Flying RB Airplanes

Seems to be a lot of disagreement on how to deal with planes that other people built. As a practical matter, it is impossible to distinguish between a Top Flite Nobler ARF and a Ferocious RTF plane(if I was ever to build and sell a Nobler!!).

To me the rules are pretty clear in their intent- one pilot should be flying one airplane in one event. Multiple pilots may not fly the same plane in a particular event. That isn't clearly spelled out in the rules, but the intent seems obvious. The PAMPA Skill Classes digress a bit in that a non BOM plane is specifically allowed, but no appearance points will be awarded. Seems like maybe it is time to clarify this both for AMA and PAMPA. Even in a PAMPA Skill Class event it just doesn't seem right that more than one person flys the same plane.

Why doesn't it seem right? I'd like to hear a well constructd rational argument.

For you to consider??
Modeling as we know it on this forum is generally accepted as building a model and flying it. Maybe there should be a class where everyone flys the same ship,,,,,, I don't know?. If an expert shows up, lets say in the profile 40 class with a fully trimmed and flight proven ship that has won many contests in the passed and has his 6 buddies fly it. That does not seem fair to all those who struggled to put together a flyable properly trimmed ship. If the 6 buddies wish to compete then they should build their own also. Or is their a number I can call to get on the list to fly an experts tried and proven stunt ship that has won many contests in the passed. Where I don't have to be concerned about the engine, venturi size, fuel, the prop size and pitch, the launch RPM, the line length and size, the glow plug, the tank size, the leadout adjustment, the handle adjustments etc, etc, etc. Be nice if someone did it all for me. But that's not modeling is it, it's cheating!!! Those that compete without a level playing field should be ashamed that they are not playing fair and I am surprised and in total shock that so many experts or anyone else would even think of it differently!!!!!!!

>Seems to be a lot of disagreement on how to deal with planes
>that other people built. As a practical matter, it is
>impossible to distinguish between a Top Flite Nobler ARF and
>a Ferocious RTF plane(if I was ever to build and sell a
>Nobler!!).
>
>To me the rules are pretty clear in their intent- one pilot
>should be flying one airplane in one event. Multiple pilots
>may not fly the same plane in a particular event. That
>isn't clearly spelled out in the rules, but the intent seems
>obvious. The PAMPA Skill Classes digress a bit in that a
>non BOM plane is specifically allowed, but no appearance
>points will be awarded. Seems like maybe it is time to
>clarify this both for AMA and PAMPA. Even in a PAMPA Skill
>Class event it just doesn't seem right that more than one
>person flys the same plane.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

GOT IT IN ONE!!!!!!!

Many of us seem to forget that the rules state that the "FLYERS" AMA number must be permanently attached to the upper right wing surface or on the rudder. I don't care who is flying it, but if there is an accident, the guy whose number is on that plane is liable. I could fly your plane, do some damage, lawyers get involved and I just take my handle and walk away, deny flying it, lie or what ever and the guy who loaned me the plane has his AMA number on the wing, he gets the shaft. Only if someone had proof via a video of me flying and the alleged accident, could I be sued. Eye witness reports at any contest are full of holes. Legalities, legalities, legalities.

ferocious writes ...

>>To me the rules are pretty clear in their intent- one pilot
>>should be flying one airplane in one event. Multiple pilots
>>may not fly the same plane in a particular event. That
>>isn't clearly spelled out in the rules, but the intent seems
>>obvious. The PAMPA Skill Classes digress a bit in that a
>>non BOM plane is specifically allowed, but no appearance
>>points will be awarded. Seems like maybe it is time to
>>clarify this both for AMA and PAMPA. Even in a PAMPA Skill
>>Class event it just doesn't seem right that more than one
>>person flys the same plane.
>

If that is the intent, it does indeed need to be spelled out. Personally, I think the BOM belongs in PA - but at some point we have to ask ourselves whether the event is intended to be a competition for flying or something else.

I've seen suggestions in this Forum that those who have contributed greatly to the event - or who have done this or that, or who present this or that image - deserve more favorable scoring, etc., etc.

What would be so wrong with having everyone fly the same airplane? And asking the judges to simply judge the pattern flown ...

Dennis,
ducking now ...

FWIW, we tried to do this last year at our annual contest. Keith Sandburg went to considerable trouble to put together six identical P-40 style ships for the one model event. Because of problems with foam wings, there was only one flyable ship and it wasn't great. So we called the event off. BUT, several flyers did in fact register for it, and I would like to try it again with more suitable planes. So it may be a viable club event.

I can't recall anywhere I've been that more than one guy asked to fly the same plane. Is this common where you are?

Great, IROC stunt flying.

Hmm....

>ferocious writes ...
>
>>>To me the rules are pretty clear in their intent- one pilot
>>>should be flying one airplane in one event. Multiple pilots
>>>may not fly the same plane in a particular event. That
>>>isn't clearly spelled out in the rules, but the intent seems
>>>obvious. The PAMPA Skill Classes digress a bit in that a
>>>non BOM plane is specifically allowed, but no appearance
>>>points will be awarded. Seems like maybe it is time to
>>>clarify this both for AMA and PAMPA. Even in a PAMPA Skill
>>>Class event it just doesn't seem right that more than one
>>>person flys the same plane.
>>
>
>If that is the intent, it does indeed need to be spelled
>out. Personally, I think the BOM belongs in PA - but at
>some point we have to ask ourselves whether the event is
>intended to be a competition for flying or something
>else.
>
>I've seen suggestions in this Forum that those who have
>contributed greatly to the event - or who have done this or
>that, or who present this or that image - deserve
>more favorable scoring, etc., etc.
>
>What would be so wrong with having everyone fly the same
>airplane? And asking the judges to simply judge the pattern
>flown ...
>
>Dennis,
>ducking now ...
>

Ron B.
F4Fguy

While you're down there ducking Dennis,read your rule book.Under "Control Line Precision Aerobatics",section 2.3:"All models shall be identified by the CONTESTANT's AMA license number permanently affixed.........."

Also section 9.1:"Scoring shall be based on the APPEARANCE of the model and on the degree of perfection with which maneuvers are performed."

>Many of us seem to forget that the rules state that the
>"FLYERS" AMA number must be permanently attached to the
>upper right wing surface or on the rudder. I don't care who
>is flying it, but if there is an accident, the guy whose
>number is on that plane is liable. I could fly your plane,
>do some damage, lawyers get involved and I just take my
>handle and walk away, deny flying it, lie or what ever and
>the guy who loaned me the plane has his AMA number on the
>wing, he gets the shaft. Only if someone had proof via a
>video of me flying and the alleged accident, could I be
>sued. Eye witness reports at any contest are full of holes.
> Legalities, legalities, legalities.

Does this preclude letting someone else fly your plane when you're NOT at a contest?

Hey, I like this! some rational discussion.

One flyer/one plane- just from history, and how the rules are written, both AMA and PAMPA this seems to be the intent all along. I personally like it for some of the reasons mentioned.

Now, if you want to run an IROC/ARF Nobler event, I have no problem with that. Might be a lot of fun also. It certainly puts the emphasis on strictly flying.(that's another thread though).

Hi Phil,
At the Marietta contest this past weekend the winning pilot flew the second place pilot's plane in Profile. #2 insisted on the winner doing it! Both are Expert pilots, and the overall entries were low.
No one complained that I know of. As a matter of fact, my son and I both entered and flew the same plane in Profile. After I did a power on inverted landing (ala Mr. '69 NATS), he flew the second round with a borrowed extra plane that hadn't been flown at the contest.
Since there no one had any objections, there was no problem.
I have seen this several times in the past.
One year at Norfolk, all the experts (3) flew the same Magician in Profile which was broken into skill classes, IIRC.
That was quite a blast to watch, the poor old plane wasn't trimmed too good!! LOL!!
Bill <><

I agree. One pilot one plane. End of problem. This should be in all events in every AMA contest.

All,
Just had a contest out here in SoCal, I know of at least four contestants flying models they did not build. Jeff kicked my butt with one. I didn't cry or anything though. It's in the rules that it is legal. So the CD allowed it. Look it up.
Ron,
Stickers or pen is an acceptable medium for affixing the flyers AMA number too.
Chris...

I will add my two cents worth here regarding the rules about AMA numbers on the model. In the Control Line P.A section 2.3 it does indeed say the contestant's AMA number will be on the model, however, this section of the rulebook also states "For event 322,323,324,325,326 therefore it leaves all the other events in limbo. However, if you look in the general section on page 10 of the 2002-2004 book it does state "All models, except indoor, will be identified with the owner's name and address or AMA number on or in the model.

In many respects this is a solution to no known problem. Or at least a "problem" which is only rarely encountered.

It may be worth stating that several times I have let others fly my models in competition. Don McClave and Chris Cox have both availed themselves of this option, once each with first my plans-built Viking and then my current OTS model, a plans-built Zilch X.

In all four instances absolute disaster followed, as in each case the interlopers, purported to be friends of mine, beat me back into second place. With the Zilch X in 2003 it was a mere 1.5 points each time, different fliers, bouncer landings on my part.

Please note this was in OTS, a fairly laid-back category here in the NW. A few years ago we even had Brett, Ted and David share David's model in OTS at the NW Regionals, they cleaned us out, haven't done so since, express no interest in doing it again. Even though I have assured all parties such was *not a problem* and that I would have heard about it if it was.

In Classic the intensity is up a couple notches. I simply cannot recall a single instance of multiple fliers on a single model over the past 10 years. Pretty much the same deal with PA, although such could well have taken place in Beginner or Intermediate without me knowing about it.

Tell ya what, if I were to enter *any* CL Stunt event at *any* contest and saw a crowd flying a single airplane I would see this as an opportunity, not a problem. First, the model simply cannot be ideal for each entrant. Second, they can't all have gotten much practice on the model. Third, they certainly cannot all have had a couple, or even one, tune-up flight on the model, that day and at that site. (Unless it is a very unusual field, one with lots and lots of room. And they start at 7:00a.m.)

Fortunately, the AMA has seen fit to allow a great many options when it comes to the staging of contests. All you have to do is announce special rules or procedures well in advance. So if this gang-banger approach to CL Stunt is a problem in your area, address it in this way. More power to ya.

But don't be messing with me and my boys, which is exactly what happens when we talk about altering the AMA rules.

>Snip<
>Please note this was in OTS, a fairly laid-back category
>here in the NW. A few years ago we even had Brett, Ted and
>David share David's model in OTS at the NW Regionals, they
>cleaned us out, haven't done so since, express no interest
>in doing it again. Even though I have assured all parties
>such was *not a problem* and that I would have heard about
>it if it was.
>

That must have been hilarious…I wish that I could have been there and seen the faces of all those poor schmucks that thought they had a chance at winning something. I wasn’t there but I can just imagine how it must have gone over. Kind of like those new Reality TV shows.

Laid-back Flyer: (Hey look guys, Brett and Ted are coming over to watch us fly OTS. Maybe they will give us some pointers. Those guys fly AWESOME!!!! You know they fly with Paul Walker, the guy that wins that cup all the time. Hey check it out; It looks like they’re going to give Dave’s plane try.

Laid-forward Flyer: (They Entered the contest.)

Laid-back Flyer: (What do you mean they ENTERED.)

Laid-forward Flyer: (Yea, they entered the contest. Apparently it’s not against the rules to borrow someone else’s airplane and compete. All they had to do was give up appearance points or something like that.)

Laid-back Flyer: (We’ve got about an Ice Cubes Chance in Hell in beating those guys. Why would they do such a thing?)

Laid-forward Flyer: (Because they can. According to “The Rules” those guys have every right to enter any contest that they want to. They’re just teaching us how important “The Rules” are and that we should all get involved and vote to change them if we think that they are un-fair or wrong.)

Laid-back Flyer: (C’mon lets go home, I have to gas-up before we get on the Interstate for the long drive home. Did I remember to thank you for helping me build that wing…my plane flies Excellent, I might have had a chance. Wow, 1st , 2nd and 3rd place just like that…)

Queue Music: Bad Boys Bad Boys Whatcha Gonna Do, Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come For You.

Roll credits, Go to commercial.

That must have been a HOOT!

> >Snip<
>>Please note this was in OTS, a fairly laid-back category
>>here in the NW. A few years ago we even had Brett, Ted and
>>David share David's model in OTS at the NW Regionals, they
>>cleaned us out, haven't done so since, express no interest
>>in doing it again. Even though I have assured all parties
>>such was *not a problem* and that I would have heard about
>>it if it was.
>>
>
>That must have been hilarious…I wish that I could have been
>there and seen the faces of all those poor schmucks that
>thought they had a chance at winning something. I wasn’t
>there but I can just imagine how it must have gone over.
>Kind of like those new Reality TV shows.
>
>Laid-back Flyer: (Hey look guys, Brett and Ted are coming
>over to watch us fly OTS. Maybe they will give us some
>pointers. Those guys fly AWESOME!!!! You know they fly with
>Paul Walker, the guy that wins that cup all the time. Hey
>check it out; It looks like they’re going to give Dave’s
>plane try.
>
>Laid-forward Flyer: (They Entered the contest.)
>
>Laid-back Flyer: (What do you mean they ENTERED.)
>
>Laid-forward Flyer: (Yea, they entered the contest.
>Apparently it’s not against the rules to borrow someone
>else’s airplane and compete. All they had to do was give up
>appearance points or something like that.)
>
>Laid-back Flyer: (We’ve got about an Ice Cubes Chance in
>Hell in beating those guys. Why would they do such a thing?)
>
>Laid-forward Flyer: (Because they can. According to “The
>Rules” those guys have every right to enter any contest that
>they want to. They’re just teaching us how important “The
>Rules” are and that we should all get involved and vote to
>change them if we think that they are un-fair or wrong.)
>
>Laid-back Flyer: (C’mon lets go home, I have to gas-up
>before we get on the Interstate for the long drive home. Did
>I remember to thank you for helping me build that wing…my
>plane flies Excellent, I might have had a chance. Wow, 1st ,
>2nd and 3rd place just like that…)
>
>Queue Music: Bad Boys Bad Boys Whatcha Gonna Do, Whatcha
>Gonna Do When They Come For You.
>
>Roll credits, Go to commercial.
>
>That must have been a HOOT!
>
>
>
>Regards,
> John Jolley

This is proof positive that only a very few should attempt to be satirical. It certainly doesn't work in this case.

My sense of the situation was that not only had David not practiced with the OTS model, Ted and Brett flew it on a lark. And had not practiced with it either. I believe all three of them were surprised at the results, this playing a big factor in refusing to go for an encore performance.

Yep, those three are all real good fliers. But I can assure you that going in there were several of us capable of flying head-to-head with them. That we didn't was our failing: we've got our own models with which to practice, had lots of opportunity to be fully tuned up prior to that particular NW Regionals.

If anybody was at a disadvantage, it was Ted and Brett.

It may be worth noting that in 2003 I won OTS at the Regionals with Mike Conner something like 1.5 points back in second place. David was third. Again, it did not appear as if he had practiced with his Veco 19-powered Ringmaster prior to the first round.

>> >Snip<
>>>Please note this was in OTS, a fairly laid-back category
>>>here in the NW. A few years ago we even had Brett, Ted and
>>>David share David's model in OTS at the NW Regionals, they
>>>cleaned us out, haven't done so since, express no interest
>>>in doing it again. Even though I have assured all parties
>>>such was *not a problem* and that I would have heard about
>>>it if it was.
>>>
>>
>>That must have been hilarious…I wish that I could have been
>>there and seen the faces of all those poor schmucks that
>>thought they had a chance at winning something. I wasn’t
>>there but I can just imagine how it must have gone over.
>>Kind of like those new Reality TV shows.
>>
>>Laid-back Flyer: (Hey look guys, Brett and Ted are coming
>>over to watch us fly OTS. Maybe they will give us some
>>pointers. Those guys fly AWESOME!!!! You know they fly with
>>Paul Walker, the guy that wins that cup all the time. Hey
>>check it out; It looks like they’re going to give Dave’s
>>plane try.
>>
>>Laid-forward Flyer: (They Entered the contest.)
>>
>>Laid-back Flyer: (What do you mean they ENTERED.)
>>
>>Laid-forward Flyer: (Yea, they entered the contest.
>>Apparently it’s not against the rules to borrow someone
>>else’s airplane and compete. All they had to do was give up
>>appearance points or something like that.)
>>
>>Laid-back Flyer: (We’ve got about an Ice Cubes Chance in
>>Hell in beating those guys. Why would they do such a thing?)
>>
>>Laid-forward Flyer: (Because they can. According to “The
>>Rules” those guys have every right to enter any contest that
>>they want to. They’re just teaching us how important “The
>>Rules” are and that we should all get involved and vote to
>>change them if we think that they are un-fair or wrong.)
>>
>>Laid-back Flyer: (C’mon lets go home, I have to gas-up
>>before we get on the Interstate for the long drive home. Did
>>I remember to thank you for helping me build that wing…my
>>plane flies Excellent, I might have had a chance. Wow, 1st ,
>>2nd and 3rd place just like that…)
>>
>>Queue Music: Bad Boys Bad Boys Whatcha Gonna Do, Whatcha
>>Gonna Do When They Come For You.
>>
>>Roll credits, Go to commercial.
>>
>>That must have been a HOOT!
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>> John Jolley
>
>This is proof positive that only a very few should attempt
>to be satirical. It certainly doesn't work in this case.
>
>My sense of the situation was that not only had David not
>practiced with the OTS model, Ted and Brett flew it on a
>lark. And had not practiced with it either. I believe all
>three of them were surprised at the results, this playing a
>big factor in refusing to go for an encore performance.
>
>Yep, those three are all real good fliers. But I can assure
>you that going in there were several of us capable of flying
>head-to-head with them. That we didn't was our failing:
>we've got our own models with which to practice, had lots of
>opportunity to be fully tuned up prior to that particular NW
>Regionals.
>
>If anybody was at a disadvantage, it was Ted and Brett.
>
>It may be worth noting that in 2003 I won OTS at the
>Regionals with Mike Conner something like 1.5 points back in
>second place. David was third. Again, it did not appear as
>if he had practiced with his Veco 19-powered Ringmaster
>prior to the first round.
>
>Dan

Good for You Dan. It was worth noting, I didn't know that.

Best Regards,
John Jolley
(Trying not to be satirical.)

>>This is proof positive that only a very few should attempt
>>to be satirical. It certainly doesn't work in this case.
>>
>>My sense of the situation was that not only had David not
>>practiced with the OTS model, Ted and Brett flew it on a
>>lark. And had not practiced with it either. I believe all
>>three of them were surprised at the results, this playing a
>>big factor in refusing to go for an encore performance.
>>
>>Yep, those three are all real good fliers. But I can assure
>>you that going in there were several of us capable of flying
>>head-to-head with them. That we didn't was our failing:
>>we've got our own models with which to practice, had lots of
>>opportunity to be fully tuned up prior to that particular NW
>>Regionals.
>>
>>If anybody was at a disadvantage, it was Ted and Brett.
>>
>>It may be worth noting that in 2003 I won OTS at the
>>Regionals with Mike Conner something like 1.5 points back in
>>second place. David was third. Again, it did not appear as
>>if he had practiced with his Veco 19-powered Ringmaster
>>prior to the first round.
>>
>>Dan
>
>Good for You Dan. It was worth noting, I didn't know that.
>
>Best Regards,
>John Jolley
>(Trying not to be satirical.)
>

John,

Also worth noting was David's really terrific comment, made at the score board following final posting of the scores: "Make you feel good to beat a Ringmaster?" My response was something along the lines of, "Sure, but only if you're the one flying it!"

Laughter rolled through the crowd each time I repeated David's line.

Even today, years after the first appearance of OTS in the NW, a rather decent grouping of fliers and models, this event is indeed a laid-back affair. You ought to see Mike Conner's OTS model! It's even got an *ancient* Fox 35 in it, the model itself is just barely presentable. But like all of Mike's stuff it is nicely trimmed. And the boy can fly it quite well.

>>>This is proof positive that only a very few should attempt
>>>to be satirical. It certainly doesn't work in this case.
>>>
>>>My sense of the situation was that not only had David not
>>>practiced with the OTS model, Ted and Brett flew it on a
>>>lark. And had not practiced with it either. I believe all
>>>three of them were surprised at the results, this playing a
>>>big factor in refusing to go for an encore performance.
>>>
>>>Yep, those three are all real good fliers. But I can assure
>>>you that going in there were several of us capable of flying
>>>head-to-head with them. That we didn't was our failing:
>>>we've got our own models with which to practice, had lots of
>>>opportunity to be fully tuned up prior to that particular NW
>>>Regionals.
>>>
>>>If anybody was at a disadvantage, it was Ted and Brett.
>>>
>>>It may be worth noting that in 2003 I won OTS at the
>>>Regionals with Mike Conner something like 1.5 points back in
>>>second place. David was third. Again, it did not appear as
>>>if he had practiced with his Veco 19-powered Ringmaster
>>>prior to the first round.
>>>
>>>Dan
>>
>>Good for You Dan. It was worth noting, I didn't know that.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>John Jolley
>>(Trying not to be satirical.)
>>
>
>
>John,
>
>Also worth noting was David's really terrific comment, made
>at the score board following final posting of the scores:
>"Make you feel good to beat a Ringmaster?" My response was
>something along the lines of, "Sure, but only if you're the
>one flying it!"
>
>Laughter rolled through the crowd each time I repeated
>David's line.
>
>Even today, years after the first appearance of OTS in the
>NW, a rather decent grouping of fliers and models, this
>event is indeed a laid-back affair. You ought to see Mike
>Conner's OTS model! It's even got an *ancient* Fox 35 in it,
>the model itself is just barely presentable. But like all of
>Mike's stuff it is nicely trimmed. And the boy can fly it
>quite well.
>
>Dan

Are you saying that you are one of the very few that should attempt
to be satirical?

Regards,
John Jolley
(Trying not to be satirical.)

Dan,

Seems to me last year Ted flew Don McClave's red and white Oriental at the Regionals along with Don. Did pretty well with it too, as I remember.

>All,
>Just had a contest out here in SoCal, I know of at least
>four contestants flying models they did not build. Jeff
>kicked my butt with one. I didn't cry or anything though.
>It's in the rules that it is legal. So the CD allowed it.
>Look it up.
>Ron,
>Stickers or pen is an acceptable medium for affixing the
>flyers AMA number too.
>Chris...

Ron B.
F4Fguy

The rule doesn't specify the method.It does say permanently
attached.

If I travel a fair distance to fly a contest, I would like to get my moneys worth for the trip. However, I can only fit so much crap in my car for a road trip. So if someone lets me or anyone else fly their plane( minus appearance points) why not. Its why I made the journey after all. I paid over 250.00 to ship my plane to the NATS, and I cant afford to send more than one. Think about it, airfare, car rental, lodging, meals, shipping cost for model.There is just no way I can ship more than one. And since commraderie and competition is what its all about,I say lets fly whatever we can and enjoy it. The more flyers the better. Even if it means everyone flys Bretts plane. Isn't this hobby supposed to be fun?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks

WORKS FOR ME!!

Larry,

I offer you the chance to fly P-40, OTS, Classic and your favorite blend of PA at the 2004 NW Regionals. All events using my models.

Let me know with enough notice that I can throw in some of the trashier models laying idle about my shop.

Dan you are a true gentleman, I dont care what everyone else on this board says about you. Thank you so much for the offer. I committed myself a couple of months back to do some demo flights at the Watsonville Antique Fly In. I'll also take a couple of beater planes so anyone interested can give it a go. I thought it might be a good idea to spread goodwill and pass around all that is good about C/L modeling. I do look forward to meeting you and all the other wise asses from the Great NorthWest. Good Luck at the Regionals. Larry,NorCal Circle Jerks

>Dan you are a true gentleman, I dont care what everyone else
>on this board says about you. Thank you so much for the
>offer. I committed myself a couple of months back to do some
>demo flights at the Watsonville Antique Fly In. I'll also
>take a couple of beater planes so anyone interested can give
>it a go. I thought it might be a good idea to spread
>goodwill and pass around all that is good about C/L
>modeling. I do look forward to meeting you and all the other
>wise asses from the Great NorthWest. Good Luck at the
>Regionals. Larry,NorCal Circle Jerks

Larry,

As long as above is the case, we will take the obvious route: Not only can you fly my best models, I will pay you $25.00 per flight (including "attempts"), you keep any prizes awarded, I'll clean everything up at the end of the day, you get to kiss all the women I kiss, which is most of them.

All of that aside, keep this option in mind. We've got some neat contests coming up, you could fly in, rent a car. For example, consider the upcoming contest in Vancouver, British Columbia. A short vacation in a foreign country where they don't even speak the same language, use "funny" money and yet appreciate toy model airplanes.

Remember, visiting Canada is a lot like going up in your attic: "Wow, I can't believe all the crap that's up here!"

Anybody with an old Triumph like yours has gotta be more than merely "okay."

>Larry,
>
>I offer you the chance to fly P-40, OTS, Classic and your
>favorite blend of PA at the 2004 NW Regionals. All events
>using my models.
>
>Let me know with enough notice that I can throw in some of
>the trashier models laying idle about my shop.
>
>Dan

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Dan:

Is there enough room on the wing for all those permanently attached AMA numbers?

Is there enough room on the wing for all those permanently attached AMA numbers?
>Ron B.

Hmm, wonder if it's legal to have more than one AMA number permanently affixed to the model? Case in point would be a TEAM that wanted to rotate tasks so that each got a chance to fly and pit.

> Is there enough room on the wing for all those permanently
>attached AMA numbers?
>>Ron B.
>

Ron,

That's right, keep hammering me over the permanence of numbers we have never even considered adding to my own.

I mean, how "permanent" can ironed on MonoKote numbers, such as mine, really be? Even painted numbers cannot be regarded as permanent. Maybe we should brand the structure prior to covering.

You do raise a point worthy of consideration, however. I am considering opening my tank compartment and slipping in the appropriate identification when someone borrows a model of mine.

Once again, will chime in here. The rules call for the contestant's number permanatly attached to the model for the numbered stunt events. Fot the OTS, Classic, p-40 etc There is no specific rule. In the general section of the rules it states 'the OWNER'S number wil be in or on the model. Therefore, the pilot need not be the owner and it doesn't say anything about how many pilots can fly it.

Seems to me the answer is for the contest directors to decide what protocol they wish to use at their contest and publish the rules well ahead of the event. A one pilot/one airplane rule may reduce the number of entries which some may not see as good for the hobby.

Well put Don That was the very point I was trying to make in a pevious post. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN!!! THE MORE PEOPLE FYING, THE MORE FUN WE"LL HAVE !!!!!!!!!!!!! Larry, NorCal Circle Jerks;-)

>I agree. One pilot one plane. End of problem. This should be
>in all events in every AMA contest.

Be kinda hard if the contest is a Combat contest...

>Hi Phil,
>At the Marietta contest this past weekend the winning pilot
>flew the second place pilot's plane in Profile. #2 insisted
>on the winner doing it! Both are Expert pilots, and the
>overall entries were low.
>No one complained that I know of. As a matter of fact, my
>son and I both entered and flew the same plane in Profile.
>After I did a power on inverted landing (ala Mr. '69 NATS),
>he flew the second round with a borrowed extra plane that
>hadn't been flown at the contest.
>Since there no one had any objections, there was no problem.
>I have seen this several times in the past.
>One year at Norfolk, all the experts (3) flew the same
>Magician in Profile which was broken into skill classes,
>IIRC.
>That was quite a blast to watch, the poor old plane wasn't
>trimmed too good!! LOL!!
>Bill <><
>
>When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his
>friends.
>Japanese Proverb

Ron B.
F4Fguy

And the fact that "no one complained" is germane how?

The rule is clear,in both letter and intent.After all the hoo-hah about the rules re(the subject not to be mentioned)being unclear and unenforcable,how can we then use this as an excuse to violate a clear and enforcable rule? The purpose of the rule is patently to prevent exactly the practice under discussion.This is reinforced by the inclusion in the rule of permission to have one backup airplane per contestant.The rules are also clear in allowing deviations IF they are published ahead of time.If you want to have a one airplane/all flyers IROC style contest,go ahead,but don't do it after the fact.

>>Hi Phil,
>>At the Marietta contest this past weekend the winning pilot
>>flew the second place pilot's plane in Profile. #2 insisted
>>on the winner doing it! Both are Expert pilots, and the
>>overall entries were low.
>>No one complained that I know of. As a matter of fact, my
>>son and I both entered and flew the same plane in Profile.
>>After I did a power on inverted landing (ala Mr. '69 NATS),
>>he flew the second round with a borrowed extra plane that
>>hadn't been flown at the contest.
>>Since there no one had any objections, there was no problem.
>>I have seen this several times in the past.
>>One year at Norfolk, all the experts (3) flew the same
>>Magician in Profile which was broken into skill classes,
>>IIRC.
>>That was quite a blast to watch, the poor old plane wasn't
>>trimmed too good!! LOL!!
>>Bill <><
>>
>>When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his
>>friends.
>>Japanese Proverb
>
>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
>And the fact that "no one complained" is germane how?

Point taken, but there is no mention of the (unmentionable) rule in Profile. And the contest's turn out was low at best. I am very sure that the sponsoring club was happy to get the extra fees to defray costs.
It does remind me of agreements that are not in the rules in cases of HS football games where one team is winning by an obscene score, and the coaches "agree" to let the clock run, with no stopping, for the remainder of the game. Some things can just be agreed on in some instances.

> The rule is clear,in both letter and intent.After all the
>hoo-hah about the rules re(the subject not to be
>mentioned)being unclear and unenforcable,how can we then use
>this as an excuse to violate a clear and enforcable rule?
>The purpose of the rule is patently to prevent exactly the
>practice under discussion.This is reinforced by the
>inclusion in the rule of permission to have one backup
>airplane per contestant.The rules are also clear in allowing
>deviations IF they are published ahead of time.If you want
>to have a one airplane/all flyers IROC style contest,go
>ahead,but don't do it after the fact.
>
>Ron B.

Ron, many have never understood my position on this. You might, from earlier posts, know what I have been attempting to say.
The contest was fun, a small local one, and that is about all there is to it. Goes back to a literal translation of the rule(s) that should, in this litigious day and age, be better "worded" and more precise. Take the fact that "borrowed planes" have been used in contests since I returned to the contest scene 12 years ago, and supposedly, there is no rule against it in the "class" section. I know there are rules that supercede other rules, but these things need to be addressed. As to my son's (and my) profile, we both worked on it since there is no (unmentionable) rule in the Profile Stunt event. And the other rules are not really clear in the section about Precision Aerobatics.
Many seem to be against discussing the need for rewriting rules, whatever they may pertain to.
Put a dozen Stunt Pilots in a room, and see how many "interpretations" you get about any rule. If we are reduced to "interpretating" the rules, who's to say which is wrong or which is right? And to paraphrase the Moody Blues: "and which is an illusion?"
Bill <><