ARFs, ARCs,

I decided to hold off on further comments concerning the survey in latest Stunt News (page 83). My copy of the May/June 2004 issue showed up yesterday.

There still seems to be some sort of goofiness going on here. I had been advised to put it all into context, so I made sure to read the preamble. The second time through without moving my lips.

As to who did it, why, and is there an unannounced shortage of AMA rule books, I don't much care at the moment.

For those of us in District 11, however, we might have a problem.

Only days away from our biggest contest of the year, the NW Regionals, the official publication of PAMPA contains what purports to be a survey. And this survey gives the exceedingly strong indication that ARFs are not allowed in skill-level competition. You know, the sort we have at each NW Regionals. And there is a double hit at Beginner PA, thanks to input from copy editor.

(Before going further, isn't it juicily ironic that some of us have made strong cases toward new owners of ARFs in getting them to join PAMPA?)

Now I have no idea of the numbers, but we do know there was actual contest participation in 2003 from owners of ARFs. And forecast to be more from same sources. I have personally seen a good number of ARFs in the hands of retreads and non-Stunt CL guys. Two owners of ARFs have called me, they both claim to have made plans to attend the Regionals, were, uh, slightly "concerned" over the implications of survey.

Scott Riese has got eight new guys coming along. I don't know how many, if any, are taking advantage of ARFs, but these guys were at the Stunt Clinic, appear ready to go.

So. I am making some calls, but this is difficult at best. The new guys, the retreads, are by definition on the periphery of our activities and so not on phone or address logs.

Scott, are you making a few calls? Bruce? Mike? John? What about our Canadian bro's? Bruce, I've seen you active on this site lately, can we be sure all in your area know for certain they can bring, and fly, ARFs and/or ARCs at any NW U.S. contest? Chris Cox, are we covered on this issue in B.C.?

I have refrained from replying to the original thread, because I too had not yet received my Stunt News.
Now that I have, I too find it very unusual. What struck me as strange is that Allen B. has put my Nobler Arf at least twice into his Stunt News column (as well as a few other contestants). These photos were taken while I was competing at the TreeTown and Peoria Contests (and Allen took the photos!). So something is a little screwy. I am not a big one for conspiracy theories, so I put it down to the hectic nature of modern life!

It might be of interest that all three intermediate entrants in the recent OKC contest elected to fly ARF Noblers though I know some of these people have nice personally built airplanes as well.
After due consideration, consulting the tarot cards, howling at the moon and rolling in the dirt, contest officials made an executive decision to allow these gentlemen to fly minus appearance points.

Actually this was a no brainer as had we done otherwise, they would likely have demanded a refund of entry fees.

As a side note and possibly deserving of it's own thread, is the fact that I got a call last night from one of these gentlemen who indicated major control repair/replacement would be needed before the Nobler flies again. The flap pushrod had worn an approximately 3/16 diameter hole in the pot metal bellcrank and the looseness was noticeable in flight, thus prompting the inspection. It was also noted that the 1/32 solid leadouts(replaced before flight)were rapidly sawing through the bellcrank also. I guestimate this airplane has 100 to 200 flights on it.

>the fact that I got a call last night from one of these
>gentlemen who indicated major control repair/replacement
>would be needed before the Nobler flies again. The flap
>pushrod had worn an approximately 3/16 diameter hole in the
>pot metal bellcrank and the looseness was noticeable in
>flight, thus prompting the inspection. It was also noted
>that the 1/32 solid leadouts(replaced before flight)were
>rapidly sawing through the bellcrank also. I guestimate this
>airplane has 100 to 200 flights on it.

Jim;

This almost sounds of planned obsolesence. Having the controls fail at 300 or so flights guarantees that more will be bought.

Naaaah.

V/r

>Jim;
>
>This almost sounds of planned obsolesence. Having the
>controls fail at 300 or so flights guarantees that more will
>be bought.
>
>Naaaah.
>
>V/r
>
>Bob

People may also find themselves buying more Brodak ARF's when they finally make it out as these, from what I hear, have proper controls, adjustable leadouts, weight boxes, etc.

>>
>>Bob
>
>People may also find themselves buying more Brodak ARF's
>when they finally make it out as these, from what I hear,
>have proper controls, adjustable leadouts, weight boxes,
>etc.

Len;

Agreed. I am glad to see John offering the Smoothie and Oriental.

What would really be slick is if he would offer something like the Vector 40 in ARF or ARC. Then we would have a ship with modern moments, airfoils, areas, etc in ARF. I'll bet he would sell more of them than he would Smoothies.

V/r

>What would really be slick is if he would offer something
>like the Vector 40 in ARF or ARC. Then we would have a ship
>with modern moments, airfoils, areas, etc in ARF. I'll bet
>he would sell more of them than he would Smoothies.
>
>V/r
>
>Bob

He has a lot of planes in the works. He might be thinking that the people who are interested in the Vector might be the ones wanting to build it themselves. What really has me concerned is the fact that the ARFs are nearly (and sometimes below) the cost of a good kit. With too many ARFs out there the kit business may dry up. I like building from "scratch" anyway, but if we lose the kit business we could lose the modelers. Teaching people to build is a big part of the hobby, whether some people believe that or not.

I like building from
>"scratch" anyway, but if we lose the kit business we could
>lose the modelers. Teaching people to build is a big part
>of the hobby, whether some people believe that or not.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

There you go again,Len.
I'll try once more:In terms of cake:

(1)Scratch = Homemade

(2)Plans built = From someone else's recipe

(3)Kit built = From a mix

(4)ARF = Store bought

On the other hand,I am in complete agreement on the overall effect of ARFs on the hobby/sport of PA.They are ,no doubt,good for the hobby business,in the short term bottom line,but when has the business been concerned about the long term interest of the modeler?This is at least as much a problem with modelers as it is with the industry.Business responds to demand.If we as modelers stop buying ARFs,they'll go away.If we continue to integrate them into competition,they will soon dominate.At that point the builder is at a disadvantage,simply because the development of new approaches will pass to those who can best afford it,the manufacturers.this will inevitably lead to factory sponsored pilots,and eventually factory teams.Sound far fetched? Check out TOC,or even The Scale Masters(Violett etal).

It's a very slippery slope.

That said,Dan and Brett are absolutely right!!There is not now nor has there ever been any prohibition of ARFs in PAMPA competition.

Ron,

I suspect that's a bit pessimistic. I suspect that if ARF models proliferate, we'll see a much bigger push to eliminate BOM (Hey, if I was flying one, I would push for this...why handicap yourself?). Secondly, you will probably see 1) a certain class of people just buy ARFs and compete 2) a certain class will let ARFs lead them deeper into the hobby/sport (whatever) and will begin building their own planes. We will possibly see 2 classes of flyers. ARF and non-ARF. I'm with Brett. I doubt you'll end up seeing effects like TOC. Just not enough money in stunt. But I suppose it could happen.

But in the end, a lot of us (I would like to think that it is most of us) will continue to roll our own. A lot of us just like to build and fly. It's the combination of the numerous aspects of this event that attracted us here in the first place. I once heard Ted say that (paraphrasing) in order to be a successful stunt flyer, you need to be a mechanic, an artist, a craftsman, an athelete, a problem-solver and a con-man, all rolled into one. This is why I'm here and I imagine it's why a lot of us are here. The guys that end up just buying and flying will probably never really understand that. But hey, if it gets more people involved...cool.

I'm getting what I want out of the event. If ARFs let other enjoy it; fine. But you'll probably never see me with one. But you never know.

>Ron,
>
>I suspect that's a bit pessimistic. I suspect that if ARF
>models proliferate, we'll see a much bigger push to
>eliminate BOM (Hey, if I was flying one, I would push for
>this...why handicap yourself?). Secondly, you will probably
>see 1) a certain class of people just buy ARFs and compete
>2) a certain class will let ARFs lead them deeper into the
>hobby/sport (whatever) and will begin building their own
>planes. We will possibly see 2 classes of flyers. ARF and
>non-ARF. I'm with Brett. I doubt you'll end up seeing
>effects like TOC. Just not enough money in stunt. But I
>suppose it could happen.
>
>But in the end, a lot of us (I would like to think that it
>is most of us) will continue to roll our own. A lot of us
>just like to build and fly. It's the combination of the
>numerous aspects of this event that attracted us here in the
>first place. I once heard Ted say that (paraphrasing) in
>order to be a successful stunt flyer, you need to be a
>mechanic, an artist, a craftsman, an athelete, a
>problem-solver and a con-man, all rolled into one. This is
>why I'm here and I imagine it's why a lot of us are here.
>The guys that end up just buying and flying will probably
>never really understand that. But hey, if it gets more
>people involved...cool.
>
>I'm getting what I want out of the event. If ARFs let other
>enjoy it; fine. But you'll probably never see me with one.
>But you never know.
>
>Randy

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Randy:

(a little late since I lost the thread to a page shift)
Obviously,I chose a couple of extreme examples,but no matter how you slice it,ARFs have never been good for the hobby/sport of modeling.They have been very good for the hobby business.You're right about the likelihood of a PAMPA TOC,but look at free flight and,to a large extent,combat.Both have become dominated by ARFs or ARF components.Both have shrunk to a small fraction of the modeling population.PAMPA is (to my knowlege)growing.To a large extent,this is BECAUSE of the variety of design of PA aircraft,and the originality and workmanship shown on any contest flight line.

>
>>Jim;
>>
>>This almost sounds of planned obsolesence. Having the
>>controls fail at 300 or so flights guarantees that more will
>>be bought.
>>
>>Naaaah.
>>
>>V/r
>>
>>Bob
>
>People may also find themselves buying more Brodak ARF's
>when they finally make it out as these, from what I hear,
>have proper controls, adjustable leadouts, weight boxes,
>etc.

I would sure think so. I would still debate the overall commericial viability of ARFs, but it wouldn't take much extra cost to fix thees sorts of problems and that's got to make them much more desirable than the Nobler - to people who know better, anyway.

Tower has a better marketing base, of course, particularly if you think this will draw in new fliers.

>This almost sounds of planned obsolesence. Having the controls fail at 300 or so flights guarantees that more will be bought.

I guess I sorta thought the same thing. After all, neither the Chinese or Top Flite/Great Plans are a model of business ethics.

A bonus: Might help the engine or very pricey OS part demand also if those suggested blue motors go into the asphalt.

The Sig 3" nylon bellcranks are around at $.50 or so each in a four pack, are functional, and could probably be made in China for a penny apiece or less so it does make you wonder.

>It might be of interest that all three intermediate entrants
>in the recent OKC contest elected to fly ARF Noblers though
>I know some of these people have nice personally built
>airplanes as well.
>After due consideration, consulting the tarot cards, howling
>at the moon and rolling in the dirt, contest officials made
>an executive decision to allow these gentlemen to fly minus
>appearance points.
>
>Actually this was a no brainer as had we done otherwise,
>they would likely have demanded a refund of entry fees.

That's the point - I just don't see what's new about the issue in principle. Whether or not you think it's a good idea to have non-builder airplane compete (and I actually am perfectly fine with the current situation), these have been official AMA rules for 10 years and defacto rules since the mid-70's. Nothing at all has changed aside from the quantities.

Of course individual contests can do as they please, but if ARFs are a problem, why haven't we been disallowing borrowed/purchased from others airplanes, too? Does the fact that you might have bought one from an individual differ from the fact that you bought one from a corporation?

In short, what is there to decide? We already decided a long time ago...

I repeat - this is all apparently a MISUNDERSTANDING resulting from a item presented somewhat out of context. Seems to m that instead of beating each other up over a long-since-decided issue, we ought to just clear up the misunderstanding (my sole goal in all this, whether it seemed that way, or not) and MOVE ON.

>
>As a side note and possibly deserving of it's own thread, is
>the fact that I got a call last night from one of these
>gentlemen who indicated major control repair/replacement
>would be needed before the Nobler flies again. The flap
>pushrod had worn an approximately 3/16 diameter hole in the
>pot metal bellcrank and the looseness was noticeable in
>flight, thus prompting the inspection. It was also noted
>that the 1/32 solid leadouts(replaced before flight)were
>rapidly sawing through the bellcrank also. I guestimate this
>airplane has 100 to 200 flights on it.

I've seen several of those types of problems. The controls are just not going to make it, and just because it's a bargain doesn't mean you ought to just accept a crash every 2-300 flights. At least the bellcrank issue just makes it crash - the leadouts make it potentially crash outside the circle.

Brett,
I agree. I don't know what all the hub-bub is about. No appearance points, in classes that assign them, but they are allowed to fly per the rules.
Bill <><

>I repeat - this is all apparently a MISUNDERSTANDING resulting from a item presented somewhat out of context. Seems to m that instead of beating each other up over a long-since-decided issue, we ought to just clear up the misunderstanding (my sole goal in all this, whether it seemed that way, or not) and MOVE ON.

big snip...

I am willing to accept that this is a simple misunderstanding, either on its own or due to being presented out of context. Other than an "apparently" comment I have yet to hear from anyone making this case, however.

We should not be willing to just blithely accept either the preamble to the survey or the survey itself as an "Oh, excuse me!" sort of deal.

I most certainly will not willingly accept potential damage done to efforts in the NW toward promotion and use of ARFs in both sport flying and contest applications.

In short, if we are to move on, and I would like to, let's hear from Allen and Tom as to their intentions, the purpose of this survey. And why people like me who rather resent the strong "You can't fly that ARF/ARC here!" implications presented in this survey are incorrect.

Possibly one of them might even be interested in returning the three phone calls I received recently, each caller initially berating me for telling them a falsehood, that they could fly their ARFs in any NW contest.

Yes, I do take this issue seriously. Possibly too seriously. But rather than mindlessly whine about it, I have taken steps toward seeing that NW newbies, retreads and old hands get the true word straight from the AMA rule book.

And I just mailed letters to the principles behind this survey, a cc: here and there for equally concerned folk.

I should have pointed out to Allen and Tom that **at the very least** a suitable correction ought appear in the next Stunt News. Or maybe not, snail mail bringing my letters to them days past the SN submission deadline. Which technically was yesterday.

A willingness to do this would not only be the right thing to do, it would immeasurably help the "Let's move on" spirit being forwarded.

Dan,
--and anyone else finding it difficult to get a current AMA Competition Rules book:

If you're here on SSW you can certainly log onto AMA's site. AMA members, and possibly mere site subscribers, can read and/or download the current rulebook as PDF...

Again, if you are here, your system most likely can read PDFs...

Denying a flier entry -- THAT IS LEGAL ACCORDING TO AMA OFFICIAL COMEPTITION RULES -- is the kind of local exception that is also allowed by AMA Rules. However, such exceptions must be publicized in advance of the meet date. In other words, if the upper Midwest fliers wish to ban boxed ARC/ARFs from contests, they certainly can.

If they run OFFICIAL AMA 323 thru 326, (BEG thru EXP)banning ARF/Cs, that's a local variant. Just listing the events gives reason to expect that the event rules will apply. These rules allow OPs, RBs, ARF/Cs, whatever, without appearance points. Do it different and you have to let people know.