Define " Builder of the Model "

There has to be a line to cross somewhere to help out the contest Appearance judjes.

Sorry, William.

Hi William,

The line as you refer to is known as the insanity fault, of course no fault of your's
or mine.

My comment is in jest, due to past heated discussions of B.O.M. on this forum.
You may also want to do a search for past threads and this little bugger B.O.M.

99.9999999% of the forum folks here would say that the 99.9999999% of the pilots flying their ships at contests
where BOM points are included are honest. I really don't think it's worth lying about.
Besides they're too busy flying.

Scott(this has been a recording)Riese

It is not outlawed, but you won't get appearance points because you were not the builder of the model. And you cannot fly it in Junior, Senior, or Open at the Nats (as if you really wanted to anyway.)

WHY can't you fly an ARF at the NATS??

How can one tell whether they qualify for bom or not? Can you give some guidance as to whether any of the following is clearly bom/non-bom and what is a gray area:
1) One person gives another a plane they built. The recipient crashes the plane but is able to recover wing, stab and rudder. That person builds a new plane around that.
2) A person gets a built wing(foam or otherwise), stab and flaps from Bob, Tom or someone else. They build the rest and finish it.
3) Same as in 2 but with engine crutch, and molded turtle deck from Windy.
4) one builds the plane from scratch but has someone else cover it and finish it.
5) Group build. One gets building help from a fellow pilot. Roughly half of the plane is done by the other person.

I am in no way trying to start another painfully long, 200 response affairs. I am looking to figure out what is 100% clear bom or non-bom area and what is gray area.

TECHNICALLY, according to the rule as written (and the SPIRIT of such). A kit at the time was generally a bunch of die cut parts, and sheet/block wood with or without hardware. The rule has not been officially changed.

>How can one tell whether they qualify for bom or not? Can
>you give some guidance as to whether any of the following is
>clearly bom/non-bom and what is a gray area:

>1) One person gives another a plane they built. The
>recipient crashes the plane but is able to recover wing,
>stab and rudder. That person builds a new plane around that.

No, "rebuilding" is not building. No appearance points.

>2) A person gets a built wing(foam or otherwise), stab and
>flaps from Bob, Tom or someone else. They build the rest and
>finish it.

This has been an acceptable practice.

>3) Same as in 2 but with engine crutch, and molded turtle
>deck from Windy.

Like #2

>4) one builds the plane from scratch but has someone else
>cover it and finish it.

No, not even close. No appearance points.

>5) Group build. One gets building help from a fellow pilot.
>Roughly half of the plane is done by the other person.

No! The rule as written says nothing about 50%

>I am in no way trying to start another painfully long, 200
>response affairs. I am looking to figure out what is 100%
>clear bom or non-bom area and what is gray area.

I agree, I DO NOT want to get into an argument about this. If the rule is read, as it stands now, this is the only way it can be interpreted. There is no "interpretation", it is written.

>Steven Yampolsky
>Webmaster for www.control-line.org

Bill <><

How would this be different if one got a built wing,stab and rudder from Windy,Tom or Bob?

>>4) one builds the plane from scratch but has someone else
>>cover it and finish it.
>
>No, not even close. No appearance points.

What about the other way around? Sorta like the Cavalier quick-built.

So the basic rule of thumb is "When in doubt, no BOM", correct?

Ok, I wasn't going here. again, TECHNICALLY, if you buy parts "built by someone else" you did not "build" the model. I build for others, but it is their responsibility as to whether or not they claim BOM.

>
>>>4) one builds the plane from scratch but has someone else
>>>cover it and finish it.
>>
>>No, not even close. No appearance points.

Appearance points are for the "finish". If you didn't do the finish, why should you get the points???

>What about the other way around? Sorta like the Cavalier
>quick-built.

See above. What is "accepted" doesn't mean it adheres to the rule as written.

>
>So the basic rule of thumb is "When in doubt, no BOM",
>correct?

I would go with that. NO ARGUMENTS PLEASE, there will be no consensus, ever, on this subject! I just feel sorry for those that believe the BOM rule is rarely abused. This is not always the case, but it doesn't matter to me. I build all of the model that I can, as do many others. I guess the only thing I don't build is the bellcrank, leadout wires, pushrod wire, wheels, various nuts and bolts, and engine/prop/spinner. What did I leave out???? LOL!!!!

>
>Steven Yampolsky
>Webmaster for www.control-line.org

Bill <><

This sound like the gray area, I guess.

>>So the basic rule of thumb is "When in doubt, no BOM",
>>correct?
>
>I would go with that.

Sounds simple enough. Thanks.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

There's no grey area.If you've got to ask you don't qualify.

IF you have to ask you don't qualify.

How about if you just use a wingtip? Or an elevator salvaged from someone else's crash?

>>5) Group build. One gets building help from a fellow pilot.
>>Roughly half of the plane is done by the other person.
>
>No! The rule as written says nothing about 50%

Or supposing 5 people get together and build 5 planes at a time...

Ron B.
F4Fguy

1. NO
2. NO
3. NO
4. NO
5. NO

B.O.M.=BUILDER OF THE MODEL

It's Not That Hard!

Ron B.
F4Fguy

If you have to ask you don't qualify.

Thanks for reply , You answered my question directly , something that is hard to do sometimes .

Prefabbed is not building,it's assembling.

Jake

As an aside I note that the FAA (unless they have changed it) says that 51% of the work on a "homebuilt" aircraft must be done by the builder for it to qualify for an Experimental rating. That seems like a pretty reasonable standard to use as a baseline.

Even the FAA has difficulties defining the "builder". There was a lot of 'cussin' by some folks a while back who bought one of the newer composit "kits", whent to the kit manufacturer's facility and watched/assisted as the kit was assembled. Then they wanted to be certified as the builder. I'm not saying that was a bad idea, I suspect the finished product was better built (safer) than if it had been built in somebody's garage (Oh the horror stories I could tell...). But, the big advantage of being the builder is that you can sign off your own annuals. By the way, sometines finding an AI who will put his signature in a homebuilt log book is a tuff problem! The kit manufacturers are now pretty careful to get the FAA to clearly stipulate that their kit qualifies as 51% owner built. So, then the root question becomes does somebody who just watched as his plane was built have enough knowledge to be able to inspect and judge the airworthiness of all the subsystems?

Sorry about the digression from the topic of this thread, but GA airplanes and maintaing them is another one of my hobbies so this is a bit of a "hot button" for me. Just in case anyone here ever heard of it, I built a Cavilier SA102.5.

Not the CL version

So,if I fly 51% of the pattern and I get PW or Ted to fly the rest,I'm the flyer?

Right on Ron B.!

It is that anaolgy that puts the 51% rule in the correct light.

Now can you all see how (insert word of choice here) it is. My word of choice is dumb.

Jake

This is a discussion that has been literally beaten to death on numerous occasions. Look up the many, many, many threads on this in the archives. If you still want to discuss it after that...

John S.

Unfortunately, this has been dis"cuss"ed so many times here that many sarcastic comments are sure to follow. No fault of yours, but forums are notoriously bad for heated debates (read that arguments) instead of simple answers.

My view: ARF's, and other prefabbed kits get no appearance points.
And, many more guys than is acknowledged here fly "built" planes and get appearance points. Seen 'em, know 'em.

Just my honest (and not so humble) opinion.

Hope to get to fly with you soon!

Bill <><

There is truly no answer to your question because so much of it is subjective as opposed to objective. There have been heated discussion on this forum as well as around the flying field for many years.

The rule was written many many years ago and has not been changed. AS WRITTEN, if you have someone else even come over to your shop and build an adjustable leadout system for you, you don't qualify for apperance points. This is the problem in my opinion. You can build 99.9 percent of the airplane, put in 99.9 percent of the time and effort but AS WRITTEN, you shouldn't qualify.

Do people lie? Of course they do and it has been going on for a long time. Are there a lot of them? In my years as a CD (20+), I have only positively known of two occasions.

In this day and age, I would like to see the BOM scrapped for the Beginners, Intermediate and Advanced flyers. Expert can be held to this level of integrity and accountability. This would give us an "American" slant to the process and perhaps smooth the feathers of those who are the more traditional members of our group.

The current rule book will probably be changed in the next rules cycle to conform with FAI (no BOM rule). I am sure that even though the descriptions and criteria for doing figures in the pattern will be changed to get with the rest of the world, the BOM will be a bone of contention.

We are going to live with the current rule book through the next change cycle. Do whatever your consience dictates. I would not DQ a person who had some help with his model if he felt he had built and finished it. IMHO: AS WRITTEN, the BOM is undefinable in our present age. I'm not sure it has ever been.

Why should Experts be the only ones accountable for integrity?

Please elaborate on your "American" slant to the process statement.

What inside track do you have in predicting the BOM being eliminated in the next rule book change? I read that all of the BOM proposals were defeated.

No argument there. The NATS in Jr. Sr, and Open are the only events that REQUIRE the flyer to be the BOM.

>You just forfeit the appearance points.

That's where the proverbial feces hits the oscilating air movement device. I only know of one flyer around here that declares no appearance points when he flies a plane he didn't build. (the originator of the thread, William, and he does a good job with it anyway)

>Why should Experts be the only ones accountable for integrity?

I agree with John here. If you are an "Expert" then you should be well versed in ALL aspects of the event. Including building. And they are. No one forces a lower level flyer to "not" build their plane. It just doesn't seem at all possible to accurately, and consistently, enforce the rule.

>Please elaborate on your "American" slant to the process
>statement.

The good old USA is the only place where BOM is in use AFAIK.
I build for others, like I said before. There wouldn't be much of a market for this if the rule was followed to the letter! LOL!!

Bill <><

Sorry guys ,but the answer is readily apparent to at least one person.The One Who Says He's The Builder!If you don't know if your model qualifies,then it doesn't.I have no axe to grind if you go out and buy a $2000.oo eastern european all composite,ready to fly,pre flown and trimmed,hi-tech,cutting edge stunter,which comes with it's own personal trainer/coach;and fly it in any contest you like.But,don't try to collect points you haven't earned by claiming you built it.Tom,Walter,Bill and others do very good work,and if you want to steepen your learning curve,you'll spend more time flying with one of their products.But,YOU didn't build it.You know it,and you'll have to give up the Bonus points for it.If winning is more important to you than integrity,I pity you.

In partial answer to some of the chop-logic(look it up)questions above:

I cut all my own foam wings.

I mold all my own composite parts.

I do all my own molded balsa parts.

I design most of my own airplanes.

Those I don't are built from plans by myself.

I have been known to build the occasional kit.

I would never ask someone else to build or fabricate any part of an airframe for me.

I would never ask anyone to paint for me.

I do use commercial hardware the same as when the BOM was written.

I do use ready to run engines(most of the time)but I do my own tuning.

I do ask for advice from those who have done something I'd like to do.I might even ask them to show me how it' done,but if it's going on my airplane,I'm going to do it.

I didn't always build well,but I took the time to learn.

I never have to ask if I qualify as BOM.

Definition, the one topic that generates the most responses, ill will and no resolutions in PAMPA stunt.

Next question?

This is somehow funny? Anybody who tried to pass off models someone else built as their own would be ostracized around here. I certainly have no interest in spending time with people who would cheat to get 15 more points in an airplane contest.

I have no problem with builders selling models, ARFs, OPPs. PAMPA was based on allowing these models to fly. But I have a HUGE problem with people who lie about it, and I and most people I know wouldn't have anything to do with them.

I find the tacit acceptance of this as "just the way it is" as a very disturbing position, and certainly changing the rules to accomodate people who don't give a d*mn about the rules that currently exist is far from a compelling argument.

No Brett, I didn't mean that the actual practice of getting appearance points for flying someone else's model is funny.
But, it does happen, and it happens all across the good old USA.
Experts have been known to fly wings they did not build, etc., and it isn't restricted to only East of the Mississippi. I am not trying to argue about this. But, I know it for fact. It has, and does happen.

> I have no problem with builders selling models, ARFs,
>OPPs. PAMPA was based on allowing these models to fly. But
>I have a HUGE problem with people who lie about it, and I
>and most people I know wouldn't have anything to do with
>them.

I probably don't have as huge a problem with it as you, maybe because I know it has been going on for so long. And other than protesting (and in the process getting blasted for the rest of any flying career I might pursue)there is no recourse for me as an individual.....

> I find the tacit acceptance of this as "just the way it
>is" as a very disturbing position, and certainly changing
>the rules to accomodate people who don't give a d*mn about
>the rules that currently exist is far from a compelling
>argument.

> Brett

I, personally, have never considered changing the rule. But it isn't enforced now. People have even raised a "51%" rule. Which, as we both know, doesn't exist anywhere in the rule book. Since you quoted part of my thread, I feel like I need to comment. I think we should go back to the rule as written, and be serious about it. There will still be many people who will buy wings, QBK's, and fully finished planes. Don't take this as an attack on you, but I think you are missing the point here.

The violation of the rule exists everywhere. If someone uses as much as a built up engine crutch from Windy, they have broken the rule as it is written in the AMA rules book.

Bill <><

That's of course a matter of opinion, not definitive, and certainly not in line with the accepted standards of the BOM. I won't deny there's a gray area, but a pre-made enigne crutch or sheeted foam wing is way over on the OK side of it. I know that you are trying to make some sort of a point, but that doesn't mean it's valid.

But, in fact, I don't know anyone around here running an engine crutch made by Windy (in fact, why would anyone bother to buy an engine crutch), or a pre-built wing, or anything else. People who fly other people's airplanes say so, and I can't imagine anyone doing otherwise.

But lets see, an abridged list of people in District 10 where I know for certain whether or not they violated the BOM or failed to declare intentional violations:

Fancher - no
Fitzgerald - no
Buck - no
Trostle - no
Whitely - no
Aron - no
English - no
Tichy - no
Granderson - no
Fernandez - no
Sabon - no
Delaney - no
Peterson - no
Miller - no
Foster - no
Pyatt- no
Hoffman - no
Wolgast - no
Goss - no
Cocking - no
Urabe- no
Micelli - no
Anderson - no
Silver - no
Armour - no
Decamara - no
Wright - no
Firkins - no
Molnar - no
Isenhoswer - no
Moran - no
Chesler - no
Shorey - no
Barton - no
Klein -no
Smiley - no
Dinger - no
McMillen - no
Mullinix - no
Pomposo - no
Jurczyk - no
Gunzenhouser - no
Lee - no
Huseman - no
Howe - no
Shorts - no
Prezler - no
Cuhna - no
Fernandez, A - no
Juarez - no
Denchfield - no
Padham - no
Ogg - no
Rehnberg - no
Kelley - no
Ericson - no
Lingwood, C - no
Lingwood, L - no
Smiley - no
Arana - no
Barton, F - no
Klapinski - no
Burn - no
Heyworth - no
Meek - no
Palmer,M - no
Palmer, B - no
Hicks - no
Whittle - no
Byles - no
Causey - no
Akers - no
Netzeband - no
Renger - no
Swan, W. - no
Swan, R. - no
Brooks - no
Bustamante - no
Thorkildsen - no
Baxter - no
Rule - no
Connolly - no
Hazle - no
Schmidt - no
Chandler - no

Let's see, 85 people right off a few contest fliers I happened to have lying around - and I know there are more, I just stopped when I got more people that EXCEED THE TOTAL PAMPA MEMBERSHIP of several districts. I could probably top 100 from personal knowledge - and would expect that everyone in the district to be compliant.

So, there you go - it's such a huge problem that in the largest district by far, there are no known incidents even by the absurdly restrictive and not-accepted definition you are using, much less the commonly-accepted limits.

So much for that argument.

Walter:

> That's of course a matter of opinion, not definitive,

That my friend, is the point. It is not an opinion that I give. If it were, I would have said so. I happen to KNOW (fact) many of the people who buy wings and other components from vendors. At least where they are shipped, and who paid for them. I can not imagine they are all bought for practice planes.

>and certainly not in line with the accepted standards of the
>BOM.

My point you are making again. "accepted standards" are interpretations. The rule book doesn't give rise to interpretations.
If so, then the stated line diam, pull test weights, etc., are all open to such interpretations. You cannot single out one part of the rules to interpretate and not all.

>I won't deny there's a gray area, but a pre-made enigne
>crutch or sheeted foam wing is way over on the OK side of
>it. I know that you are trying to make some sort of a point,
>but that doesn't mean it's valid.

How can the quotation of the rule, ver batum, NOT be valid?
My thesis is that the rule "AS WRITTEN" is not enforced.

> Let's see, 85 people right off a few contest fliers I
>happened to have lying around - and I know there are more, I
>just stopped when I got more people that EXCEED THE TOTAL
>PAMPA MEMBERSHIP of several districts. I could probably top
>100 from personal knowledge - and would expect that everyone
>in the district to be compliant.

Unfortunately, not every contest flyer is a member of PAMPA.

> So, there you go - it's such a huge problem that in the
>largest district by far, there are no known incidents even
>by the absurdly restrictive

I didn't write the rule. "the absurdly restrictive" part you need to adress to someone else

>and not-accepted definition you
>are using, much less the commonly-accepted limits.

Where does it say that "the commonly-accepted limits." are in the book?

> So much for that argument.
>
> Brett

Yes, Brett, so much for that argument. You bring up exactly what I have been so inept in stating: That the rule is not enforced as written, instead it is interpreted to a point where it is "commonly accepted". Just because "anyone" accepts the interpretation doesn't make it right. I never said you violated the rule. I do find it strange, however, that you have such an enormous need to "defend" Dist. 10.

We agree on much more of this than you are realising. Sorry to "raise the hackles".

Bill <><

Buying complete airplanes and passing them off as ones own is clearly on the bad side of the gray area. If I knew about someone doing it in an area where I have some say in the matter, I would most CERTAINLY do my utmost to get them DQed, tossed off the field, and if possible tossed from PAMPA and AMA. The event will get along JUST FINE without people like this.

Maybe people are doing this, I don't know of any. I would prefer that they stay FAR AWAY from me, for both of our sakes.

> I do find it strange, however,
>that you have such an enormous need to "defend" Dist. 10

I use it as an example - for which I have incontrovertible personal knowledge. This is once again degenerating into "there's a lot of Cheaters" talk - and I know for a fact that this is not the case. As for defending District 10 - well, you know, given that I am the PAMPA District 10 director, I have a duty to point out things that aren't true, particularly when someone makes a point of noting that it includes my district - by far the largest and therefore an excellent sample size, approximately 25% of the total membership. I would expect similar results in ALL districts - I could triple the list with people across the country with next to no effort.

I'll keep correcting this mistaken notion as long as it keeps being made, because I know the people I know and like ARE NOT cheaters, and I WILL NOT let implication, accusation, or whatever, stand unchallenged. Keep making the point, and I will keep making the correction. Once the "cheater" line is crossed, it's no longer a trivial model airplane issue - it's a VERY SERIOUS accusastion about a person's character.

Make no mistake - I don't for a millisecond beleive that other parts of the country have more people cheating than we do around here. It's just that I know for certain about District 10 because I see the locals all the time. I'll let Bruce Hunt and Danny Dirt speak for District 11 - but it will be the same story. Other districts can chime in as necessary - but surely the point has been made.

I have no doubt that there may be people who have cheated (i.e. knowingly done something outside the accepted norms) and gotten away with it. It's still irrelevant to the BOM discussion. I know a A VERY FEW cases - and I try to avoid these people.

Additionally, I also note that the repressive thrall of BOM seems to be something a lot of people manage to tolerate. We have so many people at contests that we frequently can't find parking spots for them. Local contests are almost all 2-day events, or single round events, since we have so many entries that we can't get the flights in during available daylight. And I might note that this all happened without having people resort to lying about who built their airplanes.

Yes,seems like we aren't going to come to an agreement. No surprise since this particular argument has been going on at the current low level for 50+ years. I feel strongly about it -but I have no animosity over this particular situation.

"Arguing fairly" is an important skill that is all too often lost.

I realize that I sometimes do not make myself completely understood when I state MHO. I inadvertenly included Beginner in my statement. (senior moment). As to the DQ thing. I meant not qualify for apperance point but once again wasn't as precise as I should have been.

One of the instanses to which I referred was a contest in OKC many years ago. An unknown pilot entered with a Mustang that I knew he didn't build because I was personally acquainted with the man who did build it and had seen the plane in his house a couple of months prior to the contest. A CD does have the option of DQing an individual for "unsportsman like conduct" and frankly if I had it to do over again I would have DQed this guy. I didn't, he placed 5th out of eight and I never saw him or the plane again.

Everyone should be accountable for their honesty and integrity. Not just the Experts. I don't I think stated anything which would lead one to believe I feel otherwise.

My "American slant" has been covered by other posts.

I have no "inside track" to anything. It has been common gossip around the circles and poolside with a cool one for a couple of years that we were probably going to adopt the FAI rules as far as figure descriptions and criteria for doing same. This is an effort to more clearly define the judging criteria and make it easier to achieve a uniform standard for same. Another benifit would be the elimination of having to change flying styles for those few who do compete on a world level. If this does come about, the BOM will be a bone of contention because of tradition in the USA.

With no deprication intended to other nationalities, the "American slant" is what makes us well--- Americans. I know of no top 20 pilot who doesn't want to build his own planes. That's just part of the process. At that level of expertise they each have their own little "things" they do in building and setting up world class planes. This has been learned from many hours and many experiments that didn't work over many years. They wouldn't fly a plane which they didn't build at that level because it wouldn't "feel right" to them anyway. Theirs are better for them.

I've stated many times and in many venues my position on BOM. AS WRITTEN IMHO it is undefinable and certainly unenforcable. I truly feel getting rid of it would help participation at the lower and entry levels of this great hobby.

What ever is eventually decided I will continue to fly and build within the rules and love the smell of nitro. I have one vote (if it comes to that) and this PA-I class pilot's vote doesn't count any more than any of the top twenty flyers.

Later, John

"A model builder trying to do it better"

>I truly feel getting rid of it would help participation at the lower and entry levels of this
>great hobby.

With all due respect, I have to observe that it has been more than adequately argued on several previous threads that BOM bears minimal relevance to participation at lower and entry levels of the hobby. I don't understand why you would say this.

>AS WRITTEN IMHO it is undefinable and certainly unenforcable.

Sorry, I disagree on both counts here too.

SK

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Why is this a problem?If you built it you know you built it.You say yourself you've only seen two cases in 20+ yr.

Why shouldn't integrity be expected of all competitors?

What has the FAI got to do with it?The AMA is our governing body and it's purpose is to advance the art.ARFs do nothing to this end.

It's not up to the judges to interpret,it's up to the competitors to be honest.

Huh? It might be proposed - but It's hard to see any great groundswell, either for FAI rules or for getting rid of BOM. Everytime BOM comes up, I get a bunch of letters saying people want it to stay in, not get deleted.

Great answer, The reason I asked on this forum was to get references for a writtten guideline on Appearance Points Judging for a Local Contest.

Thanks to all that replied.

Hi William,
I thought it was something like that.
You are still having to go on the flyer's word. No real way to know different unless we fill out a detailed list of what parts, etc., we used. And that is considering that we are all truthful! LOL!!
The actual rule from AMA is (IMHO) fairly "worthless" now. Too much has changed since it was written as too what is accepted.
And, of course, rationalization comes into play.
Bill <><

You seem to be the only one who has gotten the point of my comments.

AS WRITTEN, Unenforcable,(see undefinable) Undefinable (because of all the gray).

There is a lot of work left to do in a Tom Morris "Quick build" Kit, and I promise you the guy who puts it together and paints it darn sure feels like he built the model. Your point about it (BOM) being fairly "worthless" in this day and age is right on.

Are we having fun yet?

>AS WRITTEN, Unenforcable,(see undefinable) Undefinable (because of all the gray).

>There is a lot of work left to do in a Tom Morris "Quick build" Kit, and I promise you the guy who puts it together and paints it darn sure feels like he built the model. Your point about it (BOM) being fairly "worthless" in this day and age is right on.

>Are we having fun yet?

>Later, John

I've said it before, but do not mind saying it again: The group of people with whom I fly here in the NW have no problem whatsoever with either the letter or the spirit of current B.O.M. rule. From what I have read, this seems to also be the case in District 10. From what I know, due to past discussions on Stuka Stunt, there does not appear to be any identified problem in any of the PAMPA districts. I specifically asked. The response was overwhelming.

What we do have is pointless mental masturbation, the erection of straw men, meaningless "What if?" discussions where the most illogical hypotheses are put forth.

One can parse a great many rules into total nonsense; I see no good reason to do so with our B.O.M. rule, no benefit at all, no change in the conduct of today's CL Stunt enthusiasts.

(I promised myself this thread would be ignored. And I probably should have kept that promise.)

I agree. We just haven't seen the problem. Guys that fly prebuilt or purchased planes own up to it without prompting. It just hasn't been an issue. Not to say it couldn't be and if it comes up, I suspect we'll handle it.

You still keep that club in your car?

Randy Powell

Hey, it was a joke, OK. Don't get all riled up.

Randy Powell

Randy,

You say "club," and I say "handgun."

I suppose they are interchangeable designations, but it seems like such as waste to hit someone over the head with a device which might be needlessly and pointlessly damaged by a thick skull.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

You can avoid damage to the club and also avoid the tedium of cleaning the gun by hitting him with the pointy end of his own ARF.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

It's not something the judges have to worry about.the onus is on the builder.Unless he's really stupid he knows if he's the builder.If he's not and says he is, he's the one who has to live with himself.

Thanks for your reply, Good information , alway like to hear input from you , , will pass it on to the Local contest board. This whole issue is brought up because of the ARF models coming out on the market and our local club wanted to set some type of written guideline for ARF/ARC/ built wings, sheeted foam wings complete and trying to let everyone know how we stand on this issue , so they do not show up at contest with different expectations than we are able to deliver.

Trying to do away with the don't ask, don't tell system,

The contest director should not be obligated to ask everyone about BOM eligibility of model. Honor System should apply here..

Even if you take a ARf and strip it , silkspan , dope rub, rub, sand, rub , sand, rub , panellines , high zoot this and that , you still are held to the honor systen to inform the judges that you will be flying with" no appearance points "

I have competed lately with a Expert Built( John Hagan ) Imitation , and declared to the judges that I would be flying with no appearance points . Finished third at Tom Dixons Atlanta Contest , against some good flyers is one of the biggest accomplishments in my flying lately .Alot better that a first place trophy won under less than honorable conditions .

Gordie

Currell, as has been pointed out numerous times, there is no real 51% rule. Some have applied that in their minds and that may go for contest directors as well as contentestants. However, as you have once again asked, how do you break it down?

I think that if that rule were made defacto (or added into the wording under a rules change) one would need to apply it to 51% of the construction of the airframe and of the finish. Some, I think, are falling back on the thought that "it takes longer to finish a plane than it takes to build it". So, in their thinking, they have done 51% of the work just in having applied the finish to an already (or nearly) constructed airframe.

My own feeling is, if the 51% rule were to be applied (and it is not in our present rules) then it must apply to 51% of the airframe construction and finish. Both! I shouldn't build a plane and then take it to Windy to paint if for me and say "I built it. Beautiful, isn't it?" Nor should I take an uncovered arf, sand it, finish it, and then say "I put 51% of the time into it, so I built it" even though fit and finish is how you will ultimately be judged. But...

Even if this were added as a rule change, how do you determine 51%?

I think as a contest director I might have a simple 3 question form for every contestant to fill out and sign.

1) Did you build the airframe, including all of its major components? If not, what portion did you not build?

2) Did you finish the airplane, including all of the major sanding, covering if applicable, and application of base, color, and top coats? If not, which portion did you not do yourself?

3) Are you the builder of the model?

You can then take it from there. There may be less inclination to claim to be builder of the model when you are not if you are faced with questions 1 and 2.

As you know, I am sympathetic toward your views in this matter. However, I don't think one can legitimately earn appearance points without having applied all of the finish. Concerning construction, several good schemes were proposed last year, a couple even quantifying points for the entire model, phase by phase. It is significant to me that those seeking to abolish the BOM rule almost never acknowledge these proposals, as they continue to assert that there are no possible methods of judging, and certainly not one of them has ever addressed my statement at the end of this post. Assertions that the mere possibility of cheating negates the worth of any rule are illogical and silly IMNSHO.

I think that 51% of construction is lower than I'd like to go, although I feel that the spirit of the original (and still current) rule allows some pre-made parts; they were an accepted part of kits at the time of its inception. Perhaps, if an objective measure were to be decided on, pre-fab parts to be excepted from the rule could be listed, obvious examples being engines, bellcranks, control rods, and pre-cut ribs. Less obvious examples might be built up parts that could have been solid balsa diecuts, like flaps. New parts/kits could be ruled upon by executive committee as they appear. All of this presupposes that such a rule is needed.

I am not convinced that there really is a "problem" to be solved, other than contestants not protesting or CD's not disqualifying the rare offender. I still maintain that AMA was conceived (and still exists) as an organization of modelers, and that its contests are thus contests among builders of models. That to me says it ALL.

SK

William,
Does that mean there will be a disclaimer on the contest fliers about the BOM rule? I know I didn't answer your question to your satisfaction, I only stated what the AMA rule says. THAT rule makes NO MENTION of built wings, etc., because they are not allowed under THAT rule.

When will you be at the field next?

Bill <><

Have fun and the snows a melting! Time to burn some nitro! (pretty soon at least!)

Bruce H

Gordy

What's completely ludicrous about the BOM controversy is that not being the builder of the model does not prevent anyone from competing, except at one event, our Nats, in the traditional Junior, Senior, and Open classes. Further, the penalty for not being the BOM is loss of appearance points, which are a maximum of < 3% of the total possible score (practically speaking, even less..).

So, the inescape conclusion is that it is time to discard this obsolete and completely unworkable BOM rule and get back to arguing about 5' radius corners..

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"A fool and his money are soon elected." -Will Rogers

>I`ve always thought of stunt as the gentlemans event...I would have to say 51% of the
>airframe and all of the covering and finish work... I still believe in the honor system.

This goes to the real heart of the matter, and I agree with these sentiments. However, I'ved added these thoughts above:

http://www.clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7941&forum=DCForumID1&omm=62&viewmode=threaded

Thanks.

SK

An interesting argument. I agree that applying a good finish can take the greater portion of the building time. Or you can do it Brad Walker's way. But...

If you can frame it up in 2 weeks, why even buy the "quick build" plane to enter in a contest which from the start states a fundamental requirement that you be the builder of the model (not "finisher of the model.") Yes, the final finish is mostly what the judges see, but you must apply that as well as build or you are not the builder of the model.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

It still comes down to the integrity of the modeler.If he BUILT it,he knows he built it.If he didn't,and says he did,the precise wording of the rule is immaterial.
Besides,I would question the possibility,let alone probability of even Windy putting a 20 point finish on a 5 point airframe.Finishing is only a part of building.Most builders will talk a blue streak about how and why they they did this or that,and why thier way is better than the way the kit said to do it.It only takes a short while to determine if someone really built it.But,it doesn't really matter.Liars will lie,and honest folk won't.We need to assume that the vast majority are honest,and get on with it.

As the rule stands today in your situation above you would be awareded points for a model you did NOT BUILD. Therefore you would be breaking the BOM and could be stripped of your appearnce points.

That's the way I read it.

anybody here didn't win the open for 10, 15 or 20 points?
Ion

gordy