Take off on the ARC/ARF BOM Thread

Gentelmen,

As an aside to the ARC/ARF BOM thread, why don't we go about defining an average kit!

Let the games begin!!!!

Isn't "average" everything added then divided by the whole. On one end we have a stack of balsa on the other we have ARF's. Is an ARF a Kit? What's an average between a stack of Balsa and an ARF? Maybe we first need to define "KIT"

O.K.

Definition of KIT. An assemblage of parts of a model airplane supplied in a box that requires at least minimal assembly to have a flyable airplane. Agree? Or Disagree?

Nice try, Jim. You have to do better than this!
See ya at Brodak's, stay dry!
Bill <><

Don't know WHAT I am anymore.

Bill,

That's O.K! Everyone else seems to! Know what you are that is!!

Come on give it a rest!!!!!

Walter:'(

Walt,

Were simply defining an average kit. What could be so hard about that?

You already know the answer to that question.

Gee Guys, it's not that hard. Just read the actual rule. ***

"Models which are completely prefabricated and require only a few minutes of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition."

Well, it takes some skill and a lot more than a few minutes to assmeble even an ARF. Says 4 to 6 hours right on the box. I took about 20 hours on mine.

Oh boy, here it comes.
EricV

***

>Gee Guys, it's not that hard. Just read the actual rule. ***
>
>"Models which are completely prefabricated and require only
>a few minutes of unskilled effort for their completion shall
>be excluded from competition."
>
>Well, it takes some skill and a lot more than a few minutes
>to assmeble even an ARF. Says 4 to 6 hours right on the box.
>I took about 20 hours on mine.
>
>Oh boy, here it comes.
>EricV
>
>
>***

It is time, indeed, to give it a rest. There is a definition here of one type of model that shall be excluded. It does not say these only shall be excluded or if it takes a bit more than a few minutes to assemble then it is OK. What it does say is that "the CD shall take every reasonable effort to assure himself that the flyer has completely constructed the model(s) he uses in competion... " Gentlemen, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." We don't need to go any further.

Let's give it a rest.

Aw Len, I've held off all week and let everyone else have all the fun...heh...I was just throwing some glow fuel on the fire, couldn't you see my evil smiley at the end of my post? Yeah, this is a dead horse, I guess I just wanted to see if it would twitch a little before you put a bullet in it. You don't actually think I was serious? I've been taking dead pan lessons from the Dirt. Though I can't seem to kick the emoticon smiley face habit just yet.

bwa ha ha ha haaaaaaa....

Len,

I didn't ask anyone for a dissertation of the prevailing rules. I simply asked to get a consensus as to what is an average kit. What's so difficult and irreverent about that? Therefore, I disagree that this thread needs a rest. Let it go on please?

What the heck, I'll chime in.

How about we say that "an average kit" is one where no more than 25% of the core compents are pre-assembled or covered.

>Len,
>
>I didn't ask anyone for a dissertation of the prevailing
>rules. I simply asked to get a consensus as to what is an
>average kit. What's so difficult and irreverent about that?
> Therefore, I disagree that this thread needs a rest. Let
>it go on please?
>
>
>Jim Pollock

I don't think there is a consensus, nor is it up to us to make such a consensus. That's the problem. We try to make the rules rather than simply accept the rules as they are written. These rules were written "way back" and, as the lawayers of today would argue in court, what was the intent of the people writing the law? Their intent was to use the average kit of the day the law was written, not as it may have evolved to this day. "Completely build" are the key words. Anyone can suggest a proposed rule change to define it more clearly. However, there is no valid argument to say that the "average" kit has changed, and therefore "Completely build" is no longer relevant. That is still the defining point no matter what you produce as an "average" kit. (Yeah, I know, there are a lot of ARFs in the RC community. And now we see them on the CL scene with more to come. Still, that is not a kit, and it certainly does not conform to the portion of the rule stating "completely build".

Even if SIG and RCM and Brodak would all reconfigure their entire line of "kits" to include completely assembled built up wings (Courtesy of our Chinese brothers on the other side of the world) that would not redefine the rule to allow same to be used for our AMA contests. There is still that phrase "completely build" to contend with.

Qurstion: "Did you completely build your plane?" Answer: "No, I assembled it."

Len,

#1. It's not a law but a rule.
#2. There is a mechanisim in place to change the rules.
#3. Therefore, the agrument that it was cast in stone when the rule was originally written doesn't hold water!
#4. A counter argument is the existence of #3 the ability to change rules. Therefore, it is entirely possible to re-define what an average kit consists of.

I believe that "Today's" average kit lies somewhere between an ARF and a balsa tree. Exactly where is what I would like to get a consensus of from the folks here on SSW. The consensus could be used in the process of a change in the rule where there may be some percentage (not all) prefabrication of parts allowed in an average kit!

You speak of an average kit back in the day. Well, I think that Scientific models had kits back in the day with formed fuselages, cut emphanage parts and shaped wings. Would someone be allowed to enter the Nats in open with one of those???

Len, there are just too many counter agruments to yours for you to believe that your opinion on the matter is the gosple! (sorry about the unintended pun there.)

Certainly rules can be changed just as laws can be changed. But until the rules are changed, they are the law.

I am sick of hearing builder of the model. I am sick of arguing it. I am sick of defining it. It is law. Let's live with it and move on.

We won't define it here. You know what is intended. And just because the "average kit" may be slightly different from the past, that doesn't change the intent of the rule.

Did you completely construct the model? Yes, or no? Be truthful, lie, I don't care. Let's move on.

Better than TV.

>Well, it takes some skill and a lot more than a few minutes
>to assmeble even an ARF. Says 4 to 6 hours right on the box.
>I took about 20 hours on mine.

Eric:

Check the rule after the The phrase completely "constructed" it states including covering if used. Based on this I'd say an ARF that is already covered is excluded regardless of how long it takes to assemble.

Carl

>Walt,
>
>Were simply defining an average kit. What could be so hard
>about that?
>
>Jim Pollock

IMPACT KIT 18 points.
Twister 15 points
Fireball 22 points
little wizard 3 points
HUMMM are there any others?

>Gentelmen,
>
>As an aside to the ARC/ARF BOM thread, why don't we go about
>defining an average kit!
>
>Let the games begin!!!!
>
>Jim Pollock

Jum Buddy,
Defining "what is a kit" is not the answer to this perceived problem at all. The question should be "How much did you build". Let's take a look at our EAA brothers. They have a rule in place that states the builder must build 51% of the aircraft before they can license it with the FAA as a home built. OK, hear is what they get in their kits (for the most part).

Welded Steel Fuselage: The fuselage is welded together along with the fittings. The control system must still be installed along with the landing gear and related wiring and instrumentation. In addition it needs to be covered and painted.

Wings: Some kits provide ribs that are pre-cut and shaped while others supply a set of plans so each rib can be built. Spars need to be built and then the entire wing needs to be assembled, covered, painted then assembled to the fuselage.

Tail Feathers: Pre welded at the factory, but still needing covering, painting, and assembled to the fuselage.

Now when you consider the remaining amount of parts that need to be built and assembled you can clearly see that there is plenty to do to stay within the 51% rule.

How does this translate into a model? Well let's say we bought a wing from one of the foam wing companies that was fully sheeted along with flaps and stab & elevator. Now he buys a fuselage engine crutch. OK, at that point he is still within the 51% rule. He or she has to build the fuselage, assemble the model, install the controls, paint the airframe, and add all the miscellaneous parts.

Now lets talk about a Quick Build kit model: All the major assemblies are pre-built along with the fin, elevators, wheel pants, flaps, controls are installed (?), and pushrods made to length. This does not fit the 51% rule. They're far too many parts that are prefabricated needing only assembly and painting. This same system has been proposed before and in my opinion, if (and that is a big IF) the rules need to be changed, then this is a good procedure to follow.

This is not a debate about the BOM because most of the modelers I know would vote down any proposal that would eliminate the BOM in a heartbeat. Sure there are some that will not be happy until we allow ARF and purchased models to receive appearance points, but that is not consistent with our traditional history or the intent of our sport.

Mikey

P.S. I like our current rules the way they are and I do not think they need changing. However, if the majority votes for a change then by all means change the rules, going through the established manner.

Well, Well,

It appears as though we have defined a KIT - It is anything that someone wants it to be. You ask, how do I know that? Well, the answer is pretty simple. 3 days and 327 view and about three or four valid responses tells me that no one, but no one cares one slight iota what an average kit consists of. Therefore, I declare this thread closed. Please no one else reply, it won't do you any good.

Have a nice day all! I'm done with anything regarding BOM "FOREVER"!

OK I'll have a go.

All this reminds me of a joke about a mastercraftsman who challanges God to see who can make the the best table. So God takes him up and says let there be a solid wallnut dining table with all the bits an bobs (poof) a walnut dining table appears.

Now the craftsmans turn: He takes up his axe and proceeds to chop down a tree. God interupts: Hey hold on, you just go make your own tree!!

That's the trouble with builder of the model, defining where it starts. Ever since ARF, seems the BOM rule needs rethinking.
Maybe some kind of scale of points taking consideration of:

EG. points out of the following:

Own design. 100%
Scratch builtfrom plan. 80%
Die cut buit up. kit 60%
Foam and moulded plastic kit. 40%
Covering and/or finishing required. 20%
Ready to fly. 0%

Others thoughts?

>That's the trouble with builder of the model, defining where
>it starts. Ever since ARF, seems the BOM rule needs
>rethinking.
>Maybe some kind of scale of points taking consideration of:
>
>EG. points out of the following:
>
>Own design. 100%
>Scratch builtfrom plan. 80%
>Die cut buit up. kit 60%
>Foam and moulded plastic kit. 40%
>Covering and/or finishing required. 20%
>Ready to fly. 0%
>
>Others thoughts?
>
>
>Regards,
>Ken

Yes, I have other thoughts. We are back to debating builder of the model. That subject is done for. You are once again changing the rules. The rules exist. We live with them.

The fact of the matter is, we don't need to define what an "average kit" is. We already know. Look at the kits that Brodak puts out. Look at the kits that SIG puts out. Look at the kits RSM puts out. These are all average kits. You build them. You construct the model. It is that simple. Yes, there are ARF's on the market. Yes there will be more. No, they do not qualify as average kits. They aren't even kits. They are "ALMOST READY TO FLY" models.

It is over. The subject is done and done in.

Kaput, ended, finished, done.

Ya this horse has been beat so bad it just a pile of mush