Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 23 of 23 known posts recovered
I can see a few quibbles, but I can't, even after a few minutes of thinking about it, see a whole lot of problems with this idea. It would make pre-sheeted foam wings illegal, and there is a question about graphite parts (glue and carbon), but this could probably be worked out with a few lines of explicit exceptions.
Comments?
Brett
John
I can see it now. "Hey Bub, who installed the decals????????"
Tony "attempting humor" Bagley
However it sure would be alot more specific than the thing is now.
The wing builders arent going to like it though...I know this....
Doug Moon
I can't muster an ounce of sympathy for someone who pays someone else 300 bucks to build them a wing..
Yes, I truly AM an ogre. 
[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]
"I must tell you that the supply of words on the world market is plentiful, but the demand is falling." -Lech Walesa
Larry,
I'm kinda depressed today, cut my hand and am grounded foe some time.
You hyave the gift of brightening my spirits.
BTW, that stuntrib is a dream.I love ya!
I feel like a betrayed husband, the last one to know.
Oh, about those sons of Belial that pay 300 smackers for a wing, tell me,pray: $200 is also to be despised by you? 100? 50?
Read the story of Sodom and Gomorra...
Look, if I was rich I'b buy one from Bob.
Fly it? Are you crazy?
Put it in a glass case and keep it at my living room...
In Christ,
Ion
"God is dead" (Nietczhe)
"Nietczhe is dead" (God)
Maybe "builder of the airframe" freeing builders to use control systems, tanks, landing gear and motor mounts of their choice. The airframe comprised of unglued parts.
Control systems should not be an issue as some have raised as examples, since even very early on control systems were comprised of manufactured parts with the builder doing no more that bending the pushrods and installing the parts. I see no difference since (correct me if I'm wrong here) even Windy's systems have to have the pushrods assembled.
These are not huge departures form the original intent of the rule, just more clearly understood.
Now we have some "constructive" conversation going on! (pun intended)
Randy Ryan
AMA 8500
SAM 36
I fly 'em all and love it!
I would think that in a case like this there would still be considerable structure involved. Structure implied "glued parts"
Randy Ryan
AMA 8500
SAM 36
I fly 'em all and love it!
I like the concept, and I defnintely believe that someone using a quick build kit and claiming to be builder of the model, is going too far. However, on the gluing issue, I guess I wouldn't be able to use a pre-glued tip wight box under this proposal. What if Someone glued a pilot figure?
Although I have never used one built by someone else, would an engine crutch really be considered too much prefabrication? I could certainly live with a rule that said it was too much (same as with the tip weight box), but I can also see these as harmless.
Here is another thought. If I buy a 6 inch wide piece of balsa from Lone Star, it will be cut from two 3 inch blocks glued together.
As you can see, such a proposal may need added clarification. And, of course, epoxy is glue. Can we purchase carbon fiber props, tanks, landing gear?
It sort of reminds me of the argument of how much beer is too much? "Is it all right to drink one beer? If so, can I drink two? three? four? Eventually states had to lay down blood alcohol laws to define how much is too much. It is the "minor" pre-fabrication that has led to major parts being pre-fabricated and this has led us to our problems. Some defining language would be beneficial, but, perhpas, not to the point of saying you can't even drink one beer (or have one glue joint that you did not personally do).
Leonard Neumann
And then there's the issue of solder...
Trying to "define" this subject is like trying to explain infinity or the extent of outer space. It's just never going to happen.
I always seem to fall back on the old "trust me" system. If you require entrants (in the one contest a year that requires it in JSO) to sign a pledge saying that (in their opinion) they built more than 51% of the aircraft they are flying they satisfy the BOM and can compete in that one contest.
The usual caveat applies...if someone lies to qualify and wins a three dollar plaque and their picture in STUNT NEWS, they'll always know exactly how much it is worth.
Those who lose to such a person after honorably complying with the requirements will be unlikely to define their value as human beings by virtue of that event. People of honor simply have a better handle on what is truly important...and it ain't plaques won by lying.
Ted
As always Ted, nicely said.
Larry Foster
> built more than 51% of the the aircraft they are
>flying they satisfy the BOM and can compete in that one
>contest.
I have heard this before, I know that this is a generally "accepted", but have never "seen" it in writing anywhere. Please take no offense, I just want clarification. First time I heard this was the '93 or '96 NATS (can't remember).
Thanks!
Bill
Disclaimer: I am neither a NATS Champion (yet), professional engine reworker, engine producer, column writer, Hobby Shop owner, *rockeet* scientist, nor otherwise. Just an old Advanced flier. 
Bill, Certainly, no offense taken. That's a very good question.
Some time ago, either when I was writing the Model Aviation Stunt Column or one of the articles I did for PAMPA STUNT NEWS I merely made the suggestion that we look into the EAA manner of dealing with the whole subject of who built what. Very generally, as I understood it, they simply required the entrants to declare that they could, in good conscience, take credit for 51% or more of the effort that went into producing the aircraft they are entering. The gentlemen's agreement is simply that they believe those with whom they are competing are men/women of honor and would not sign such a pledge if they didn't feel they qualified.
This neatly leaves out any need for counting glue joints and coats of clearcoat.
What it doesn't do, of course, is allow one person to look into another's head and divine whether or not that person is purposely lying in order to be able to take credit for the skills and efforts of others for his own benefit. This is, also of course, only a concern if, A: you really feel those who share your interest in the event are generally dishonorable, and B: That somehow your own self worth will be diminished by seeing him/her receive recognition they didn't earn.
Personally, I believe that "A" is not an issue to any great degree in our event and "B" I know is not an issue to me. Once again, the only one that will really know the value of the undeserved recognition is the rare individual who is dishonorable in his affairs. He/she is welcome to that private information as far as I'm concerned.
What I do care about is the concept that, because some tiny percentage of those who would be stunt flyers might fall into that category, we should throw away the specialness that derives from including the recognition of the craftsmanship element in our competitions.
Like it or not, one of the biggest attractions to stunt is the magnificence of the tools we craft to enjoy the event. If any would pretend this isn't true I'd ask them to explain the overwhelming amount of information dealing with building and finishing that appears the the stunt press versus that dealing specifically with the flying of it. I'd ask them further to explain the almost hypnotic attraction of the nostalgia events...not nostalgic for the tricks but for the aircraft that did them.
No, no logical argument in favor of doing away with credit for the appearance and craftsmanship inherent in the preparation for stunt competition can stand the test of exposure to arguments such as those in the previous paragraph. People who "love" stunt...as opposed to, perhaps, those who have a passing enjoyment of it...do so in large measure because of the history of recognition of the majesty of the craft and the craftsman who build and fly them.
The almost (nowadays) unique recognition in the stunt event that, in order to reach the top rung of the ladder competitively, you must conquer more than a handful of requirements, you must deal effectively with all of them. To eliminate that requirement would require that we stop awarding the Walker Cup as our grandest witness to accomlishment in the event and replace it with another that recognizes the reduced demands on the individual who wins it.
Ted
Sorry, as often happens at my advanced "seniority" I went off in my own direction in the previous response. Let my finish the discussion of the 51% question you asked that prompted my excessive verbosity.
Somehow, over the years, that passing mention of the concept apparently took on a life of its own around the country...although, to the best of my knowledge it has never been a factor out our way.
Pretty much with the establishment of great resources like Len's SSW the community started communicating "across the back yard fence" in a way that we've never really done before. Through a number of threads ... identical in subject and only slightly different in syntax from this one ... I've seen repeated mention of the 51% "Rule". Many suggested that this was the accepted "norm" for application of the BOM and Appearance Points.
I hasten to point out that not only is it "not" a part of any rule, it has never even been presented for consideration as such. So, the bottom line is that, although I support the concept, it is not now the basis on which the BOM is determined and will not be until such time as it is proposed and passed by the AMA (not PAMPA, by the way...remember, we're a Special Interest Group which has great influence with the Control Line Contest Board of AMA, but we "do not" make the rules governing CLPA. AMA does.)
By the way, what PAMPA can and might consider doing is address the issue regarding Classic Stunt. This event is uniquely governed by rules promulgated and amendable by the PAMPA membership. It might well be the place for such a concept to be initially employed to determine whether it can short circuit the bickering and allow the event to retain the cache it receives by allowing recognition of the builder's art.(Not requiring, remember. you are perfectly welcome to fly a plane you didn't build...with appropriate disallowance for the points otherwist obtainable)
Hope this helps clear up the matter for you, Bill.
Ted Fancher
Disclaimer: I am neither a NATS Champion (yet), professional engine reworker, engine producer, column writer, Hobby Shop owner, *rockeet* scientist, nor otherwise. Just an old Advanced flier.
Ron B.
F4Fguy
Ted:
As usual,well said.I couldn't add anything of significance to your basic concept.Unfortunately we live in a society in which the concept of honor is almost frowned upon.Win at any cost is the name of the game.
Look at the way Lombardi is revered:"winning isn't the important thing ,it's the only thing".As you and others have said,YOU KNOW when YOU'VE(shout intended)built the model.A new rule won't change any thing,it will only force those who cheat now to find new and better ways to cheat.
This also applies to the elimination or changing of existing rules,such as appearance or BOM.For obvious reasons I'd like to reinstate the original four category appearance rule,but it ain't gonna happen,so I abide by the existing one.I don't sit around and bitch because it costs me points.
The rules are fine now,the vast majority of fliers abide by them.As in any competition,the rules simply define the game.If you want to play you play by the rules,or go play your own game.The dishonorable among us know who they are,the best thing to do is to ignore them.
Ron B.
Never any doubt in my mind how you would feel about the subject.
Ted
Forgive me,Ted, I hurt my hand badly, I figure I'm angry with the world.
This might mean an early retirement from my profssion (sax and flute).
In Christ,
Ion
Ion,
I'm very sorry to hear you had an accident. As an ardent (but very ordinary) musician myself I can only pretend to understand how distressing such an injury can be. I hope it wasn't modeling related.
If a little thought and prayer from me for a complete recovery would be helpful, you've got it.
Ted