Academy of Model Aeronautics

Recently I had occasion to offend a friend when I chided him about his propensity to buy ARFs and then want to change contest rules so that his previously non eligible made in China by Sum Yung Guy toy airplane would qualify. What he wants is to drop appearance points and eliminate the builder of the model rule.
WE'RE TALKING STUNT HERE BY THE WAY
What I dislike most about this proposal is the fact that this guy wants to come to the contest with his store bought model and pay no point penalty what so ever for not conforming to the builder of the model rule. If I were for some reason forced to fly ARFs I'm sure that I could make up the 14 or 15 appearance points my models usually get just by getting a lot more trim and practice flying time.
I figure if you need those few extra points you could get for building your own model then build one.
If you can't build one then practice and make up the appearance points by outflying the guys that built their own models.
So my ruling is this--------If you come to my contest you are welcome to compete with that ARF but you'll have to fly good to win because you'll be starting off with zero points.

Attaboy, Frank.

I've heard the argument that maybe everybody doesn't/can't build model planes but will fly the ARFs but they say if they can't get appearance points the odds are too much against them so they stay away from contests. If we want good contestant turn outs we're going to have to allow for guys who forwhatever reason can only produce an ARF to compete with. But COME ON! the ARF guys should quit trying to bend the rules on the BOM issue. It's enough that they get to fly the ARF in contests.
I'm not against ARFs at all. They can be a lot of fun and many of them fly very well and it is a short, inexpensive way to get rolling on a control line hobby. I even have an ARF myself. But I haven't asked for appearance points or any other concession from the rule book.

Frank,
I have been thinking this one over a bit after reading the Colan proposal for appearance points on the AMA website. I think that we have gotten a bit confused on what is what here. In my mind BOM and appearance points are not linked together other than currently we are combining the two. We say that you need to be BOM to receive appearance points but the amount of work required to claim that you are the BOM keeps changing as the styles of kits change. I think that we should have the BOM be a bonus on top of appearance points and that the rule be that in order to be the builder of the model, you need to be the person that affixes (bellcrank mount to the wing and the bellcrank to the bellcrank mount) the bellcrank to the wing. We can keep the 20 points for appearance and then add either another flat rate 10 or 20 for those that glue and screw in their bellcranks. It would be like the "no-flap" bonus in OTS.

It is my interpretation that the original BOM was probably for safety and to keep dads from making their kid's airplanes.

Your thoughts?

John

Interesting John. Appearance points for all and bomus points if you build your own.
Where did the bellcrank stipulation come from?

Frank,
I should have actually worded it that you are considered the builder of the model if you did all the work after and including gluing/bolting the bellcrank in. Basically my reasoning is that the BOM is the guy who firms the link between the control lines and the airplane. That point is the bellcrank.

If people are so cranked up on appearance, let everyone have it. Just give a set bonus to the guy that actually ties himself to the airplane.

John

The door is wide open for giving appearance points for ARFs. And I'm sure that at some point they will/are. Too bad. A bunch of lazy guys buy toys then want the guys who are putting in the effort to build their own models to give up the BOM rule and appearance points.

John I think appearance points and the BOM are tied together. If you're not the guy that built the model then you are inelugable for appearance points.

Tops an ARFman gives up is 20 points. If he uses the time he didn't spend building becoming a top notch pilot those twenty points won't matter. So the ARFsters that want appearance points for their ARFs are in effect dumbing down stunt to cover up the fact that they are inept. Stupid. Lazy. Devoid of talent. Slackers. Wankers. Wannabes.

Frank,
You are right that appearance points and BOM are tied together today. It would appear that the trend is to get away from appearance points in contests which can be viewed as either a good or bad thing depending on who you are. I guess this also leads us away from the BOM rule in most contests as well. The last hold out would be the Nats.

On the positive for the ARFs, they may be helping to keep people in the activity or bringing some back now that it is easier to get started or keep going.

Perhaps if contest management would publish if they are going to use the rule or not (by current procedure, they need to notify if there is a deviation) then those that fly ARFs and those that fly their own could decide which contests to attend.

John

I hate to see all the rukes change, especially since I'm in the middle of my own time with stunt and learned it old school, it's a gonna change though.
I predict that the ARFs will bring some folks to the circle and even some new faces. But we'll also see most people rotating in for a couple seasons then going on to the next hobby that they can do with a couple of screwdrivers. I'm betting that ARF manufacturers will abondon text altogether in their assembly sheets and go with pictures and illustrations.
Somebody is going to come up with an electric ready to fly c/l model and when it comes to that day we'll see a huge shift in our hobby. Nitro models will be the new old timer and building a model will be something that's done by eccentrics with lots of tine on their hands.
Freakin' evolution..........

Frank,
There have been a number of packages for the electric motors already available and we don't see too many of them out at the fields. It was not too long ago that everyone was going to use a piped engine and then there was the 4-stroke era. If you look around you see some of each but not just a single package. I think that the electrics will appeal to some and that is what they will fly. There will be others that don't mind wiping the castor off of their airplanes and that is what they will fly. People will still continue to build airplanes, because that is what they like to and others will buy theirs because that is what they want to do. I think that we only need to find a way to level the field at the contests based on the amount of effort a pilot has put into his ship. We could do away with all of this as many have suggested to make things easier for contest management and I would predict that we would see just about the same mix of people flying the same mix of airplanes as we see today. What we all have in common is that we are having a good time doing what we do and like to place ourselves against each other in the circle of honor to see who can draw figures in the sky the best. For me the building is great but I don't really have a knack for color combinations so appearance is not that big of a deal to me personally. Good quality building, good engineering into the model and good flying is what it is all about for me. For you it might be different, but the real test of what we have done comes in the circle. Your cool paint job might appeal more to the judges than my precise maneuvering. Hey, that is the way it works. My guess is that a good looking airplane flying well will do better than a clear coated ARC flying a hair better. Probably enough rambling for now. The important part of what I am trying to say is that we do this activity for ourselves. There should be a way to level the field with respect to the awarding of points based on effort, but I don't have the perfect answer for that. we should continue to do this because it is what we like to do.
John

That is so Zen! I kinda like the idea of clubbing those that do not comply.
I don't have any qualms about electric models. That's a natural evolution curve.

Good discussion guys, not a lot to add subtract or mutilate - but that never stopped me from pontificating! John's last post pretty well summed it up.

I have never understood the argument that appearance points are SEPARATE. To me it is part of the total package. Put it this way, Golfers will tell you that Putting is what wins championships. OK, if that's so, Driving, fairway shots and chips mean NOTHING, lets just have a putting contest...

I also understand that BOM is getting more blurred all the time too. Can I buy a pre-built wing from Bob Hunt? Can you even TELL if I did? I do not own a spray gun or a "space suit", can I take my bird to my buddie's house and have HIM spray the magic-but-toxic clear coats on? Happens all the time. I would also never take to task a Dad who wouldn't let their 12 year old handle the poison paint.

Even among the ARF drivers. Some doll up their birds with custom lettering or even just keep them neat. Others treat them as door stops. BOM or not, should the driver of the nice looking ARF get ANY credit?

Thus the idea of separating Appearance points from BOM is, I think, an idea worth discussing.

Using a Bob Hunt wing or having a buddy squirt the top coat is world's different from buying an Arf. I think this is where the argument goes off track. Sharing portions of a build with a pal doesn't conflict with the Bom. Buying a whole plane does. A guy that knows enuff about stunt to buy an ARF that will do the trick already knows he isn't going to get appearance points. That's the way it should be. If you're an ARF pilot just use the shop time you avoided by buying an ARF and practice! We're only talking 20 points here. ARFers get those points with better shapes and corners. Builders get them for taking the time to learn to build a compeitive plane. The old rules just like the Constitution of our country are just as right now as they were when they were written.

Alrighty guys I am not in zen mode, but I am in Brazil. That being what it is, I have a little more time to think about things. Is there a good way to level the field? Maybe. I think that I first introduced the concept in the TDM with the rules for determining the best looking airplane on the field. You could go and review the concept if you would like in the rules, but those are for the TDM. What I would like to propose here is a percentage build as a multiplier for your appearance points. However for this, we would need agreement on what percentages are fair for the work that has been done. For this we will need some discussion, and hey, if it gets popular, maybe we go to the masses!!!

My two cents (using round numbers to make the math easier):

ARF: 25%
ARC: 50%
Rebuilds: % of what you did-be honest and you cannot exceed 80%
Components: 33% for each of what you did (Wing, fuse and tails)
Kits: From the box up-100%
Scratch: There is a lot of work here-110%
Scratch and built your own engine (Konstantine B. and Randy Ryan Rule): 125%
(engine reworks don't qualify)

So here are some examples:
Jay with a rebuild of John's crappy airplane. 10 points at 80%-he scores an 8
Denny with an ARF electric in mint condition. 18 points at 25%-he scores a 4.5
Bob Branch with an ARC finished in a respectable way. 14 points at 50%-he makes a 7
John with a kit airplane and a typical John finish. 13 points at 100%-he scores a 13
Frank with 3rd generation Goldenhawk, typical Carlisle finish. 20 points at 110%. Give that man a 22....
Randy with his next world stomper and own engine. 20 points at 125%-25

Play with the concept a bit and see what other cases you might be able to dream up.
Obrigado,
John

I really liked the 110% and 125% for scratch building plane and engine. You got humor into this as well as presenting a real good idea. How would we determine the pilots percentage? Interview him? Have a questionaire included with registration?