good share of its specialness in the last couple of decades. It seems stunt is about to join it in the great blender of mediocrity that results in the uniform greyness of modern America. "Hmmm, should we buy some combat ships today? How about a stunter or two? Naw, let's just rent some videos...or maybe just download a couple so we don't have to go outside."

I don't know, Isky. Maybe I'm just aching for the good old days when we looked at one another, got a glint in our eye and said, "let's go DO something". Today, we're reluctant to look anyone in the eye and if someone were to have the temerity to suggest that we do something other than watch "Friends" reruns he's looked at like some sort of relic.

The building of Model Airplanes is the heart and soul of the hobby. We in the stunt world have been doing the same tricks since GMA was a youngster (and still can't get 'em just right). Yet, somehow,something keeps us attached to the event like moths to a flame. It's the airplanes, stupid (to quote a famous President). It's the fact that we not only fly airplanes, but that we fly airplanes that we built and maybe designed ourselves. When we reject that part of modeling as meaningless we reduce the hobby to nothing other than another yuppie diversion...if you've got the bucks, you can play the game.

When we lose that uniqueness we lose the game.

>The building of Model Airplanes is
>the heart and soul of
>the hobby. We in
>the stunt world have been
>doing the same tricks since
>GMA was a youngster (and
>still can't get 'em just
>right). Yet, somehow,something keeps
>us attached to the event
>like moths to a flame.
> It's the airplanes, stupid
>(to quote a famous President).
> It's the fact that
>we not only fly airplanes,
>but that we fly airplanes
>that we built and maybe
>designed ourselves. When we
>reject that part of modeling
>as meaningless we reduce the
>hobby to nothing other than
>another yuppie diversion...if you've got
>the bucks, you can play
>the game.
>

Ted,

May I dare to think in a dfferent fashion?

Is PA a sport meant to measure a person's flying skills. or is it the former plus that person's building skills?

I don't like to build half as much as I enjoy flying. I am a good builder, but a lousy finnisher. By the time I have built a ship my patience is gone.

I build my own for two reasons:

1 - I trust nobody's building as I do trust my own. My models are precise. It's not because of any special talent I am endowed with. I just am VERY careful, (I can take a week to glue a wing to a fuselage), and I know the importance of a straight plane.

2 - I don't have the money to hire a builder (there are a couple of them in Brazil), and still I've seen a model built by one of those guys loose an elevator in flight.

I'd certainly buy a wing from Bob, but that's far above my budget.

I would also buy me a Iatchenko (I bet it's mispelled ), but it's just ...not me.

I like models no bigger than 55" span, and I am going to start using an OS.25 VF with a pipe.

I don't see this engine setup in a kitted model. I'm building an "Eliminator", Mike Starret's design.

I am also planning to design my own ship. No inovations, just grab a few proven moments, maybe change the airfoil , you know how it is...

I found out empirically that an airfoil that gets thick a little ahead of the normal foils gives me better turns.

But...

If a guy can really fly but lacks the ability to build (Hamilton Magri, that has been on the Brazilian team at the world championship more then once can fly, but he doesn't know nothing about building, his dad "helps" him with his ships) should he not be allowed to compete?

Bené is a VERY skilled builder, but he and Magri were fierce competitors. One year Bené would win, another Magri would win.

On the other side, if I had your "Trivial Pursuit" on the end of my lines and you had a... let's say a Banshee, and it could even be a not-so good one, guess who would win?

Money can buy ships, but not your flying.

That said, I am sure you will agree that this BOM panick wave is just another "fad" going on at SSF.

RTF's, IMNSHO (In My not So Humble Opinion) are no danger to what i consider a performing art, Precision Aerobatics.

Do you believe that one of those 2.000 bucks things can fly better than your own ship? I doubt it. You made an instrument that you play like a virtuoso. I am a professional jazz musician, and I see so much in common between my job and your... I'll call it art, Ted.

But there is (should I shout "Vive la Diference"?) a gap:

I can't build a saxophone, no way! If I was crazy enough to try this insanity the result would NEVER get even a 1.000 miles near a Selmer Mark VI, the best sax ever made.

Something similar happens in auto racing.

If your reasoning was taken to the extreme we'd have to build the engines also.

Please do not let the technological progress the world has achieved go unoticed.

I made me a set of ribs using a computer. I find it more sensible than the sandwich way.

Stunt will not go aloof from these new tools.

Laser cut parts, CNC, new materials, new glues, they are all here, and we can't try to pretend they do not exist.

About your statement "We in the stunt world have been doing the same tricks since GMA was a youngster (and
still can't get 'em just right), do you really see it like this?

The Sthratmoore days are gone, Ted.

Concerning the 45 degree rules, I posted a thought.

Why not keep only the bottoms, the zenith and the intersections?

You can't make a vertical eight if you fly too wide, it's a self limiting maneuver. The clover also.

About the loops, if a pilot did big loops and smaller ones for the above mentioned maneuvers, he would loose a lot for being inconsistent. The loops have to be the same size on a vertical eight. A big first loop would be a bad start, either he would make a smaller top loop or he'd go beyond the zenith.

It's like the Bible says, "The letter kills, but the Spirit quickens"

Musicians also compete, but the judging is far more subjective. Rubinstein once said that with the notes he played wrong one could write a sonata...

Still, nobody played Chopin like him.

He had the respect that a "not a single wrong note" player never got close to.

I bless you and wish you Godspeed.

Ion

P.S. How could I get to see a "Chizzler" set of plans?

I will quote RJ from another thread, "Many years ago all these points were discussed and that is why we now have Pampa skill classes at most contests and a couple at the Nat's. The BOM rule only applies to a sanctioned AMA contest and that includes the Nat's that use the JSO format.
You are either the builder or you don't fly, period! End of statement! Those that wish to buy and fly are welcome to fly at the Nat's in the skill classes anytime. We all recognize the fact that any number of us are good at any one aspect of the hobby, takes some effort to get good at the rest of it. All the reasons for not building your own plane are a cop-out! If you really want to fly at the Nat's or any JSO contest you'll do what it takes. I know plenty of guys, including myself, that have built planes in apartments and kept them under the bed due to lack of room. This all leads right back to those types that don't have the will to do what it takes yet want a trophy just cause they showed up! Doesn't work that way! This isn't a difficult concept to understand except for the wannebes and who needs them anyway? I would very much like to see them all show up with their RTFs' at their own contest, I'll bet they would really have a good time swapping lies about how much did yours cost, mine is better cause I paid more than you did, etc. Sounds good to me, RJ"

The purpose of CL Stunt is to evaluate the overall flyer in all aspects of the sport. That means building, finishing, trimming and flying. To do less is to shortchange the sport and allow those with deep pockets to prevail. Presently a flyer with a modicum of building and finishing skill, a decent power plant to include the Fox 35 and a aircraft such as a classic era ship like the Chizzler can win, take the NATS and the Walker Cup. But, if it is on a windy day than the piped and 60 size ships prevail. Don't believe me, look at Tod Lee and John Simpson. Simple machines and engines and lots of practice.

Tom,

I once read a Canadian stunt pilot say that you won't know the difference between the PA 65 and the other engines untill it gets windy.

Will I one day have to go big?

Bobby once told me that he used big ships because of the judging.

Well, for the time being I'll stay small. The "Eliminator" is, accordidng to Bob, a very good "rotten wind" design."

The OS.25 VF w/a pipe is a good power plant.

Where I fly, rotten wind is more of a rule than an exception.

I'm learning the pattern on the worst conditions. The only times the wind is nice are from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM untill 8:00 PM, (with the summer clock setting).

Many times I get up at 5:00 AM just to be able to fly with good wind, especially if I want to improve something I'm not good at.

Sunday, I flew untill it got dark. My wingovers were good, the hard part is (IMHO) the second corner, when you have to fly half lap inverted. I can now do it without "corrections", and the bottom is ALMOST 5'.

I just am telling you this so you can see I'm serious about stunt.

I felt guilty reading the "plane under the bed" story. I have a BIG shop... Shame on me.

As soon as I can I'll post some pics of the work of my hands, you'll see and tell me.

And I pretend to make this next ship a good looking one. After it's built I'll forget it for a month and then start doing the finish...

Bless ya!
Ion

From what I have seen of Windy's videos there is no need to make a choice: One can get the pictures AND a million words, all in the same package.

Dan,

You are the man.

Oh, no!! I find myself in agreement with both Floyd C and pauleyp. Could it possibly get any uglier than this?

Being highly competitive in any activity hardly indicates a talent for constructing rules under which said competition will best take place.

While it would not--could not--happen, imagine PW, winner of the 2002 Nationals, writing a new set of rules which would give an unsurmountable advantage to a stuntable B-17. Bonus points for each engine more than one. Bonus points for 4-flip starts. Bonus points for long fuselages, round fuselages, bladder-feed fuel system, machine guns, all-up weight in excess of 80 ounces, etc., etc.

No current PA model would be made obsolete in that they could be flown to our imaginary set of rules. But only a four-engined B-17 would truly be competitive.

While a radical example, the same sort of thinking applies when determining who is or is not qualified to push, shove and nudge our current set of rules into a better package.