Not BOM but ARF

We need to face facts, the ARF is here and being flown at contests, I have it on good authority that Brodaks will be coming out with no less than 3 ARF's as soon as the details get worked out.

Are we going to just not accept them by penalizing the pilot because he is flying an ARF? Are we going to try to come up with an acceptable solution for the majority of competitors and give a hand up to the guy that brings an ARF to a contest? Shouldn't the guys that build and finish also be rewarded for their efforts.

The Tulsa solution was to replace Free Style Stunt with Flight Streak Stunt. Now we have an event that anyone can fly any Flight Streak from the ARF to the one you bought last year already built at that garage sale. The guy that brings out a Streak he built himself with a Windy quality finish will be envied and receive much recognition from the other pilots. (Isn't that what it is all about anyway, just being recognized for your efforts?)

We then carried this a little farther and decided to eliminate appearance points in Classic and Intermediate for next years contest. There are no appearance points in Old Time and nobody seems to mind, Brodaks annual Fly-In has no appearance points in Classic and no one seems to mind. The great airplanes still get slobbered over by the other pilots. Intermediate flyers are usually just happy they have an airplane in one piece so they can fly. Please, no disrespect meant.

Is this going to make any difference in the outcome of the contest? My guess is probably not as far as who wins but for the club it will open up entrees to pilots that otherwise wouldn't or couldn't enter. What was it VSC or the NATS a couple of years ago where the top 3 or 4 places in Old Time were with the same airplane. The ARF is here to stay and can't be anything but good for the hobby, we are doing our best to accommodate everybody at our contest.

Well speaking for the Tulsa Gang (I hope) that is our take on the ARF and how we chose to deal with it.

Anybody got a better idea?

If someone wants to have an AFF only contest, or an ARF-Nobler or an ARF Flite Streak, OK. Let's get up front and honest. But let's not water down the classic event with something that isn't just because someone made these readily available.

On the other side of the scale, if this is a contest where it is legal to fly a plane someone else built and do so without appearance points (or fidelity points) then maybe one could accomodate these that way just as you would if I showed up and flew your plane. Give the appearance points to those who built their own planes. Give none to the ARFs. That's another solution. But to disqualify my efforts in building my plane just so a guy who bought an ARF can come in on an equal footing is not fair.

Quite frankly, I would choose to skip your contest.

As for NOW the correct thing to do is to award points for the planes that are built all the way from the kit or plan up. The ARF should not recieve points. But it wont be long and the ARF is going to have to be given the Appearance points. The BOM rule applies across all forms of modeling under AMA rules unless specified other wise. There for the "Average kit" is fast becoming an ARF. Just look around. The modeling companies are able to produce ARFs and sell them for a competitve price to a non built kit. It only makes sense to the money makers in RC to keep in this direction, they dont make their money on kits anyway. Soon the ARF will be average. It may already be so. Hard part is knowing when this has happened. Scrolling through any RC pub and the advertising would suggest that ARFs are all that is left...

I have built two of these Nobler ARFS now. If anyone buys one of these and strips the finish and then builds and finishes it they should be awarded full points. The Tom Morris Quick Build Cav would be an almost identicle model. There is now way you as a CD could accpet one and not the other. It just wouldnt be fair what so ever.

Greg, you are still arguing the builder of the model rule. Since this rule does exist, there should be no appearance points awarded the arf since the flyer did not build it. That is the purpose of the appearance points. You build it, then you get credit for it.

I see.

Yes the building services are booked and yes those people use those planes in competition. Somehow they pass the BOM but it is all a gray area and no one, including me, really seems to have a way to seperate it all out. But some will point straight to the Top Flight and say no to that one. I guess it is because a company built it and not a personal building service. I guess it is really easy to spot also. However there is some building there and some of the most critical stuff still has to be completed by the builder. It doesnt take long to do but if not done correctly it wont fly very well.

Near as I can tell after building a couple of them they are having the parts laser cut here a shipping them to the factory to be built. Just my speculation. But it seems logical to me. The construction is very simple and straight forward. That way it is quick and straight. Whatever the process it is a straight lightweight(38oz with an LA 46) Nobler.

Doug,

With all due respect, putting the parts of an AFR together IS NOT "completely constructing" the model as the rules call for. The rule does not say that you must do "alot"....it says you have to constuct it *completely*.

A friend said he built a Noble ARF in 6-8 hours. One can easily spend that much time just sanding and masking a normally built plane. Save the ARFs for sport or practice, or just waive the appearance points if they are used in competition.

Respectfully.

Again I ask you directly. Do you allow Tom Morris Quick Build Cavalier to get apperance points and qualify under the BOM?

I hope my tone isnt harsh I am just being direct.

What's up, brother?

I think that was the original question.

I think the TM QBC has already qualified (and won) at the Nationals without protest. I say let somebody protest and then fix it then (if it needs to be fixed). Until somebody protests, quick builds and refinished ARF's are in, just like prefabricated foam wings, purchased completed wings, pre-fabbed components and all the other "greater than 51%" stuff.

I think in terms of the actual precedents in place, there is your answer. People can dislike it or not, but the reality is that the Nationals have already been won by QBC's. A TF ARF, stripped down and refinished is at the same stage of completion as a QBC.

BTW I will not be protesting.

What a shame. You would miss a great contest because you weren't going to get a few points credit for a build job on your plane. The people there are great and the contest is always a blast. I havent been in a couple of years but I would reccomend that one to anyone. The times I have been to the Tulsa contests they have been great and are run very professionally.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

If you find it a waste of time,just don't submit your airplane for judging,go socialize.

What the event loses is the development of new talent able to move
into the advanced and expert ranks with ALL the skills required to compete at this level.The inclusion of building skills as an integral part of the score is a fundamental part of our event,and was designed to ensure continued development.To say otherwise is to fly(pun intended)in the face of history,and a wise man once said"Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it".

Certainly ARFs have a place,actually several.That is as practice airplanes,as beginner's stunt airplanes,and as one design contest airplanes;it is NOTin advanced or expert competition.

Thanks Doug!
We can't wait to have you back!
Maybe next year the the Gluedobbers will get to meet the new addition to your family.

Very surprised to see this. Currell

Beginner and Intermediate have no appearance points now,so no problem.From there on up,just don't allow them (ARFs) to compete.To claim that anyone serious enough about this endeavor to reach Advanced or Expert doesn't have time or space to build is ludicrous.I know people who,to this day,build at night on their kitchen table. If you're so lazy you don't WANT to make the effort to build,then I submit you're in the wrong hobby(Oh, excuse me "sport").The last I heard,instant gratification wasn't one of the maneuvers.

There is a lot of confusion here....in every contest but the Nats OPEN / Junior / Senior, the B.O.M., though in effect, may be bypassed simply by declining to accept appearance points (I believe ONE Advanced flyer declined them in 2003?). Local contests, where AMA classes are flown, allow declining appearance points.

Around here, Windy has given away most of his award winning fleet, and the recipients regularly fly his models in all classes.....they are simply not awarded appearance points, per the Rule Book.

See Ya

And that is exactly as it should be. Rather than saying, "The ARFs are here, so we should drop appearance points for everyone", let them fly the ARFs if they want in those contests that allow it, but without appearance points. (builder of the model is not assembly of the model.)

Guys, we have been through all this before and are certainly not going to hash it out here. But in answer to the original question, in those contests where flyhing someone else's plane is allowed, but without appearance points, then let the ARF in under those circumstances. The vast majority of that plane was built by somebody else. Gluing the final (and finished) components together does not make you the builder of the model.

Yes it does

I stand corrected on Intermediate.The rest of my statement still stands.Before we bowed to the same kind of pressure and reduced the appearance points to twenty,the guide lines were clear:originality;workmanship;realism;finish.There was a balance,the best finish in the world yielded only 25% of the points possible,workmanship was separate from finish,and originality and realism were rewarded.Now we're looking at a further degradation of values where the only requirement is to own the model.
Eliminating a competitive requirement simply because it is difficult is to set out on the slippery slope to mediocrity.
I'm not against ARFs,I bought two of them.They are exactly as advertised,and make good low emotional debt level practice airplanes.They should make wonderful low level stunt trainers,having much the same performance as a good intermediate/advance level model.But to infer from this that they should be allowed in competition is a long reach.

>Ron B.

Ron, I agree. Maybe it is time to bring the four categories back. I am for it.

Actually the loss of points encourages me to get those two planes (MAN plans-built Oriental and Brodak Pathfinder) which have been sitting on the bench now for about 2 years) finished!

On the other hand I appreciate the Top Flite Nobler for what it has done for me---it has given me a competitve airplane in which to learn. I don't quite wince as much when the outside pullout is a few inches too low!

Losing appearance points hasn't deterred me from entering non-NATs contests. It really shouldn't stop anyone.

"In fact (commercial warning) many of the wings that I have built were in models that placed in the top twenty, the top ten, and even the top five at the Nats this year, and for the last few years as well. The wing in David's winning model was built by Dave using my Lost-Foam system. Rich Oliver, Randy Smith, Frank McMillan, Bob Gieseke, Dan Banjock, Bill Rich, Steve Millet, and many others who flew at this year's Nats, either used wings that I produced for them, or built the wings themselves from Lost-Foam system sets that I provided."

Elwyn,

I have a question for you. Did you construct the engine, muffler, fuel filter, fuel tank, wheels, bellcrank, fasteners, etc? If not, do you qualify for BOM? Did you formulate the paint, be it dope, enamel, epoxy? Did you refine and mix the fuel? Did you formulate the various glues that you used? Let's be reasonable about this. Complying with the spirit of BOM is the objective. Not dancing on the head of a pin. Besides this issue is dead for 3 more years since it lost the vote to abolish it earlier this year. Or do you and others wish to start the process again. If so, feel free, but be prepared to be disappointed again. The reality is that this wonderful forum will not get any of the anti-BOM crowd what they want. They are going to have to do it on their own within the rules and in accordance with the AMA process. There is no quick fix. And there shouldn't be.

There isnt really any clarity on the issue. No one has ever really been able to clear it up.

Tom,

I hear that argument about all that engine building making the dope and so on all the time. It is so old and tired. Truth is when you used to get a model all the parts were drawn on the wood and you cut it all out. Then came die cutting a kit did everyone cry about that? Now the laser has come along and I have heard some small crying about that but not much. Truth is the laser cutter will cut building time spent in half or more. The one thing they all have in common is it is still just a box of parts no part of the airframe comes completed. If we had to mix our paint and build our own motors the event would be dead. Not many have that capability or even want to do that. But when you start in with the prebuilt/preglued parts of the airframe you are really really really bending the rules. And since no one protests these palnes it has been passing for BOM for years and I am sure it will continue to do so.

If you are going to have BOM then have it all the way from putting the peices in the model together ALL of them not just some of them. This would not include the motor/pipe/mix paint, normal everyday people dont have the machines to do such work and asking them to do so to compete would kill the event, I think even you can agree with that. Pro BOMers wont come out against these partially built models even though it is against the very thing they want so much to keep in the HOBBY. I dont understand it.

Then, go through the AMA process and come up with a definition of BOM that will fill the bill. But, for me, I will continue to rely on the flyer's integrity and accept their assertion that they are the BOM. I do not want to make a rule that restricts everyone, I seek only to penalize the exception. Besides, I have flown at three contests in advanced with a borrowed Cavalier 670 Lite without appearance points and it did not keep me out of the top 5. It is something you accept and move on.

Feel free to protest then.

Have you taken over the wing building business from Bob Hunt?

Alot of the names you mentioned are getting the jigs from Hunt. Are you working with him now or have you taken it over?

Doug, excellent question...I wondered about AirCobra's statement when I read it. In fact, AirCobra even used Hunt's name for the system: Lost Foam System.

I read elsewhere he was quoting Bob Hunt.

Just curious since thE sort of thing I'm about to suggest has happened in the past in OTS, for instance.

Would the event still be fun if Bill Werwage, Bob McDonald, Alan Brickhaus, Windy and a couple of other area experts bought and shared the same ARF Nobler and, predictably won all the trophies?

Will the presence of multiple Expert level entrants in the event add or detract from its popularity?

If the benefit one sees in an ARF infusion is an increase in numbers at the local contests will it be desireable to deny entry to experts who can buy one too?

This is not just a rhetorical question. Exactly this sort of expert innoculation into events believed "sure to grow" the sport pretty much destroyed a lot of events when the experts chose to win a few more trophies in the "new and improved versions". Team Race disappeared in deference to Rat Race which in turn seems to be giving way to dozens of different area specific racing events. The beautiful old Navy Carrier airplanes were displaced by "profile" versions and helicopter flight profiles...and the same few experts dominate; and there seems to be little or not influx of new people as a result of the "simplified" access to the event.

What do the ARF proponents see as the future of ARF stunt in the CLPA arena?

It would be for everyone in Tulsa.
If all those guys showed up in Tulsa next year with an ARF Nobler it would be GREAT!
Can you arrange that?

This "ten guys fly one expert ARF" thing could be a way for certain clubs to experiment with the same thing in model airplanes. Maybe it too will ultimately flop. A lot of complaining went down after a bunch of guys flew one Ringmaster.

I think the whole argument comes around in a large circle to the misgotten idea by some, that someone is unfairly getting an edge by;

1)Getting a lot of appearance points
2)Getting scored on the HALO EFFECT
3)Getting scored on his model being big or small
4)Getting scored because of the pipe, 60, 4 stroke
5)BLAH,BLAH,BLAH...

I don't care if you're Windy or Whitely, the winners aren't GETTING anything. They WORK hard to get there and the chips fall where they may. Bitch all you want guys but the event is: build your model and fly it at the contest. Bring one you didn't build and get no appearance points.

These rules have worked for a lot longer than any other event, we have the highest numbers of participants. For instance in 1968 there were 53 JUNIOR'S! in the new JR. only 1/2A Proto Profile Speed event. As Ted has pointed out as in other events, the same guys that have done it for years are now the ones ,at 70 years old, flying the pitiful remnant of what started as a Junior only profile event! Our event is fine. It ain't broke, as they say.

I think if a guy doesn't have time to build a model that season but wants to participate, then he can build an ARF Nobler and come out to the contests and fly with no appearance points. Just like he borrowed an airplane or bought one from someone else. Isn't that like it has always been?

Wait a minute Chris...that's not always going to be the case

Brodak Fly-in- Classic (no appearance points for everyone)
Tulsa 2004- Classic (no appearance points for everyone)

And this my friend, is just the beginning...

Whether it is, or not, it *is* ultimately up to them. As long as they make it clear in the contest announcement, local contests can do as they please.

The element of motivation only comes in to play when evaluating proposals to change it for *everybody*.

Brett

>Brodak Fly-in- Classic (no appearance points for everyone)

>And this my friend, is just the beginning...
>
>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

Hmmm.

don't suppose this might have something to do with John's stated intention of marketing some ARFs of his own does it?

Hmmm
I don't know Ted. I think the classic event at Brodaks has always been done without appearance points. The fact that Mr. Brodak may soon be releasing not one, but three ARF's, may have more to do with the fact that he is a smart business man who recognizes a popular trend. I don't think it's part of some devious master plan to eliminate the BOM put into affect 10 years ago before the first Brodak Fly-in.

The BOM will eventually die with it's supporters. It's inevitable. Sad... but, True.

And what gives you this insight? Inquiring minds would like to know?

To para phrase someone else on this forum about this very subject...
I don't have to explain my views

You should be able to figure it out all by yourself...I did.

Ted,
I really dont think so! There were no appearance points in any Brodak event since the beginning. Having flown, judged and CDed at this event I can tell you that the organizational and time constraints, manpower issues, and sheer numbers of planes and participants alone makes getting everyone together for the Concours judging alone is a feat in and of itself.

When this started I do not truly believe that ARFs were even a consideration. Lack of appearance points surely did not hurt attendance. Also sounds like a baited/loaded question. Doesn't sound like you. What is your issue here exactly if I may ask?

Rick, so based upon the Brodak and Tulsa contests you are saying that all contests including the Nats are going to go the way of "no appearance points"? You have now been annointed the "Stunt Prophet"?

Why are appearance points such a sore point for you, Rick? You do build, don't you? And if you do not (and I see nothing wrong with not building) why do you have such resentment toward those who do build and receive appearance points? Our system already accommodates those who do not choose to build...they just do not get appearance points.

I am not against the BOM rule. I enjoy building, abide by the rules and will do so as long as I am able. Society is changing, do you not think our hobby will change along with the instant gratification generation...

Gawd, I am talking BOM and didn't want to.. Sorry...

Well, no, that's not what I'm saying. Based on Brodaks and Tulsa there are going to be places that DO NOT emphasize appearance and allow everyone to (appear) to be competing on the same level. I have never said "do away with BOM!" I did say I thought it was outdated and will eventually fade away, but I understand it's tradition and history and it has meaning at the JSO NATS but it's fast losing it's meaning to the average stunt pilot.

Appearance points are not a sore point with me. I do build when I have time and I enjoy it greatly. It's sometimes more of a challange than flying. I have no anomosity towards anyone that likes the BOM. I just think it's past its prime. I think modifying the event is something that is going to happen eventually and the people that say NO are, as Maverick said..."sticking their heads in the sand."
If it is indeed going to happen, then let's get on with it. The people that make things happen and know all the steps, and procedures for all the paper work, and committees, and rules, and regulations, and blah blah blah... ought to LEAD us through this. ARF's are here so let's USE them to our overall benifit. The builders are still going to build and they will still garner the respect and admiration of ALL of us including myself.

I happen to believe there are all kinds of ways to encourage people to come to a contest and compete. Having a classic contest that has no appearance judging is meant to encourage MORE people to participate. It's an idea not some hidden agenda to take over PAMPA and hijack the blessed BOM.

Thanks for annointing me the Stunt Prophet I was hoping to be annointed for predicting that it might be time for an intermediate ARF last year, but no one seems to remember that prediction.

regards,
Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

Ted,

There is a flaw in your logic in that all of those named are competitive guys. Do you really think Werwage would be happy to finish fourth just to avoid buying and "building" an ARF?

You cite the OTS example in order to support your position, and I think this example is pretty weak. Yes, it happened. But I also personally know that one of the guys felt bad about it, immediately apologized to Charlie Reeves, has not entered Team Stunt again, nor is he likely to do so.

In fact, your example supports my position: A group of hots shots might buy an ARF and all fly it in competition. Once. Never would they do it twice.

DIRT,

GOTTA READ THE WHOOOLE THING. THE PART YOU QUOTED WAS MERELY A MEANS TO POINT OUT THE FACT THAT ELIMINATING THE BOM AND APPEARANCE POINTS WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE EVENTS IF THESE GUYS DECIDED TO SPLIT THE $100.00 COST A HALF DOZEN WAYS. THEY WOULD STILL BE THE WINNERS AND THE OTHERS ALSO RANS.

THE FURTHER POINT WAS TO ILLUSTRATE HOW SIMILAR ATTEMPTS TO "IMPROVE SUCCESSFUL EVENTS" ACTUALLY HELPED LEAD TO THEIR DEMISE. COMBAT IS THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE. USED TO NUMBER THE ENTRIES AT THE NATS IN AND AROUND 100. THEN IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE USE OF READY MADE RUSSIAN AIRPLANES SHOULD BE THE STATE OF THE ART AND NOW THE SAME SMALL GROUP OF GUYS FLY FOR A FEW HUNDRED BUCKS AT ASSORTED PLACES AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THE EVENT ITSELF SEEMS A FIG LEAF OF ITS FORMER SELF.

SIMPLIFIED VERSIONS OF OTHER EVENTS SUCH AS CARRIER, RACING, SPEED HAVE PRETTY MUCH TURNED INTO TROPHY POOLS FOR THE SAME HANDFUL OF VETERANS THAT BEFORE WALKED OFF WITH ALL THE ORIGINAL EVENT TROPHIES. THE EVENTS ARE NOW SMALLER AND THE AIRPLANES THAT FLY IN THEM OF SIGNIFICANTLY INFERIOR QUALITY (IN TERMS OF MODELING...MY OPINION ONLY).

THE ONLY--REPEAT, ONLY--EVENT WHOSE INTEREST LEVEL IS GREAT ENOUGH TO REMAIN STRONG IN BOTH NUMBERS AND DEDICATION TO THE MODELING ASPECTS OF THE ENDEAVOR IS CLPA. THE COMPARISON SAYS SOMETHING WITH THOSE WHOSE EARS AREN'T FULL OF THEIR OWN FINGERS.

MY ONLY POINT WAS THAT ALLOWING ARFS WILL ONLY IMPROVE THE CHANCES OF THEIR SUPPORTERS TO WIN MAJOR TROPHIES IF THE DEGRADATION OF THE EVENT IS SO GREAT THAT THE TRULY PROFICIENT AND DEDICATED NO LONGER FEEL THAT IT APPEALS TO THEM...AND LEAVE THE EVENT IN SEARCH OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT DOES.

BY THE WAY, WHY SHOULD THE OTS GUY HAVE FELT SORRY FOR COMPETING IN AN EVENT WHOSE RULES ALLOW HIM TO DO SO WITHOUT BUILDING HIS OWN PLANE. HIS DOING SO MERELY SUPPORTS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING THE BOM AND APPEARANCE POINTS...THE ENTRY LIST WAS LARGER. CATDADDY WOULD LOVE HIM.

TED

SORRY FOR THE APPEARANCE OF SHOUTING, NASA KEYBOARD ONLY USES CAPS UNLESS I GET THE COMPUTER GEEK TO REPROGRAM IT.

The more likely reason that combat has become a mere fig leaf of its former self is because all those combat pilots have had a few birthdays since the heyday of combat and have turned their attentions to stunt and building pretty airplanes.

It surely has nothing to do with the Russian combat ARF's if anything these planes have encouraged more people to participate.
At 50 bucks a pop it's affordable to more than just a small group of guys flying for a few hundred bucks at assorted places.

That's probably why combat at local contests is pretty much non-existent and at the nats could be held on one circle on a part time basis. I've been to every nats but one since 1974 and your declaration that more people participate is just plain bogus, Rick.

Like words, numbers mean things.

Check the numbers and call me back.

On one hand, while the number of entries are not nearly as high as back then, with the multi-round (and multi-class) formats used these days, everyone gets to fly a lot more. Of those 60+ entries at one of those old Nats, 30+ fliers get to fly exactly once - and then sit out the rest of the week.

As to the influence of the RTFs and Russian engines - it is interesting to note that the class where almost 100% of equipment is RTFs - F2D - is the one growing the fastest. The last Team Trials was the biggest ever (F2D was never popular in the US in the past) and I'd say the biggest reason most people give for switching to this class is the availability of buy-and-fly equipment.

While F2D attracts seasoned fliers away from the American events (I know of two or three who sold all their Nelsons and took up F2D), Speed Limit is the one that attracts the most beginners. No, the numbers are nowhere what they were in the old days, but there has been a slow, steady influx of new people and retreads for this low-demand, fun event. Most of the local contests you find now are Speed Limit. Whether you see a lot of them depends on which area you live in. In New England, they have a regular circuit, with something like 6-8 contests a year, and a regular newsletter.

At the Nats, the unofficial (and may it remain so!) Speed Limit event draws more and more people every year, and a quarter of these are newcomers or older gentlemen who can't keep up with a Fast Combat plane any more. What role do RTFs play here? Plenty. Stick a plain bearing .25 on the nose of a Russian RTF and you have an instant Speed Limit plane. Aside from RTFs, there are also a lot of hand-me-down planes and engines. A BOM rule here would do more to kill off the event than anything else I can think of short of a flyaway causing multiple casualties.

I'm sorry Ted, I forgot the control line world revolves around the NATS, I should have been more specific, but I wasn't refering to just the participation at the NATS.

I was refering to combat in general. Refer to Isky's post. Speed limit popularity is on the rise and Russian ARF's have had a positive influence in this regard.

I really don't know how you could possible know everything that's going on in the combat world considering all the time you devote to PAMPA and all the help you give to up and coming stunt pilots. Come to think of it I haven't seen you mentioned anywhere in the several combat newsletters and forums I subscribe to.

Just because it's not happening at the NATS does not mean it's not happening. Many people don't participate at the NATS Ted.

You are right, numbers as well as words do mean things, and depending on how they are used they can actually support two different views. It's up to each individual to determine who is "bogus" and who actually knows what he's talking about.

OK, Rick, I'll bite. How many members does that combat SIG have?

The Combat scene IS a lot smaller than the Stunt scene, and I think the main reasons are:

1) It IS very competition based, much more so than Stunt. The Stunt scene includes many people who don't compete, but like to build, discuss and fly Stunt planes.

2) Getting to the lowest rung of competition is a LOT harder in Combat. There are lots of psychological and practical barriers in the way - the perception is that the planes are hard to fly (even Speed Limit looks very, very fast to a beginner), and you do need at least 3 people to practice.

One reason for the small SIG is that there isn't much in the newsletter other than contest reports. Combat people just have much, much less to talk about, compared to Stunt people. Just take the issue of covering, for instance.

Yes, I think it would still be fun. We would love to have those individuals show up at our contest and participate. We have in the past had Bob McDonald show up and we wish he would return , but again we would love to have those people. Would it not be great as a spectator to see the best of the best shoot it out with an old ARF Nobler. I personally would love to see that. Not from a competitive aspect, but pure enjoyment. Currently, we have Joe Reinhard, John Sunderland and hopefully several others who are going to fly the event.

To answer your second question, I think it would not detract from the popularity initially, maybe over a longer period of time as people tend to forget the fun part and it evolves into being somewhat more competitive. Not our intent, but again there is that possibility.

Your third point, I don't think we are going to have a great amount of NEW fliers coming to our contest to fly ARF Noblers. I think our take on the issue was that this was an oppurtunity to have a fun event that would highlight the "first" C/L ARF plane that has been produced and distributed at a very reasonable price. This is just an oppurtunity for us to have some fun at the local level with "no" push towards going any further with it.

As a local fun event (ARF'S) nothing more!

Yes it would still have been fun but, alas, they did not come!....Joe Reinhard, Kenny Stevens, Bob Campbell, Larry Robertson and I flew in the first ever that I know of ARF event and it was really cool to see all those Noblers at the field...some only half constructed and power, modifications and trim were the topic of discussion most of the day!

Nobody seemed to mind that Larry and I flew Joes plane or that I won.
We flew one round, five volunteer judges and threw out the high and low score. All the judges just happened to be intermediate and advanced level pilots. Nobody entered an ARF in any of the Pampa classes on Sunday. Bob Campbell was the only Advanced entrant and held his own quite well and the scores were not over inflated nor did I win by a run away margin. We had a ball and the planes fly quite well and penetrated well in the wind. It is no wonder that this is a benchmark airplane. That I know of, only Kennys plane was completely stock out of the box but the mods made had nothuing to do with surfaces, areas, moments or gear placement.
>
>Will the presence of multiple Expert level entrants in the
>event add or detract from its popularity?

Certainly not a problem here as only Expert and Advanced level pilots showed up with or entered flying someone elses plane. I can't say what might happen in other regions of the country...we typically keep our egos in check around here. Larry and I each got one wram up flight on Joes plane using his handle and trim and preferred engine run.

>If the benefit one sees in an ARF infusion is an increase in
>numbers at the local contests will it be desireable to deny
>entry to experts who can buy one too?

By our current rules ideas, you get one chance and one chance only to put up a winning flight. For many this takes the guess work and over building as well as appearance points out of the equation. You may have noted that with some pilots it is not so much their ability to fly as it is their ability to build and trim that is holding them back. I do not see denying experts a chance to enter as some great taboo. Almost all who entered were experts and defintely all were experienced builders and modelers. Not one entrant had less than a life time of experience in modeling.

Our idea was to keep it simple and not to encourage a cut throat environment. We did! It worked and I can not wait to get mine out of the box. I might even strip the covering and tart the SOB out just to stir the pot with the pundits...not with the lower level pilots! Kenny reports that it took about two weeks of evenings to build his stock model and I can build a Twister in less than a week so it is not a simple matter of bolting in your servo tray and battery pack and rubber banding the wing in place. And it flies well with nary an adjustable thing on it. A stock OS 35 S or its weight equivalent put the stock LO location at exactly the right spot.
>
>This is not just a rhetorical question. Exactly this sort
>of expert innoculation into events believed "sure to grow"
>the sport pretty much destroyed a lot of events when the
>experts chose to win a few more trophies in the "new and
>improved versions". Team Race disappeared in deference to
>Rat Race which in turn seems to be giving way to dozens of
>different area specific racing events. The beautiful old
>Navy Carrier airplanes were displaced by "profile" versions
>and helicopter flight profiles...and the same few experts
>dominate; and there seems to be little or not influx of new
>people as a result of the "simplified" access to the event.

Ted, as one of those that dominates, I am surprised that you would ask this question. If we all build TPS...you will still be a contender and it is doubtful that a fleet of TPS on the flight line at the Nats would run you out of the Top 5.

No less than two fathers (retread non competitors with four boys all that fly) in our area, and who did not even know our club existed showed up for our contest and cant wait to get these after chatting with those of us that flew them. We gave them club membership forms, an offer of training and or support from the club, lists cottage industry suppliers, Pampa membership forms and big dose of enthusiasm for they and their children in our pasttime. Further they both had the ARF Flite Streaks in their inventory and didnt reqalize the Nobler was available. No...it is not a guarantee of life long committment to the hobby.....but you have to plant seed before you a yeild a bumper crop.

What do the ARF proponents see as the future of ARF stunt in
>the CLPA arena?

First off, the ARF Nobler really is not truly "almost ready to fly" but the major assemblies are done built and its moneycoated but the allignment, motor installation and controls still need to be installed. Take a look at one before you draw conclusions here!!!! Second, many of you folks are buying wings and other balsa prebuilt components now...they just dont come in a single box from a single supplier on the hobby shop shelf. To me that is skirting the rule and this happens more in competitive circles than the lower ranks as I have seen. No names nor any need but you can usually guess that average crooked, nose heavy Twister was built by the intermediate pilot zorping it through the pattern. Just because no one protested does not mean we did not know....we chose to accept it. There is no way you can hide one of these unless you do as I suggested I might earlier on.

You know I love to build and I support the the BOM etc. However, fun and enthusiasm for CL in general in a new age and time constrained world is my goal. I dont expect them all to be able to compete with us....but I want them in my local Club...flying, participating, and enjoying the unmistakable scent of burnt castor as I and many others have since childhood.

As for how I see it in our future, you might want to ask Kenny Stevens. A very good builder who chose to build a Cavalier from a Tom Morris prebuilt kit and selected it over his Legacy on PA with pipe and a Hunt constructed lost foam wing for his 2002 Advanced Nats win and he also garnered near max appreance points as well!

Seems that is the future and it already here! Somebody let it slip in without protest. Next step would be a better definition of the average kit as that has changed. The rules do not stipulate average CLPA kit. As I see it the ARF Nobler qualifies by the rules as written at this time. I have no problem with it. It will not garner top appearance points ever but as has been written so many times....those few points count so little in the over all scores that it really is a non issue right.

Tulsa is a pretty small club with maybe 10 active members. We simply do not have the resources to add events to our contest schedule. We had to drop Free Style Stunt in order to make a place for the new event.

We are trying to find the right combination, so as many people can fly as possible and have a good time doing it. We appreciate the support of those that understand what we are trying to do and respect the opinions of those that don't. If we try something that doesn't work, heck we will try something else but we are at least doing something rather than sticking our heads up our butts and doing nothing.

Leonard, have you ever flown Classic at a contest, any contest? I know you don't fly Intermediate so just why would you choose not to come to Tulsa?

Ted, how would this effect you? You would be flying PAMPA Expert and business as usual. If you still had your Nobler and brought it to Tulsa to fly in Classic do you think the ARF's would change the outcome?

Who is going to bring an ARF to a contest, he/she is going to be a Beginner, Intermediate or entry level Advanced flyer. He is flying an ARF because it was something easy to get in the air and will allow him to enter a contest that he otherwise couldn't. We are hoping encouraging the ARF will bring in more flyers, simple as that.

In answer to your questin, I have not flown actively for the last few years, chosing, instead, to help Matt with his program--doing engine work, pitting, coaching, offering help and going to contests with him. Has he entered Old time and classic? Yes. And he has a new project going for classic that will be absolutely true to the design and totally his construction. (Well, he got a set of laser cut ribs, but I think we can allow this.)

As for construction, I have held a part while he soldered. I have held a couple of pieces of wood while he applied glue. But he has built, including the finish, every plane that he has entered at a contest. And he should be awarded appearance points for it. And, in classic, he should be awarded fidelity points, and not simply have these dropped so that the ARF flyers can compete on a level playing field.

Oh, and because someone enters a contest and is allowed to compete with an "illegal" model, does not mean a precedent has been set and now all "whatevers" should be allowed. Because someone shoots someone else and gets away with murder does not mean that murder is now allowed in all 50 states and cannot be prosecuted.

We were at an OT contest once when a contestant showed up with a kit version of the Still Stuka. There are enough changes in this design to make it quite evident and noticeably illegal. I do not know whether the modeler knew this or not. But while I was considering whether or not a protest should be filed, I saw the contestant put up a practice flight. Now I don't know whether this was the right thing to do or not, but he was not a good flyer and nobody said anything. He came in dead last, but had fun.

The problem is, and I understand that now, he thought it was legal and could continue to enter contests with it until sometime he is challenged. And then he is likely to go off in a huff, saying, "all these other contests allowed it, why not this?" And then others get the idea that if he got away with it, why not me?

Some of you are already thinking, "If someone flew a Tom Morris quick build and got away with it, then we all should be able to do so." (Hey, Tom, could you build an SV11 for me?) And now there are those who think we ought to include the ARF Nobler and others and get credit for being the BOM, or that by simply eliminating the points that settles the question. Elmininating points does not settle BOM or fidelity to the design. That's what I am getting at.

Award points and let the ARF fly without points, or fly a special ARF contest. But don't play games with the subject. We have a Builder of the Model rule that is going to be with us for a number of years yet. And I like it that way.

Richard,

No one in PAMPA that I know or have read their posts here on SSW have said "NO! NOT HERE!". On the contrary those of us that believe firmly and sincerely in BOM have no objection to ARFs competing. We only object to them being awarded appearance points. I could care less to an ARF Nobler or the like flying and winning in CLPA. I do object to it being awarded appearance points. Other than the NATS, I know of no CLPA contest that restricts ARFs from competing. Actually, they are welcomed.

This is my point, also. appearance points are awarded because you are the builder of the model and have followed the rules. You are awarded "fidelity" points in Classic where points are lost when you make modifications. Without these points and rules of some kind, to simply drop all points would mean I could bring an SV11 to the contest, call it a "modified" Nobler, and be allowed to fly. That is not classic.

Bring your ARF to a classic contest. Most contests will allow it. They will just penalize you points for lack of fidelity and the fact that you did not build it. And that gives incentive to those who do build.

Using the same logic, if you penalize someone for using an ARF you've just eliminated their incentive to participate.

People that build 15-20 point models don't need points as an incentive!!! Good grief, if that's their incentive something is wrong with them. They say they get satisfaction from the admiration they receive from their peers and that makes more sense to me.

Keep the BOM for the JSO NATS. I understand it for this event and it makes sense, but for crying out loud get rid of appearance points!
Have a concours event and give a trophy to the prettiest plane seperately.

Geez!!!! build your plane, take pride in it, even poke fun at the people that came to the contest and didn't build one as pretty as yours, but does anyone like Ted, Brett, Doug, Richard, etc, really need 20 extra points to beat someone that's flying an ARF?

Maverick, not only are you a great flyer AND builder, you sir are a progressive forward thinker whom I'm begining to admire more and more.
Thank you!

I have yet to attend any contest or flyin where any contestant was ridiculed or looked down on concerning the quality of their aircraft and/or its finish. The people I know would thank the modeler for being there and making the meet a success.

Col.
Sometimes you are just way to serious.
At our club we sometimes poke fun at one another because that's what friends sometimes do.

You really should lossen your collar once in awhile.

Be warned, if you show up at one of our contests don't take everything we say seriously.

You penalize them because they did not build the model, but that was their choice.

I believe building is part of the hobby and something that keeps people in it. You believe otherwise. It is a tiring argument.

Rick, I don't think so; the people flying ARF's most likely do not expect to be competing at the top levels and winning, they are there just to participate and have fun. Not getting appearance points is not going to ruin their modeling fun.

>People that build 15-20 point models don't need points as an
>incentive!!! Good grief, if that's their incentive something
>is wrong with them.

Rick, really? Are you a builder? Upon what do you base your broad statement that builders do not need points as an incentive? And who are you to decide that "...if that's their incentive something is wrong with them"?

>Keep the BOM for the JSO NATS. I understand it for this
>event and it makes sense, but for crying out loud get rid of
>appearance points!

Rick, WRONG! If you can't build then just accept the fact that you are not going to get appearance points and go forward from there.

>Geez!!!! build your plane, take pride in it, even poke fun
>at the people that came to the contest and didn't build one
>as pretty as yours, but does anyone like Ted, Brett, Doug,
>Richard, etc, really need 20 extra points to beat someone
>that's flying an ARF?

Rick, this is about more than just ARF's. ARF's such as the Nobler, as good as they are for their purpose, will probably not be a real factor in the upper classes. However, an airplane built by one of the top builders and then transferred to another flyer who campaigns it under the colors of having built it himself may well be a factor. This flyer is then receiving appearance points that he has not earned.

>Maverick, not only are you a great flyer AND builder, you
>sir are a progressive forward thinker whom I'm begining to
>admire more and more.

Rick, you seem to endorse the adage that the true test of another man's intelligence is how closely his thinking coincides with yours.

>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

Well Bob, I do think so. As a matter of fact I know it's true in the case of at least one person, so I assumed he wasn't the only modeler that felt this way.
How is it going to ruin your fun if you don't get points either?

>>People that build 15-20 point models don't need points as an
>>incentive!!! Good grief, if that's their incentive something
>>is wrong with them.
>
>Rick, really? Are you a builder? Upon what do you base
>your broad statement that builders do not need points as an
>incentive? And who are you to decide that "...if that's
>their incentive something is wrong with them"?
>

Yes I build. I based it on talking and listening to those that say they build for the satisfaction and admiration of their peers. Never did they mention the driving factor to build was 20 extra points.
I also can decide anything I want about anything I choose. If you disagree with me, fine but I won't cop this self righteous attitude of "who do you think you are to think that way about someone."
Give me a break.

>
>>Keep the BOM for the JSO NATS. I understand it for this
>>event and it makes sense, but for crying out loud get rid of
>>appearance points!
>
>Rick, WRONG! If you can't build then just accept the fact
>that you are not going to get appearance points and go
>forward from there.

Bill, Wrong! I do build and I will build as long as I'm able.
When I enter a contest that requires me to be BOM I will get my appearance points. This isn't about me anyway. It's about coming up with ways to make this hobby more popular. I don't subscribe to the defeatist attitude of some who say there is nothing we can do to make it better.
>
>
>Rick, this is about more than just ARF's. ARF's such as the
>Nobler, as good as they are for their purpose, will probably
>not be a real factor in the upper classes. However, an
>airplane built by one of the top builders and then
>transferred to another flyer who campaigns it under the
>colors of having built it himself may well be a factor.
>This flyer is then receiving appearance points that he has
>not earned.
>
Well you and I finally agree this is about more than just ARF's, however we don't agree on what this is really all about.

>
>>Maverick, not only are you a great flyer AND builder, you
>>sir are a progressive forward thinker whom I'm begining to
>>admire more and more.
>
>Rick, you seem to endorse the adage that the true test of
>another man's intelligence is how closely his thinking
>coincides with yours.

Yes, you're right again, if someone agrees with me I am more inclined to think he is intelligent. As do almost everyone of us.

Rick, so you know it's true in the case of one person and from that you extrapolate that many more feel that way? Okay...not a great statistical base but...okay.

>
>>>People that build 15-20 point models don't need points as an
>>>incentive!!! Good grief, if that's their incentive something
>>>is wrong with them.
>>
>>Rick, really? Are you a builder? Upon what do you base
>>your broad statement that builders do not need points as an
>>incentive? And who are you to decide that "...if that's
>>their incentive something is wrong with them"?

>Yes I build. I based it on talking and listening to those
>that say they build for the satisfaction and admiration of
>their peers. Never did they mention the driving factor to
>build was 20 extra points.
>I also can decide anything I want about anything I choose.
>If you disagree with me, fine but I won't cop this self
>righteous attitude of "who do you think you are to think
>that way about someone."
>Give me a break.

Rick, sure you can decide anything you want to about anything you choose; however, if you make a flat statement that "...if that's their incentive then something is wrong with them" then you can expect to get called on it.

>>>Keep the BOM for the JSO NATS. I understand it for this
>>>event and it makes sense, but for crying out loud get rid of
>>>appearance points!
>>
>>Rick, WRONG! If you can't build then just accept the fact
>>that you are not going to get appearance points and go
>>forward from there.
>
>Bill, Wrong! I do build and I will build as long as I'm
>able.
>When I enter a contest that requires me to be BOM I will get
>my appearance points. This isn't about me anyway. It's about
>coming up with ways to make this hobby more popular. I don't
>subscribe to the defeatist attitude of some who say there is
>nothing we can do to make it better.

Rick, nobody is saying that there is nothing we can do to make it better; it is just that you seem to feel that you have the only true answer and anybody who disagrees with you "...has something wrong with them."

By the way, I am curious...do you attend contests other than the local Tulsa area?

>>Rick, this is about more than just ARF's. ARF's such as the
>>Nobler, as good as they are for their purpose, will probably
>>not be a real factor in the upper classes. However, an
>>airplane built by one of the top builders and then
>>transferred to another flyer who campaigns it under the
>>colors of having built it himself may well be a factor.
>>This flyer is then receiving appearance points that he has
>>not earned.
>>
>Well you and I finally agree this is about more than just
>ARF's, however we don't agree on what this is really all
>about.

Rick, OK...we agree to disagree and allow other opinions without rancor.

>>>Maverick, not only are you a great flyer AND builder, you
>>>sir are a progressive forward thinker whom I'm begining to
>>>admire more and more.
>>
>>Rick, you seem to endorse the adage that the true test of
>>another man's intelligence is how closely his thinking
>>coincides with yours.
>
>Yes, you're right again, if someone agrees with me I am more
>inclined to think he is intelligent. As do almost everyone
>of us.
>
>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

I think I'll write a rules change proposal for the next cycle (starts what, three years from now?)

I think we should return to the four categories of appearance points like we had years ago. Ten points possible for each category. As I recall the four were: Craftsmanship; Originality; Realism and; Finish.

Given the fact that the the recent suggestions to do away with appearance points went pretty much down in flames and had little widespread support, I'll bet we could generate a lot of enthusiasm for idea of giving more credit for the hours stunt flyers devote to the production and appearance of their planes.

We could couple the return to the 40 points system with a second proposal to utilize the 51% rule we've talked about. I think this combination will get a lot of support and we will make the event grow enormously by allowing those whose expertise lies in the workshop rather than on the circle a more level playing field when it comes to picking up the trophies.

I think this is a great idea.

I'm anxious to see who the intelligent people who agree with me turn out to be and who the ones are that have something wrong with them!

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Ted:
Of course I agree with you,even though I'm sure your tongue was stuck firmly and irretreivably in your cheek.The four category system actually made a lot of sense.Just as there is no such thing as a perfect full pattern(and I'm sure it was intended so),there should be no such thing as a perfect appearance score.What you gain in one area you lose in another.Example:10 for finish is going to effect the craftsmanship positively,but negatively effect realism.Realism is(in some opinions)a negative factor re originality,originality effects realism.

What it comes down to is playing the appearance game in the same way you do the maneuvers.You know the 5' corner is an illusion,so you present it in such a way as to convince the judges that you did it.
I've said it ad nauseum,but rules define the game.As the game becomes more mature and the players more sophistiated,the rules should make the game more difficult for the experts,not easier for the duffers.

Come on Richard, I think you've gone a little overboard with the above. Nobody has said anything about not allowing them ... other than the guys that accuse us of saying so. There is absolutely nothing that keeps ARFs from flying in every PAMPA event except the Junior Senior and Open events we run *for AMA*.

The only thing we are saying is what you suggest, that if they choose to fly the ARF in PAMPA events they forsake appearance points just as those who fly other people's planes do.

Inside I'm still the kid that looks up to all you guys and gals that build such beautiful planes! Really, I'm in AWE of alot of you. I have just recently started a full circle back to C/L and want to teach my boys to fly them. I even want to try my hand at competition and have a great group of people here in my local club NVCL that have been helping me. I have a ARF Nobler that is not in the air yet but who knows I might want to fly that in a contest. I would never want to take any points for BOM, but I know that I will be allowed to fly! The rules cover that already if I have read them right. NO POINTS (20) as I didn't build it all.... As with all my planes I have had in the past...I want to build to the level of those that inspired me in the past. The ARF is not the plane for that but it will let me play in the meantime till I get one of the board that I did build.

Please take note that this is a note from a real newbie and this is what I am seeing from my view from the sidelines. I have seen things on here that make me want to turn and run!!!!!! Is this how everyone wants stunt to be promoted? I think not. I know that each and everyone of you that has posted on here loves this hobbie and sport. Please remember the face you show on here is the face that people like me see. Please continue to help me and my kids as those in my club have done.... Give us a chance at learning, flying, competeing, and just plain having fun.

I am sorry. I don't see the problem. If you show up at a classic contest with a plane someone else built, then you are allowed to fly but without appearance points. If someone shows up with a plane he built, he gets appearance points as always. If you want appearance points, then build. If you you feel they are insignicant or that you don't have time (or desire) to build, then fly what you have, but without appearance points.

If when the wind blew on Friday at the Nats, had 15 people out of the top 20 decided to vote to cancel it for the day, the event would have still gone on with the five who flew placing in the top 5. Sorry, but the contestants do not make the rules. If there are enough people who want to fly in your contest with the rules that exist, the contest will go on. If you want to fly an "Everybody flies a Ringmaster" contest, or "everybody flies someone else's plane" contest, it can be done. But there is no reason you need to change the rules for Classic just because someone wants to fly a plane he didn't build and lose no points against someone who did.

We have been flying by these rules for years without a great deal of problem until the ARF's arrived. Now it seems they want to take over the agenda. Will the next thing be that they vote to eliminate adjustable tip weights and leadout guides or make monokote mandatory?

I thought originally that the ARF's were a great thing for beginners and people wanting an easy to acquire airplane to learn on. Now I am beginning to think it is the ARF's who will kill the hobby. Sorry, I am getting fed up with it.

Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way.

Is this kind of what you're getting at Richard? If it is, yes, I do see your point. Rather than letting them (ARFS) sneak up on us, let's prepare a place for them, and take the lead. Makes sense to me. Wheather they outnumber us any time soon is the part where the crystal ball comes into play. It's all conjecture at this point. But being prepared is never a bad thing.

Funny how tiring all this BOM talk is. It hurts my head now when I see a new thread on it.

I've always thought the attude towards the BOM was a$$-backwards anyways. I mean, wasn't the BOM invented during the actual OTS and Classic period? Well I'm beggining to think those events should be the ones the BOM applies too most. I understand why they didn't enforce them at first with OTS, it was to get the event some popularity. Now look at VSC. This would give the old timers the venue to keep building the ships of their youth and get rewarded for it with points.

If anyone was thinking of relaxing (not eliminating) it anywhere, you would think it would be in the modern skill class / top gun events.

We've got about 3 years to think about this. Let's drop it for now and set a date to pick it back up in time to submit proposals, say in 28 months. I think the subject has worn out it's welcome for now, and is doing more harm than good.

In the mean time, hold special events and contests over the next 3 years, see if they become popular. By that time, we'll be ready for the next rules cycle, and can make a more informed descision to deal with them.

This issue needs to be put to rest, but anyone can fly an ARF in classic without appearance points. If they want appearance points, they need to build. Let's not worry about the hypothetical. If you want to hold a one design contest, do it. If you want to hold an ARF contest, do it. But don't do it under the guise of "classic" or some such and penalize the guys who built their own according to plans as accurately as they could in order to preserve the spirt of the event. That is bunk!

The whole idea of Old Time and Classic was to preserve the designs and spirit of the old time planes. Now you want to make classic a one design Nobler ARF. A lot of preserving and reviving we will be doing with that one.

Leonard,

Richard didnt just pull this out of his rear end. Go back and read his post. He used to be an RC Formula One pilot full time and I think he still holds a world record or two. He makes this statement as an educated guess. The only guessing is the amount of time envolved for this to happen. His education coming from a past experience in an event that is very similar to what we fly. Just in a different venue with a different price tag. It was one of the if not the top event in RC racing, just as CLPA is according to some CL pilots, and when the ARF came along people just looked the other way and didnt pay much attention. Then the ARF became very competitive and people found it alot easier and more accesable to buy one and set it up and trim it out and go have a winning combination. The Event wasnt ready for it and it suffered a misearble death as far as I can tell. If it is still around then it is pretty small.

To dismiss his posts is a total head turn. He makes very good sense. Please listen.

>
>This issue needs to be put to rest, but anyone can fly an
>ARF in classic without appearance points. If they want
>appearance points, they need to build. Let's not worry
>about the hypothetical. If you want to hold a one design
>contest, do it. If you want to hold an ARF contest, do it.
>But don't do it under the guise of "classic" or some such
>and penalize the guys who built their own according to plans
>as accurately as they could in order to preserve the spirt
>of the event. That is bunk!

Leonard,

If you dont learn from history it is bound to repeat itself.

>
>The whole idea of Old Time and Classic was to preserve the
>designs and spirit of the old time planes. Now you want to
>make classic a one design Nobler ARF. A lot of preserving
>and reviving we will be doing with that one.

I have a question for most on this board.

Why do people get so tired of talking BOM? I find it quite interesting to get people's views and talk about things. I think it is great to see the passion in people's replys. It is only lame when personal attacks begin. That is what really ruins it. Besides these threads are the most viewed by a mile. They are interesting to many.

Len,

You asked somewhere in a post "Why do people not want to build anymore?" This was in a response to Richard. Len I dont know why it is but I see it all the time when people who normally build decide to buy a built part of the plane they are persuing the next year. Or contract a small portion of the plane they are going to finish up. I dont know why they do it, the reasons are endless. But it is happening. Heck I have even seen a Tom Morris QBC Impact, it is about 85% complete out of the box. Very nice machine. Very Not BOM. People dont plunk down that kind of dough and not enter it in a contest. They button it up and feel they complied with BOM even though they didnt built the wing or the tail or the fuse or even the cowl or the top and bottom block. Think it isnt happening? Then who is buying those kits and where are the flying???

Any, I like the BOM discussions. I think they are very enlightening.

Doug, I am having a hard time here. The more I read Richard's stuff and your stuff, the more convoluted it gets (Sorry, Richard, but I just don't buy it. It sounds like a Democratic candidate on the campaign trail who has a "plan" to fix everything in Washington. And all any of these ever have is a "wish list"--to do things their way.)

But, Doug, if I am to read you correctly, then using Richard's "experience" it would mean we are doomed as soon as the ARFs come on the scene. They let ARFs into the formula one event and it killed it. Isn't that the gist of what you have just said?

Richard says he wants to open the door to ARF's in classic to "save" the event because next year there will be a contest where "14 ARFs have showed with only 2 non ARFs. The 14 have banned together to insist on a vote to drop appearance points for the contest. The 2 who built their planes are livid!" In other words he is saying that these 14 guys will come to some contest and "demand" that they be allowed to fly on an equal basis with those who built their planes. They want no points for anybody.

I have a hard time with this. First off, if you come to my contest (if I had one) you fly by the rules that are in practice and were posted for this contest. I do not know of any contest where you are allowed to "damand" to change the rules to allow you to have a special advantage that you don't earn. You didn't build, you don't get points. Those who choose to build do. Simply, isn't it. But, yes, the ARFs can fly. They just don't get points.

But, now follow Richard's "logic" one step further. He states that "Next time comes (2006) and the 2 entries show up (presumably those who built their planes) and the CD wonders why there is no one else. He does here (sp. hear) from one of the contestants that just a week earlier there was a contest with 30 entries (half were ARFs) that was great."

I find it rather interesting that in his logic only two people will show up at this first contest (presumably with a model that they built themselves and where they are awarded points for doing so), and the other contest draws 15 contestants who built their models themselves (half were ARFs, so half were not) when they are not awarded points for building it themselves. Really strange logic!!

It seems we are simply arguing a point that is useless and using hypothetical figures in arguing that are totally contrary to logic. We inject hypothetical figures to demonstrate a point when they all remain hypothetical.

The fact exists that even today you may enter the contest with a model that someone else built (an ARF would be such a model) but you just do not get appearance or fidelity points. If you are willing to forgo those points (and some of you have proclaimed them to be meaningless--even Richard entered a contest with one of Al Rabe's planes, as I recall, did so without appearance points, and came in second.) then what is the problem? We know what the rules are coming in. Nobody comes to a contest and demands that the rules be changed so they can enter. (Hey, I want to enter Junior. I don't care if I am 64 years old! There are 20 guys here my age who demand that we be allowed to enter your contest, and if we are not permitted to do so, we won't be back. Those kids should not be given an advantage that I don't have!!)

>Leonard,
>
>If you dont learn from history it is bound to repeat itself.
>

Does that mean that if we allow ARFs on an equal footing that they will kill the event? Didn't you just say it happened in forumula one that way?

>Why do people get so tired of talking BOM? I find it quite
>interesting to get people's views and talk about things.

Doug, why do you want to keep shooting the horse? It seems that most of this whole discussion has come from one little area in Texas (well, is there really a "little" are in Texas? Sorry!) where a group of you wanted to change the rules to eliminate the builder of the model. A rule proposal was submitted. It was rejected. It is an AMA rule (not a PAMPA rule, not a forum rule) and cannot be revived for another 3 years. Why don't we now move on?

Someone once said, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease." I get the feeling that some of you want to keep squeeking until people get so tired of hearing it that they give it to you next time. What you are actually doing is infuriating enough people that they won't even listen to you next time. I say this for your own good. Let it die.

If you wish to make a proposal again in three years, you can. But let's live in peace until then. And if in three years I want to make a counter proposal, well, that is possible, too.

I know where you stand. You know where I stand. Let's shake hands and move on to other topics. In fact, I am going to insist on it.

NO they didnt let ARFs in and they got together and formed a new event and it killed Formula One because everyone left it. That is how I understand it happened. Richard if you are reading please clarify.

>
>I have a hard time with this. First off, if you come to my
>contest (if I had one) you fly by the rules that are in
>practice and were posted for this contest. I do not know of
>any contest where you are allowed to "damand" to change the
>rules to allow you to have a special advantage that you
>don't earn. You didn't build, you don't get points. Those
>who choose to build do. Simply, isn't it. But, yes, the
>ARFs can fly. They just don't get points.

You are right there cant be any banning together to get the rules changed. So, they just dont come back. They go find and event they can fly their plane in without penalty and go fly there.

>The fact exists that even today you may enter the contest
>with a model that someone else built (an ARF would be such a
>model) but you just do not get appearance or fidelity
>points. If you are willing to forgo those points (and some
>of you have proclaimed them to be meaningless--even Richard
>entered a contest with one of Al Rabe's planes, as I recall,
>did so without appearance points, and came in second.) then
>what is the problem? We know what the rules are coming in.
>Nobody comes to a contest and demands that the rules be
>changed so they can enter. (Hey, I want to enter Junior. I
>don't care if I am 64 years old! There are 20 guys here my
>age who demand that we be allowed to enter your contest, and
>if we are not permitted to do so, we won't be back. Those
>kids should not be given an advantage that I don't have!!)

You are right on this as I said above. However if the people buy arfs and complete themsleves and want to fly them without penalty then they may start going to contests where they can. Then the numbers at other contests will begin to suffer. Places like Dallas could handle a small decline no problem. But other contests where their are very few entries cant afford decline.

However some might see borrowing a plane from someone and bolting a motor in different than completeing their own ARF. If I pick up your plane and fly it I dont do anything but bolt in the motor. If you complete and ARF Nobler there is much more there and to get it to fly well you have to complete it correctly as you do with any model. It is not really the same thing.
>
>
>>Leonard,
>>
>>If you dont learn from history it is bound to repeat itself.
>>
>
>Does that mean that if we allow ARFs on an equal footing
>that they will kill the event? Didn't you just say it
>happened in forumula one that way?

No please see above.

>
>
>>Why do people get so tired of talking BOM? I find it quite
>>interesting to get people's views and talk about things.
>
>Doug, why do you want to keep shooting the horse? It seems
>that most of this whole discussion has come from one little
>area in Texas (well, is there really a "little" are in
>Texas? Sorry!) where a group of you wanted to change the
>rules to eliminate the builder of the model. A rule
>proposal was submitted. It was rejected. It is an AMA rule
>(not a PAMPA rule, not a forum rule) and cannot be revived
>for another 3 years. Why don't we now move on?
>
>Someone once said, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease." I
>get the feeling that some of you want to keep squeeking
>until people get so tired of hearing it that they give it to
>you next time. What you are actually doing is infuriating
>enough people that they won't even listen to you next time.
>I say this for your own good. Let it die.
>
>If you wish to make a proposal again in three years, you
>can. But let's live in peace until then. And if in three
>years I want to make a counter proposal, well, that is
>possible, too.
>
>I know where you stand. You know where I stand. Let's
>shake hands and move on to other topics. In fact, I am
>going to insist on it.
>
>
This from you is most dissapointing to me. To say that all the blabber comes from TX really hurts. Go back and you will see only very few of the threads about BOM were actually started by anyone from Texas. This bom crap has gone on long before I ever knew what CLPA was. Many have somplained for along time even before I was born. To say we are the squeaky wheel is jus plain old junk. We are the only ones in a long time with enough balls to get off our asses and make a proposal instead of sit on here and complain about it and do nothing. Then you try to call us the squeaky wheel. Just as I thought. Someone makes a proposal you dont like and you call them the complainers. That is the VERY SAME thing that will happen when someone protests one of the Hotdogs half built bought airplane, the protester is the bad guy not the rule breaker. There is alot of Blabber on the forum about this rule and to say it all comes from Texas is a bunch of Balogna. Ted, Brett, Tom McClain, You, Bob Reeves, Catdaddy, John Sunderland, and many many many more are not from Texas but yet you all weigh in on it then call us the squeaky wheel. I dont get you sometimes. Besides if no one really wanted to talk about it there wouldnt be any replies. It would just die every time it got brought up. There wouldnt be so many views on it. YOu wouldnt even look in the thread. Yet this subject matter interests most who come by this board.

You complained about all this crap so last night I sat around and tried to start new threads on modleing and some thoughts on how a plane will appear and paid Curt some compliments on his good MA article about laser cutting. I tried to change the subject matter up some then I read this...

If you want me to take my squeaky wheel elsewhere you just let me know.

I always thought Texas was Baha Oklahoma. We had a guy at the contest that wanted to paint OU in Orange across the texas flag your troops were flying but I stoped him

Let's just call a truce. There are a lot of better issues that we can bring to this forum than the continued disagreement over the builder of the model rule.

And if you want to hold an ARF only contest, you can do that. But if you replace classic with an ARF contest, then your prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. The one event dies. It may not be the ARF that kills the event, but we ourselves.

Hey, time out! I never said anything at all about Texas being the source of the problem - in fact, I pointed out Steve's willingness to actually make a proposal favorably in my District 10 column. I of course still disagreed with the proposal itself, but even then, I (and all my district members from the West Coast) weren't even represented in the vote! So how in the world does this become regional?

I beleive Leonard's frustration with the topic is that it has ceased to be an argument. Argument implies a mutual interaction of the participants. What this has long since become is a cyclic repetition withb no interaction. Anti-BOM arguers state that everything would be better if we ditched it, the usual suspects make the same basic counter-argument, and then, instead of attempting to refute the counter-argument, the same statements come back, and at the same time, it diverges into vague "progress" commentary - that is then counter-argued based on logic, which is met with further non-logical argument, on and on. Then throw in a few snide comments from the usual sources, and off we go again.

I also don't like my position being misrepresented - which seems to be a primary tactic.

Arguments, by their nature, are not something that should be avoided. Arguments are the lifeblood of any progress. I find it unfortunate that some people refuse to participate because of the existence of arguments, but I don't think that this is a particularly good reason to stop doing it.

My reply was specifically to Len. Also I read where you commended Steve on his proposal even though you didnt like the proposal.

I was simply showing on how just about everyone from all around the country weighs in on these threads and makes them very long and a very highly viewed topic. Yet he says Texas is the squeaker.

I once started a thread just yes or no on the BOM rule. This was long prior to the proposal. People from all over the ocuntry said yes or no. I kept a tab in it and it was something like 14-12 in favor of BOM but it wasnt that lopsided. Only three from Texas by the way.

Before the initial vote I had also talked with one of the voting members of the board and the Proposal was really geting a valid look. But when it came down to the nut cuttin' it was defeated straight up.

>
> I beleive Leonard's frustration with the topic is that it
>has ceased to be an argument. Argument implies a mutual
>interaction of the participants. What this has long since
>become is a cyclic repetition withb no interaction. Anti-BOM
>arguers state that everything would be better if we ditched
>it, the usual suspects make the same basic counter-argument,
>and then, instead of attempting to refute the
>counter-argument, the same statements come back, and at the
>same time, it diverges into vague "progress" commentary -
>that is then counter-argued based on logic, which is met
>with further non-logical argument, on and on. Then throw in
>a few snide comments from the usual sources, and off we go
>again.
>
> I also don't like my position being misrepresented -
>which seems to be a primary tactic.

I didnt missrepresent you. I simply said that you and others from all around are commenting as well as us from Texas.

>
> Arguments, by their nature, are not something that
>should be avoided. Arguments are the lifeblood of any
>progress. I find it unfortunate that some people refuse to
>participate because of the existence of arguments, but I
>don't think that this is a particularly good reason to stop
>doing it.
>
> Brett
>
>
I agree.

This was a discussion of the TF ARF and how it qualifies under the BOM. Also, it appears that everyone is confusing an ARF with an RTF.

I don't think so, Brad. This is not an Assembler Of the Model rule. It is the B.O.M., BUILDER of the model.

I don't know how anybody can claim to be the builder of the model when all he has to do is assemble the major components, all of which have been constructed for him and already covered at that. Even stripping all of the covering and recovering does not now qualify you as the builder of the model any more than if you took one of my planes, stripped it, and recovered it. And I grant you, doing that with a good dope finish may, indeed, take longer than 50% of the total construction time.

Since, however, some of us appear to be firmly entrenched in our positions and all we do is continue an argument, maybe we should just shut this down (like I tried to do earlier) and move on to some things where we don't look like laughable idiots to the rest of the world.

Best compromise yet, surely building an ARF Nobler is worth 9 points? It's less than 51% of the total score

Richard,

This comment really disappoints me.

Show me where I ever said anything negative about you personally...let alone suggested capital punishment as a form of debate...because we disagree about the comparative value of certain aspects of an event we all enjoy and some of us have loved for a lifetime.

It is this sort of over reaction to differences of opinion that result in the vitriol that so often follows on these forums.

I think the reason there were some 265 entries in stunt events at the worlds biggest c/l model airplane meet (as declared on another thread)and roughly five percent of that in combat is in no small measure because of the attraction flyers have towards events that reward their efforts in the workshop. Heck, that contest had eight or nine times as many stunt entries as the total of all the other events, combat, racing, speed and scale combined.

You would have us believe, like those at Coca Cola who decided the world's most popular soft drink should change their forumla, that you have seen the future and it is dire. I believe that we should try and figure out why stunt and only stunt remains consistently popular and, notwithstanding "kittypappa's" new math, attracts and keeps adherents for a lifetime while control line in general is dying a slow but sure death (surely more evidence for that demise than for your prediction that stunt is on life support unless we throw out the rules...rules that must have had something to do with the event's popularity, don't you think?)

I believe I have evidence and, respectfully, believe that what you advocate is conjecture. I think the current popularity of the event "as it exists" is a very strong argument why we should approach significant change in it with trepedition and utmost care.

Please, address the issue of the obvious and verifiable popularity of stunt as it has existed for decades versus the much more tenuous state of the events which have more or less embraced your vision of the future you advocate for stunt.

And please, don't accuse me of killing messengers or ignoring the obvious or other non-specific generalities. Asking why stunt is so comparatively popular is a very straight forward and pertinent question with significant impact on whether or not we ought to even consider any changes. That is a legitimate observation, based on verifiable facts and one that needs to be objectively addressed by those, like yourself, who would alter the substance of the event.

If you can't explain away its popularity with anything other than crystal ball gazing as evidence, it is my personal opinion that you are some ways from making a legitimate case that such major structural changes are in the best interests of the event and people like you and me who take great joy in participating in it.

Now on to todays stunt Contest here in Columbus, Ohio. All went well with Classic and Old Time. I think the real FUN came in with guys with ARF Noblers. We had 4 planes and 5 pilots. I think this was the first event like this to happen designed specifically for ARF Noblers. All had a great time. 1st Place went to John Sunderland flying Joe Reinhards plane, 2nd Place Joe Reinhard, 3rd Place Kenny Stevens, 4th Place Larry Robertson, flying Joe's airplane, and Bob Campbell finishing 5th. I will post pix on Monday.

Still, I see nothing wrong with a "one airplane" type of contest. It is something like IROC in car racing. Everyone drives the same type of car with the same set-up. They are all evenly bunched, if you like that type of competition.

However, it does not take the place of, nor does it have the appeal of NASCAR. So, if you like the "one airplane" type of contest, that is fine. I just object to people wanting to replace classic with this, still calling it "classic", and losing the whole purpose of the classic event.

I wonder how many people would migrate to VSC, the fact that it is in the sunny southwest in February notwithstanding, to atrend a contest dominated by AFR Noblers all decked out in Monokote blue.

I'll bet zero...mainly because if they go in Feb. no one will be there.
VSC is in Mar

Maybe that's why I didn't see anybody there when I went. (OK, so I wasn't there, and that's why I didn't remember the date.) Still, the question is valid.

I will one of the first to say VSC is not the place for the ARF Nobler (although I will bet there will be a few show up) and I don't think I or anyone else has implied replacing Classic with an ARF event. This is simply a local contest thing and nobody is trying to change the world or the rules, that will come all by itself when the time for it is here.