ARC/ARF Builder Of The Model Rule Policy

There has been a lot of discussion concerning the new ARC/ARF models and whether or not they can be awarded appearance points in the Stunt events. I recently distributed a contest flyer for the Cobb County Skyrebels Atlanta Stunt Meet ( see upcoming events ) and as part of that package was their clubs policy on ARC/ARF BOM rules. Several people wrote back and thought their policy had merit and suggested I post it at SSW. I agree. The policy is as follows:

Cobb County Skyrebels

ARF/ARC Builder Of The Model Rule

The Cobb County Skyrebels ARC/ARF BOM rule policy will be to ask the contestant if they built the model.

If the contestant states that they did, they will receive the appearance points based on the judge’s opinion of the degree of the contestant’s involvement and the overall quality of the aircraft. While the contestant will not receive as many appearance points as a contestant with a kit built or scratch built model, they will receive appearance points.

If the contestant states that they did not build and/or finish the model, they will not receive any appearance points.

This decision was determined to be in the best interest of the sport and to encourage participation by as many contestants as possible.

This rule will be applied at all of the Cobb County Skyrebels contests.

I think that this is a terrific interpretation! I imagine that it could apply to purchased models other than ARF's that have been re-finished/finished?

Well thought out!

See Ya

>I think that this is a terrific interpretation! I imagine
>that it could apply to purchased models other than ARF's
>that have been re-finished/finished?
>
>Well thought out!
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Its the worst possible interpretation of the rule.First,the rule is black and white, there is no interpretation involved.If you didn't build it,you can't get appearance points!What's next?,a sliding scale of work done vs points possible??We've gotten along very well with the rule as written.There's no need for interpretation,all that's required is HONESTY.Answer the question;Did you build it? Where's the ambiguity?You either did or you didn't.The question isn't did you build the wing or the flaps or the fuselage ,or did you hinge the elevator,or even, did you cover/paint it? It's did you BUILD it?????.If you did you know it,if you didn't you know it.If you lie about it,you know it.By the time you get to Advanced,the first level where it counts,you shouldn't even consider the shadings of "it depends on what "is" is".I differ with Bill on retention of the rule,but not on the philosophy expressed.

I believe NO non flyer-built model should fly in competition,ever.But we've already embarked on that slippery slope.I fly a little RC and I see very clearly what the ARF has done to that arena.People buy an ARF or,worse an RTF,try flying it for a while(even with a competent instructor),solo,crash it ,and quit.our club roster changes every year.The numbers are the same,but the names are different.The names that are constant,some of them charter members,are the BUILDERS.The ARF may expand the business of toy airplanes,but it does NOT help the sport/hobby of model airplanes.I was flying CL at 13,I wasn't very good ,but I was flying my own plane that I had built.If I had been flying an ARF, I probably wouldn't still be flying today.

Anyone with the time to fly has the time to build.Even when I was working,flying back and forth to Detroit,Bemidji,Pheonix and Europe and Japan,and raising four wonderful kids,There was time to build.

Hi Jim,
Will it be like the present day Little League teams where everyone who enters gets to play and will get a trophy??
LOL!!!!!
sheesh........
Bill <><

Spot On Bill! Like too many things in our culture, where a person with bucks can buy a race car, or Ted Turner (captain courageous) sail boat crew and winning boat, or presidency (Double Speak Kerry) with Campbell Soup money.

The kit entries and scratch built ships should be honored for the time and effort and skill of the builder, not just a credit card purchase. I have a couple of ARF models, and will buy John Brodak's Oriental ARC and ARF, but the kits are just that, readily flyable, or near flyable models for instant gratification. The Nobler Bear kit I will order soon from Ultra will be built and flown with a much different feeling and pride. Thanks for the post, William

Henri...besides the political pap, I would wager that you are not a CD, and will not be faced with needing to come up with a fair and equitable solution....

See Ya

>(snip)..... I would wager that you
>are not a CD, and will not be faced with needing to come up
>with a fair and equitable solution....
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Rich, with all due respect, the sole reason of being a CD has no bearing on the situation. There IS a "fair and equitable" solution, actually there is only ONE solution, unless you are not going to follow the rule book. If you did not BUILD the model, by the rule as written, then you will get no appearance points. What is so hard about that??
The contestant can still fly.
Bill <><

Aside from the point of this all, I can say from personal experience competing against Mr. Turner, he didn't simply write the checks. Yes he had adequate funds to play the game of yacht racing at the highest level--but he was also a supperb team-builder, dynamic and raucus leader, and a really great boat driver.

Sorry, but I coudn't let that one go by. Using Ted was not a good analogy.

Hi Curt
If Ted Turner had my finacial status, he would never have a chance to win the America's Cup. No matter how good a team builder, manager, sailor or whatever. Money does talk.
Not arguing, but I can understand what William was saying from that standpoint.
Bill <><

It was an analogy, maybe I hurt a multi-billionaires tender feelings. Sorry!

William,
Gee, I wasn't aware that poor George W. came from a deprived family. That could explain how he got into Yale and vaulted over all those other National Guard applicants.

Sorry for the diatribe, but I am getting pretty tired of gratutitous right wing comments. Either we keep all politics off this board (which I prefer), or I will just have to start replying.

Alan, this is politics, our specific Stunt politics, what else could it be?

>William,
>Gee, I wasn't aware that poor George W. came from a deprived
>family. That could explain how he got into Yale and vaulted
>over all those other National Guard applicants.
>
>Sorry for the diatribe, but I am getting pretty tired of
>gratutitous right wing comments. Either we keep all politics
>off this board (which I prefer), or I will just have to
>start replying.

or how about Bill Clinton who used his money and pull to dodge the draft completely? ...had a special Navy Reserve spot created for him, couldn't be bothered to show for the physical, ignored two notices to appear for induction, and lied (imagine that...) about his status in the ROTC...

I'm NOT sorry about the diatribe.

To be honest, I may have included (bad judgements) here in comparing stunt issues with national politics. Hard not to these days. I'll be more careful in the future. But, having read the notorious thread a while ago, about the correct way to tune an FP .2O, I know how it can go, right to the schoolyard of yesteryear, and fast. Elitism is the real danger to this sport. It turns off the newcomers fast. Without newcomers?

Elitism is the
>real danger to this sport. It turns off the newcomers fast.
> Without newcomers?

William, I really hope you don't get blasted on this comment.But, I am afraid you might.
Joe

Hey Big Joe!
Tell ME about that one!! LOL!!!!
Bill <><

Thanks for the heads-up! Fact is, the honest and generous knowledge and skill (prior sentence edited for errors) given here is a pleasure and a treat, it makes one (feel) good, included and not (lacking) or not being punished for (not knowing).

Like any imaginable sector of sports, hobbies, whatever, there are the "truly knowledgeable", and the "blowhards". For whatever reason, they seem to find their ways into school politics, the NRA, the local bookstore discussions, everywhere they can draw attention. This does not mean a power hungry person does not know what they are talking about, no, it simply means they need "more" than what they are saying, for whatever reason.

I have (not seen this on this site) to any significant degree, indeed, the "opposite seems to dominate", relative newcomers, like myself have gotten plenty of help, and very generous sharing of knowledge. But elitism, in itself, is distastful, in any context. And I was not referring to "anyone" on this site, I was just saying that a newcomer should be at least as important as the extremely knowledgeable, the very basic law for survival in any society. Just my opinion.

> Fact is, the honest and generous departing of
>knowledge and skill is a pleasure and a treat,

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Sorry to hear about the departure,must be tough.

I just couldn't resist.

Thanks, I corrected the sentence, departing was in error.

Boy! Talk about having blowtorch held to your pants! Never received so many emails in my life! Hell, maybe I'm the elist?

> But,
>having read the notorious thread a while ago, about the
>correct way to tune an FP .2O, I know how it can go, right
>to the schoolyard of yesteryear, and fast. Elitism is the
>real danger to this sport. It turns off the newcomers fast.

How is providing well-proven technical information, that is primarily of interest to newcomers, elitism? Or is it more egalitarian to simply let random nonsense prevail, and have beginners sort it out themselves?

Could you explain, in precise terms, how there is elitism in this hobby? If you're going to accuse someone, then you owe an explanation.

>Sorry for the diatribe, but I am getting pretty tired of
>gratutitous right wing comments. Either we keep all politics
>off this board (which I prefer), or I will just have to
>start replying.

I AGREE.

sounds like a reasonable policy to me. If the contestant says it was an ARC plane and he did a nice job finishing it he should get some credit.

repeating myself, if you have to ask if what you did is legal(for the BOM rule) it probably isn't. When you built the plane you know it.

Did he attach the wing/tail/powerplant adn align them? Did he then cover and finish said model? Then there probably should be some credit there. Personally, if I fly my ARF Nobler in competition I would reject any appearence points given to me. I really need to get some practice in with that too as it has better power than my Mustang I think and Topeka can be quite windy sometimes.

Mr. Clean!!! TOPEKA WINDY???? NNNAAAAHHHH Just breezy.

I just KNEW somebody would show up and say I didn't know what I was talking about, but YOU MARVIN????

hehehehe

>Did he attach the wing/tail/powerplant adn align them? Did
>he then cover and finish said model? Then there probably
>should be some credit there. Personally, if I fly my ARF
>Nobler in competition I would reject any appearence points
>given to me. I really need to get some practice in with
>that too as it has better power than my Mustang I think and
>Topeka can be quite windy sometimes.
>
>From somewhere near Parkville, Mo.
>William Crane
>AMA 6733

Ron B.
F4Fguy

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Phil,

No disrespect here. If everyone had the experience in modeling that you, Rich, or even I, have, it would not be a problem. A lot of today's "newbies" do not know what the BOM is, why it is, or what it is intended for.

"Building" any of the mentioned scenarios (ARC, ARF, QBK, pre built, all the same)is no different from telling me you "built your house" because you had some land and hired ABC Construction to build it, then you moved in. But, oh yeah, you painted the bedroom.

There is no answer to the BOM in most people's eyes, because too many respondents believe they are lawyers and can "interpret" the rule. There is no interpretation, doesn't need one. It is specific.
This post will burn up a lot of server space.

Bill <><

>Hi Phil,
>
>No disrespect here. If everyone had the experience in
>modeling that you, Rich, or even I, have, it would not be a
>problem. A lot of today's "newbies" do not know what the
>BOM is, why it is, or what it is intended for.

>Bill <><
>
>
>Ron B.
F4Fguy

Bill:

There's only one way to gain experience.

>There has been a lot of discussion concerning the new
>ARC/ARF models and whether or not they can be awarded
>appearance points in the Stunt events. I recently
>distributed a contest flyer for the Cobb County Skyrebels
>Atlanta Stunt Meet ( see upcoming events ) and as part of
>that package was their clubs policy on ARC/ARF BOM rules.
>Several people wrote back and thought their policy had merit
>and suggested I post it at SSW. I agree. The policy is as
>follows:
>
>
> Cobb County Skyrebels
>
> ARF/ARC Builder Of The Model Rule
>
>The Cobb County Skyrebels ARC/ARF BOM rule policy will be to
>ask the contestant if they built the model.
>
>snip<
>
>If the contestant states that they did not build and/or
>finish the model, they will not receive any appearance
>points.
>
>snip<
>
>This rule will be applied at all of the Cobb County
>Skyrebels contests.

What is the Cobb County Skyrebels definition of "built" in regards to the question asked the contestant. Please be specific.

Crist...I think that the beauty of the thing is it's ambiguity....if a modeler believes that he built the model, he did, but it also allows the judges to place different values regarding the the degree of completion.
It is certainly more difficult to buy a completed wing and create an aeroplane than it is to buy a wing, fuse, tail, rudder, etc and pour them all together.

See Ya

Hi Rich
I posted a reply to your post above.
Bill <><

>Crist...I think that the beauty of the thing is it's
>ambiguity....if a modeler believes that he built the model,
>he did, but it also allows the judges to place different
>values regarding the the degree of completion.
>It is certainly more difficult to buy a completed wing and
>create an aeroplane than it is to buy a wing, fuse, tail,
>rudder, etc and pour them all together.
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Ron B.
F4Fguy

THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY!!
Ron B.

1. Is it an "Official" (sanctioned)AMA event?
2. What happens when I turn up with AMA rulebook in hand.......
3. What happens when, under #2, I protest the ruling?

This gets beat to death everytime it is mentioned, which is why I suggested a rules change proposal to drop BOM in stunt, at least below the NATS level. If we are going to dilute it down to nothing, why have it?

There is NO VALID ARGUMENT, at this time, that changes the "basic (or "average", however it is worded,) kit" wording of the rule.

I would LOVE to be shown where I am wrong. Not "opinions", facts.

Bill <><

>This gets beat to death everytime it is mentioned...

Welcome to the dead equine society,
where it's always deja vu all over again.

How bout this, like my golden retievers, a small chip is planted under the skin, so, if they are lost or stolen, they can be scanned and recovered, hopefully. ALL ARF & ARC ships should by law have a micro-chip hidden somewhere in the balsa. The judge simply scans the ship, and "ah ha!"

Hi William!
It doesn't need to go that far. There are very noticable characteristics of most of the ARF/ARCs that distinguish them. If a builder goes through the hassle of changing them, then that person has a problem. Honesty, while cried loudly in most circles, is a dimishing morality in our great country.
Bill <><

Of course I was kidding. But the serious nature of a fellow, or gal for that matter, of competing with a tradition is serious business. It does need to be addressed though, the skill and craftsmanship and engine performance and knowledge that goes into this sport is awesome and should not be shortcut. I was simply trying to show how easy things can go out of hand. Having the money to buy something, I'm as guilty as anyone else, does not equate with honest and hard won building. Ted's courageousness is not the issue, I simply have ideas about quick and dirty politics and a declining culture's values being imposed on a clean and fun sport. Not too many left these days, enhancement drugs in pro sports and so on. Let's just keep the lines clearly defined here, like you did by posting this thread. Thanks, William Henri of Santa Fe, New Mexico

>How bout this, like my golden retievers, a small chip is planted under the skin, so, if they are lost or stolen, they can be scanned and recovered, hopefully

If you have ever had surgery, you probably also have a secret microchip planted under your skin as well. This is all part of a massive and super secret conspiracy between the liberal anti gun AMA(American Medical Association) the IRS, BATF, etc. to track people hoping to keep a little more of their earnings than the IRS feels they should by satellite. Makes us all a lot safer and helps keep everyone paying their "fair share" and all. If you are an illegal alien, don't worry as surgeons are prohibited by law from implanting the chip.
If you don't believe this, you also probably believe the little metal strip in our paper money is really to discourage counterfitting.
So far this has been one of the best kept secrets of our time considering the millions of conspirators involved.

Jim,

TURN ON YOUR VENTILATION WHEN YOU DOPE YOUR MODELS

S'all right for you Catdaddy, but I was wondering why my wrist was ticking!

Can't stay out of this,

In my opinion I think the Skyrebels policy is excellent. What's wrong with giving a guy a few points for putting together an ARF Nobler that looks good and pays attention to the details. This does not short or take anything away from the guy that shows up with an 18 or 20 pointer. I don't understand those that seem to think that giving a little recognition for a job well done is a bad thing and will be the demise of the event.

I like the rule, it’s doesn’t exclude anybody. In addition the rule sends a positive message that should help to promote participation. At any rate, the focus should be on the flying and the more pilots you have involved the better.

>I like the rule, it’s doesn’t exclude anybody. In addition
>the rule sends a positive message that should help to
>promote participation. At any rate, the focus should be on
>the flying and the more pilots you have involved the better.
>
>John

John,
With all due respect, the existing AMA rule book does not exclude non-BOM from entering and flying in PAMPA class events. How does the AMA rulebook send a negative message when it does include everybody?

Crist,
With no disrepect to anyone.
Exactly.
Bill <><

Hey Swamp Cat ..... welcome to Stuka CL forum, I see you just recently joined? I joined only a couple weeks ago too. Have already made good contacts and have traded for neat 1/2A CL plans with a couple of the guys. I owe you an email and will do so soon. Give me a call (phone) some night?
Later, Don Garry

>>I like the rule, it’s doesn’t exclude anybody. In addition
>>the rule sends a positive message that should help to
>>promote participation. At any rate, the focus should be on
>>the flying and the more pilots you have involved the better.
>>
>>John
>
>John,
>With all due respect, the existing AMA rule book does not
>exclude non-BOM from entering and flying in PAMPA class
>events. How does the AMA rulebook send a negative message
>when it does include everybody?

This idea (BOM prevents ARFs) is just a huge red herring. This idea is so ingrained that it's close to intractable - but it JUST ISN'T THE CASE.

Makes a great argument, though.

Everybody's gonna *love* my May/June SN Director's column...

At this stage of the game, I think it might be wise to just drop the BOM (hee, hee!) and let it go with who flies the best pattern.
You could keep the BOM and appearence points for things like the NATs and above that the WCs in the upper crust hi zoot export (expert?) dudes classes which is where they probably really belong. Get rid of the lower tiers.

>You could keep the BOM and appearence points for things
>like the NATs

For the 8-millionth time - there is no BOM outside the NATS - and it's been that way for close to three decades! Is this really so hard to understand?

This is precisely the sort of misinformation/disinformation for sake of making a point that I was referring to above. It's simply drivel.

Name one contest outside of the NATS J/S/O classes where the BOM applies. It doesn't apply even in most of the NATs events - Advanced (official), Beginner, Intermediate, OTS, Classic (unofficial). While you are at it, name one contest outside NATs J/S/O where you can't fly an ARF.

The answers - NONE, and NONE.

People who don't understand the current rules are a poor choice to decide how to change them.

>Can't stay out of this,
>
>In my opinion I think the Skyrebels policy is excellent.
>What's wrong with giving a guy a few points for putting
>together an ARF Nobler that looks good and pays attention to
>the details. This does not short or take anything away from
>the guy that shows up with an 18 or 20 pointer. I don't
>understand those that seem to think that giving a little
>recognition for a job well done is a bad thing and will be
>the demise of the event.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

What about the kid who just moved up to advanced ,who built his airplane from plans(and not too well),but did it all himself?

>Can't stay out of this,
>
>In my opinion I think the Skyrebels policy is excellent.
>What's wrong with giving a guy a few points for putting
>together an ARF Nobler that looks good and pays attention to
>the details. This does not short or take anything away from
>the guy that shows up with an 18 or 20 pointer. I don't
>understand those that seem to think that giving a little
>recognition for a job well done is a bad thing and will be
>the demise of the event.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

This DOES take away from the twenty pointer.It reduces the value of those twenty points by precisely the number of points given to the ARF or ARC.There's nothing ambiguous in the rule;to gain appearance points you must build the model.If you don't care about appearance points,buy the twenty pointer and fly it,but don't try to claim appearance points.The whole argument is specious,it is a not so thinly veiled attack on the rule itself.Our event is NOT RC Pattern,it's CLPA,and one of the components is an up to twenty point"bonus"for having built your own airplane.

The so called growth aspect to be reaped by the introduction of ARFs is ephemeral at best.I see it at work every time I go to our RC field or club meetings.There's always a new member who's brought his ARF.Six months later,after he's gone through four or five of them because he doesn't know and doesn't care that they can be repaired,he's an ex member.In the meantime the INDUSTRY has sold five ARFs and doesn't care,because there's always another sucker waiting with money in hand.

ARFs have their place.As low emotional investment practice tools or for everyday flying from poor sites,they're fine.And certainly for beginner and intermediate flyers,they are a fast way to get in the air.But as mentors and coaches,we have a responsibility to pass on the building as well as flying skills.Appearance points are the incentive for learning all the skills.To lessen their value is to cheapen the fine tradition of CLPA.

The rule book is clear. Now if you don't like the rule, that is a different matter.

Is there a definition of what qualifies as ARF v. BOM? If not, there needs to be that at a minimum.

>The rule book is clear. Now if you don't like the rule,
>that is a different matter.
>
>Is there a definition of what qualifies as ARF v. BOM? If
>not, there needs to be that at a minimum.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

How could you possibly have a problem defining BUILT the model vs assembled preconstructed and covered parts???

>How could you possibly have a problem defining BUILT the
>model vs assembled preconstructed and covered parts???
>
>Ron B.

That is a pretty simple one for sure.

But I have noticed that for you and a few others on the boards that there is simply no interpretation of the rule for you. You have stated that "it" is very black and white.

That is just it, what is black and white in your book isnt in someone else's.

For instance. Constantine(sp) not only built his plane but he built the engine that is in his plane! He is so much more of the total builder of the model than anyone else around here. Should he get more points than the guy who uses a prebuilt engine. I know it isnt BOE but we dont take our models to the judges with no motors in them. At the time of judging the engine is just as much a part of the model as the rudder is.

Some people think that buying a foam wing that is already cut out is beyond BOM. Some tink laser cut parts are past the BOM and making it an assembly of parts and not building the model.

Yet others buy built up wings and build fuses around them and feel they built the model. And of course the presheeted foam wing is always around. Prebuilt stabs and turtle decks. It just goes on and on and on and on and on and on.....

Black and white for you is not so much black and white for others.

Then there is the whole protest thing.

Some sit back and say if the guy feels he built the model then I am taking him at his word. In an essence they are saying that there can be many interpretaions of the rule and if they feel they lived up to their own standards enough than so be it.

As I have tried to show above the rule can be read many ways and many people out there are building what they think is "enough" of the model to qualify. Because you dont think it is enough means you have to protest and make it stick. The burden to bring it up is put on you the fellow pilot not the ruling officials. They are only called in when a pilot protests.

I personally think this is crap.

If the rule cant be written so that all see it the same way then what's the point having it? Like bottom height. It either is or it isnt within the stated bottom height range. Pretty much straight forward. BOM isnt that way. That is why threads about it go on and on and threads about bottom height never get on here.

I know you and others on this board think there is simply no interpretation to the rule but that just simply ISNT the case. One pilot my think the other didnt build it by the rule. He protests it. The other pilots genuinly feels he complied and gets protested. A good place to start some more bad blood(just what we need). I know it doesnt happen. People dont protest. They simply just dont do it. Maybe it is bad form or something but they just dont. Maybe they dont want to send someone home from the contest or maybe they just dont care. The bottom line is that rule is not so cut and dry and that is why threads like this are so fun and interesting.

I cant wait for Brett's column...

>Is there a definition of what qualifies as ARF v. BOM? If
>not, there needs to be that at a minimum.

You are kidding right?

That book would be thousands of pages long. Because there are thousands of ways to construct, build or whatever to get a model in the air.

Rule books...a tough thing for sure. At the current time ours reads like a law book. Lots of repetitve stuff. Very dry reading for sure.

There are two kinds of rule books. One that is a closed book...the old "If it isn't listed in this book you cannot use it." This is a race car type of book. Very limiting on the competitors. Very strict! Equals the competition. The innovation that comes from these events is controlled by the rulemakers...to a certain extent.

The other book is like the one we have it simply gives you a guideline and a few things that you cant do and the rest is open to interpretation. This is good for the event. It breeds innovation from the modelers and not the rulemakers. Our rules changes are slow and they are this way to keep things wide open. Make people really have to think to get things changed. Many think this is good. I dont really have an opinion on this part one way or the other.

My point was (is) that unless we define BOM v. ARF, this debate rages on and on.

I'll say this, *I* don't want to be the one to try to define the two

Hi Tom,
The definition already exists in the BOM rule! There is also no mention of anyone being allowed, or is the rule open to, interpretation. This is a sticking point among some.
They feel that they have attained a high enough status to grant themselves the "right" to interpretate it.
I have never tried to interpret the rule. I have only read, and stated what it says. As a teacher/coach, especially coach, I understand that a rule must be followed as written, else it is worthless.
No one, short of the NATS, is not allowed to fly a "non BOM" model. They are just not allowed to receive ANY appearance points.
Now we are saying that the judges have the right, and extra burden, to assign points based on their judgement??
The original rule of appearance judging had 4 categories, we have dropped those, and now many are wanting to further dilute one of the original intents of the event. A true "modeler" who can build, finish AND fly.
No slam meant to you, buddy.
Ron Burn has said quite a bit on this, and he's been in this hobby a long time. Several other well know fliers have also joined in in the past.
The problems are:
1. There are people that, for whatever reason, are afraid to tell
a competitor that they cannot get appearance points.
2. Some fliers don't want to "build". Instant gratification society
3. Also, dare I say it, some of the guys out there are spoiled.

So, now all you arrow slingers out there, fire away!
As a great Indian Chief once said before battle, "It's a great day to die"

Bill <><

The Klingons said that too...

Grins,

>Hi Tom,
>The definition already exists in the BOM rule!

The definition changes with time because the average kit changes. There are two local hobby shops in my city that I frequent. In one of the shops about 80-90% of the kits that are there have prebuilt parts or prebuilt and precovered parts in the box. There are very few kits that are just wood and plans. Keep in mind this shop caters to the RC enthusiast and the CL enthusiast. The 10-20% of the kits that are boxes of wood are CL stunt models and gliders. At the other shop there ARE no kits that are not ARFs, NONE! The average kit from these two shops in my area contains prebuilt parts. It(bom) is not restricted to just cl models.

There is
>also no mention of anyone being allowed, or is the rule open
>to, interpretation. This is a sticking point among
>some.

Every rule is interpreted by everyone who reads them, even you. I mean look in your pampa and read how different Brett Buck and Dave Cook interperate level flight in relation to the maneuver bottoms for the rest of the flight. Two people read the same rule and get two totaly different meanings. You obviously have a different opinion on this than other people. How come your opinion is the right one and others is the wrong one? You are right there isnt anything about interpreting the rule. But it is not a clean cut rule with the entrance of the ARF across modeling as a whole.

>They feel that they have attained a high enough status to
>grant themselves the "right" to interpretate it.
>I have never tried to interpret the rule.

Now you are pointing fingers and making accusations. Do you mind going ahead and stating the names of those who you think are higher than the rules?

I have
>only read, and stated what it says. As a teacher/coach,
>especially coach, I understand that a rule must be
>followed as written, else it is worthless.

Exactly. My paragraph above states the position to the point. Read the rule. It says the modeler is to build/construct the model from the average kit. Now when you go to a hobby shop the average kit is a Prebuilt.

>No one, short of the NATS, is not allowed to fly a "non BOM"
>model. They are just not allowed to receive ANY
>appearance points.

YOu are supposed to build or construct the average kit right? Well ARFs and Prebuilts are pretty much the average kit these days.

>Now we are saying that the judges have the right, and extra
>burden, to assign points based on their judgement??

They already do assign points based on their judgments. Appearance judging.... As it stands now thye can simply knock model because they dont "like" the colors or the shape the modeler picked out to build. It should be all based on execution of attempted project and not so much what they like and dont like. It isnt up to them to determine what the modeler should have built but how well he should have built what he picked out to build.

>The original rule of appearance judging had 4 categories, we
>have dropped those, and now many are wanting to further
>dilute one of the original intents of the event. A true
>"modeler" who can build, finish AND fly.
>No slam meant to you, buddy.
>Ron Burn has said quite a bit on this, and he's been in this
>hobby a long time. Several other well know fliers have also
>joined in in the past.
>The problems are:
> 1. There are people that, for whatever reason, are afraid
>to tell
> a competitor that they cannot get appearance points.

It isnt up to other people to do that. At this point it is up to the modeler to say if he built it or not. If he puts it on the line to be judged and someone doesnt protest it then it gets the points and so be it.

> 2. Some fliers don't want to "build". Instant
>gratification society

I take offense to that statement and I am ##### sick and tired of hearing it. Instant gratification society atuff. I bet if you talked the CLPA model builders for hire out there.( I know I have) The people who buy their parts are long time modelers, some at the top of our game, who can build themselves but for whatever reason dont have the time to build a model. But getting a few hundred bucks is alot easier the 30 or 40 extra hours to build a wing and tail. They are not some punky kid just wanting to get in and win a contest. It just inst that way in stunt or in any other modeling contest. If you are going to win you are going to have to really learn how to fly the model, trim it out, learn motor runs and so on. The pattern planes are prebuilds but just because you spend some money on the plane doesnt mean that you can win a darn thing. I build all the time probably more than most. But since the addition of my 4 month old all I have had time to do is build some wing tips. It would be nice if I had the dough to get a nice wing or something to help move the project along. I know I never will do that though. I always want to be the one who scratch built the plane I fly. I just cant see chunking down the dough for a part I could build myself.

> 3. Also, dare I say it, some of the guys out there are
>spoiled.

Spoiled...nawwww...

>
>So, now all you arrow slingers out there, fire away!
>As a great Indian Chief once said before battle, "It's a
>great day to die"
>
>Bill <><
>
>Just an Old Advanced flyer.

Doug <><

Just an expert flier.

OK, the "average kit" rule doesn't apply to individual events. Just to all kits of flying models on the market. I think we would have to do some looking into what the "average kit" is when taking into account all the "flying events". Ok by me.

>Now you are pointing fingers and making accusations. Do you
>mind going ahead and stating the names of those who you
>think are higher than the rules?

Yep a pretty blanket statement by me, mea culpa, but it stands.
To think that this event doesn't contain a certain amount of people that are any different from the rest of our society isn't very realistic. I believe the overall quality of people who stick with this form of model building/flying ARE WELL above average on the whole.

>>Now we are saying that the judges have the right, and extra
>>burden, to assign points based on their judgement??
>
>They already do assign points based on their judgments.
>Appearance judging.... As it stands now thye can simply
>knock model because they dont "like" the colors or the shape
>the modeler picked out to build. It should be all based on
>execution of attempted project and not so much what they
>like and dont like. It isnt up to them to determine what
>the modeler should have built but how well he should have
>built what he picked out to build.

The Cobb County announcement says the judges will determine the extent of what the "builder" did to the ARF/ARC, etc., that is what that is in reference to. Being in this thread, I didn't think of referring to post #0.

>>The problems are:
>> 1. There are people that, for whatever reason, are afraid
>>to tell
>> a competitor that they cannot get appearance points.
>
>It isnt up to other people to do that. At this point it is
>up to the modeler to say if he built it or not. If he puts
>it on the line to be judged and someone doesnt protest it
>then it gets the points and so be it.

I was really trying to skirt a previous comment on that one, my bad, again. It should have said "There are "CDs" that,....."

>> 2. Some fliers don't want to "build". Instant
>>gratification society
>

>I bet if you talked the CLPA model builders for hire out
>there.( I know I have)

Doug, my friend, you are talking to one of those right now, but you have never "talked to me" in the past about this.

>The people who buy their parts are
>long time modelers, some at the top of our game, who can
>build themselves but for whatever reason dont have the time
>to build a model. But getting a few hundred bucks is alot
>easier the 30 or 40 extra hours to build a wing and tail.

Yep and I, too, know who many of those long time modelers are. Have a list of 25 or so right now.

>They are not some punky kid just wanting to get in and win a
>contest. It just inst that way in stunt or in any other
>modeling contest. If you are going to win you are going to
>have to really learn how to fly the model, trim it out,
>learn motor runs and so on. The pattern planes are
>prebuilds but just because you spend some money on the plane
>doesnt mean that you can win a darn thing. I build all the
>time probably more than most. But since the addition of my
>4 month old all I have had time to do is build some wing
>tips. It would be nice if I had the dough to get a nice
>wing or something to help move the project along. I know I
>never will do that though. I always want to be the one who
>scratch built the plane I fly. I just cant see chunking
>down the dough for a part I could build myself.

I'm glad you feel that way.

>> 3. Also, dare I say it, some of the guys out there are
>>spoiled.
>
>Spoiled...nawwww...

I know I am one of the spoiled ones, just ask my wife!

>
>>
>>So, now all you arrow slingers out there, fire away!
>>As a great Indian Chief once said before battle, "It's a
>>great day to die"
>>
>>Bill <><
>>
>>Just an Old Advanced flyer.
>
>Doug <><
>
>Just an expert flier.

hahaha!!!!! (at myself) my tag is very self depreciating. I am "just an old advanced class flyer", nothing special when it comes to flying toy airplanes, which is what we are really doing, right? But, some of the things that a lot of people don't know about me are: I do "build for hire", I have qualified for membership in Mensa, I have had acheivements in several areas that very few, if any, on this board have. Maybe not in this arena, and not in any aviation related area, I didn't choose to follow a path in those directions, but I have loved flight since before I can remember.

AND, those that have known me for a while know that I am honest to a fault, and will tell exactly what/how it is.

I just do not invest the time in practice right now for this event, and I haven't for several years now. I could say that work days that consist of actually being at work for 12-20 hours a day are not uncommon in my life. But someone would just say that is an excuse, so I guess it is, doesn't matter. I will practice in the not too distant future. At my age, 5 years from now is the "not too distant future". I am lucky to get 40 flights a year, and that is counting contests. 25 to 30 is probably more like it. But I was building and flying C/L airplanes over 40 years ago, so I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

My poking fun of myself with my tag, is pretty well known.
I say this because you seem to feel the need to express that you ARE an "expert flier", something we know, and I guess to have some effect on my opinion, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to reading rules, or having a wealth of life experiences that I rely on to make these silly posts, or selling the next plane I build for Flyer "X", "Y" or "Z".

I will close in saying I have respected you in the past, I remember meeting you , and Steve, at Muncie at your first NATS. My son does too, which does mean something to me. And I hope you are just feeling the strain all fathers have gone through of getting very little sleep, and working our butts off.

Doug, I wish you the best, and please feel good in knowing that I will not engage in any other posts even remotely pertaining to BOM, or the other silly arguements that go on in our tiny little part of the Hobby world. Being an Old Fart has it's advantages if you have spent your life learning all you can, but it has it's disadvantages, too. Like I ended one of the other posts, I just know more than I should about some things.

Take care, and I assure you there are no hard feelings on my part. In fact, my best friend through out my life is a guy I got into a bad fight with the second day I knew him. (he started it! LOL!!) Guess that's what 16 year olds did back then.
Bill <><

Guys,

Can we please end this thread now? It reminds me of all those other BOM threads that I was involved in to no avail! Peace be with us all. After all, these are TOY airplanes to the general public.

>Guys,
>
>Can we please end this thread now? It reminds me of all
>those other BOM threads that I was involved in to no avail!
>Peace be with us all. After all, these are TOY airplanes to
>the general public.
>
>Jim Pollock

Good grief, I have offered offense to the PA gods and now they will verily smite me forthwith. This is a lot like being trapped in a Battlestar Galactica episode...

Jake

Jake,

You'll find out. Probably the hard way like I did!

>Jake,
>
>You'll find out. Probably the hard way like I did!
>
>Jim Pollock

Jim,

Likely so. Good thing I have a thick hide (and skull, some would say!)...

Grins,

Jake

I think that this is a good thing to try out. It takes the whole protesting thing out of the mix. It takes the responsability off of the fellow pilots to "turn" each other in if they feel someone is over the line. This puts it on the ruling officials, where it should be in the first place. Who knows it could be a very good thing. Could be a way to really start enforcing the BOM rule right on the day of the contest. I like it. Makes people be upfront about what they did to build their model. No one should be offended by being asked the question either. Just simply answer and move on.

I think you guys need to read the rest of the rules. The rules are what ever you want them to be if you announce and post them ahead of time for you contest. If as previously stated here that some one might pull out his rule book to protest then the CD pulls out his flyer showing the rules and or changes.
RO

Hi Richard,
You are correct in this instance. The announcement has been made as to how "appearance" points will be judged at the Cobb County flyers contests.
As to my "Devil's Advocate" posting, I guess I jumped the gun on this being a wide spread occurance with "the judges' discretion" as to how much the "builder" did in "building" the plane. <(paraphrased)
I don't fully understand how that fits. Should have asked how this aspect will be handled.
Anyway, I think my place in all this is moot. There is a very good AMA rule, in place, which is well written. To take liberties with the written rule (not being done in this situation, there will be a "local" rule in place) should not be condoned.
I do feel, however IMHO, that there might be other motives in place that do not pertain only to allowing AP to ARFs to get more fliers involved. And those motives are not, necessarily, bad.
Don't let anyone kid you, the "politics" in our segment of the hobby, though not as vocal as several years ago, are still alive and thriving.
Bill <><

Just an Old Advanced flyer, who knows more than he should.

Oh crap.

Three cheers to the Cobb Country Skyrebels (Rebels indeed)!!!!!!!!! I plan on being there with my ARF Nobler.

Hi louis,
Hope to see you there! Nice looking job on the Nobler.
Bill <><

Ha. My ARF Nobler looks better!!! ha ha ha. I made a new cowl, recovered it with Japanese Tissue and silkspan and painted it in WW2 Navy colors, added a tip weight box, sliding leadouts, new leadouts and bellcrank. It's still an ARF, ARF. Louis's looks nice and I have seen it in person at our fun fly and he inspired me to redo mine. Now to get those *&&^^% motor mounts from compressing any more. I have aluminum plates under the engine to try to limit this.
Tom Dixon recovered his ARF with bright orange. Looks nice, but it is still an ARF. There are two contests that have ARFs as a seperate event. Something to think about.

> There are two contests that have
>ARFs as a seperate event. Something to think about.

Why? Everyone around here just flies them in the regular PAMPA events. The Nobler, with a good engine, is a pretty decent flier, and there's no doubt it would be competitive in any Classic contest and most of not all local Advanced contests.

I'm planning on taking my ARF Nobler and using just the wing and maybe the canopy, and slapping on a scratch-built Greaan box fuse and tail. then strip off all the covering and refinish it like the one I flew back in the day - white/orange. I really don't care for the engine mount in the ARF, and I also loved the look of the narrow/deep fuse on the original. I can make a tank that fits...

> I'm planning on taking my ARF Nobler and using just the
>wing and maybe the canopy, and slapping on a scratch-built
>Greaan box fuse and tail. then strip off all the covering
>and refinish it like the one I flew back in the day -
>white/orange. I really don't care for the engine mount in
>the ARF, and I also loved the look of the narrow/deep fuse
>on the original. I can make a tank that fits...
>
> Brett
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett,

Will this white/orange Nobler qualify for appearance points?

I would think the model would definatly qualify for appearance points by using just the wing. And why not, its no different than buying one of Bob Hunts wings. Right? Besides I have been thinking of using one of those wings in a Chizler.(Dick Mathis say his Chizler wing was in fact a Nobler). Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks. Speaking of circle jerks, This whole BOM thing, over and over and over again is without a doubt, the biggest circle jerk I have ever seen. Talk about mental masterbation!

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, c'mon Larry, tell us how you REALLY feel about the BOM discussions! LOL!!
Bill <><

Broke your promise already ? Got to agree with Larry, same old
questions & answers, really tiresome discussion.

Hi Walter,
Nope, never promised that I wouldn't post! hahaha
I am just going to try and not post anything that can be controversial.
I get tired of that topic (BOM), too.
Bill <><

It is a great day to die.

Bill!
Heres my opinion. Why all the controversy?
Just do like some people in Advanced and expert; lie like a rug and
swear you built the plane 100%.
Now having said that;my opinion:
ARFs should be for entry level flyers and flyers of low budgets.
It seems to me any new event to encourage new blood is quickly
filled with trophy hungry experienced and well funded flyers
I think an Arf event should have rules as follows.
If you enter ARF you can not enter any other PA event
Then see how many pros give up their class just to " fly for fun"

See you in 3 weeks ;no I won.t buy your plane.

>
>> I'm planning on taking my ARF Nobler and using just the
>>wing and maybe the canopy, and slapping on a scratch-built
>>Greaan box fuse and tail. then strip off all the covering
>>and refinish it like the one I flew back in the day -
>>white/orange. I really don't care for the engine mount in
>>the ARF, and I also loved the look of the narrow/deep fuse
>>on the original. I can make a tank that fits...
>>
>> Brett
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Brett,
>
>Will this white/orange Nobler qualify for appearance points?

No, I didn't build it.

Sorry Brett, I dont agree with you on this one.

>Sorry Brett, I dont agree with you on this one.

I'll amend it to say, "it doesn't meet my personal standards for having built it, so I will not accept appearance points".

That's the beauty of the "honor system" - everyone can use their own personal comfort level. And I'm willing to let everone else decide for themselves based on their own comfort level.

I keep hearing all this "bunk" about "average kit". We know what an average kit is. Brodak has tons of them. SIG has tons of them. RSM has tons of them. ARFs are not "kits". They are prebuilt models.

But all that aside, the wording still is having "completely built the model". Interpret that any way you want, it still comes out to having completely built the model. If the little girl in China built the model, you did not. If Tom Morris built the model, you did not. If Windy Urtnowski or Tom Hanks built the model, you did not. "Completely" has a definition in the dictionary. Look it up and abide by it the next time someone asks you if you completely built the model.

This discussion is ended as are any further discussions on the subject of Builder of the Model on this forum.

It is self evident. Abide by the rul until and unless it is changed.

GENTLEMEN, WE ARE OUT OF HERE. ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING.