Control Line: Aerobatics
Ted Fancher
THE READERS SPEAK.
As promised, this month's column is devoted to readers' questions about the Builder-of-the-Model rule (BOM), appearance points, and using skill classes at the Nats instead of the historical age classes.
The response to the request for input has been gratifying. In less than four weeks since the December issue, I received 13 thoughtful letters from around the United States. The exceptional thing about the responses is that they come from a variety of expertise levels. Only two were from established "Super Stars," and two of the most thoughtful were from individuals whose major contribution to the event is the hard work they put into making Stunt enjoyable for the rest of us. Many thanks to all!
Needless to say, I can't reproduce the letters in full. Although all are worthy of being considered in context, I have edited and condensed the writers' words as fairly as I can and hope no opinion is unfairly affected.
The writers (whose initials identify their opinions) are:
- Bob Green (Boyertown, PA) — BG
- Dennis Adamisin (Fort Wayne, IN) — DA
- Don McClave (Portland, OR) — DM
- Mike Ditrich (Erie, PA) — MD
- Jeff Reeves (San Diego, CA) — JR
- Paul Walker (Kent, WA) — PW
- Art Adamisin (Taylor, MI) — AA
- Bill Zimmer (Varna, IL) — BZ
- Jim Hoffman (Mesa, AZ) — JH
- Dick Carville (Dracut, MA) — DC
- John Patrolia (Marshfield, MA) — JP
- Larry Oakley (Oklahoma City, OK) — LO
Here we go.
Builder-of-the-Model (BOM)
- DM: "I think we should keep it. Eliminating the BOM would favor those who can afford to buy finished planes from an 'expert' and those who live near an active Stunt contingent where 'hand-me-downs' are available. There's also the issue of skill required to build a competitive airplane. People who have access to, say, Jimmy Casale's backup plane would have an advantage."
- MD: "We must have a BOM rule. Workmanship and finish points would be deducted for the flier who had someone build his plane or another paint it. Is it fair for him to get more points than the person who put his sweat and tears into his plane?"
- JR: "Yes (on BOM) for those fliers in Expert, but I don't see the need for it to apply to the lesser classes. I, for one, like to give my obsolete models to people starting out to encourage them into the hobby."
- AA: "Most complaints about the BOM come from the better fliers. If it is becoming a chore to build every year, take a year off and work at the Nats for a change — see what life is like on this side of the fence."
- BZ: "...the BOM should stay as is. Sure, there's cheating going on, but as one guy told me: 'Do we eliminate rape and murder as crimes because the criminal is not always caught?' It looks like some people think we should follow the rest of society: ready-made, build fast, hurry up, throw it away. Nuts! What's wrong with kids or anyone else learning all the things learned in building a model? What's the rush?"
- JH: "Eliminate the BOM because it is impossible to enforce. I feel the concept of BOM is excellent, but the fatal flaw of impossible enforcement makes it an unworkable rule."
- BG: "I don't build that badly... But when I go to a contest and see the finishes and how well the Stunt planes are built, it makes me sick. I will not bring out my MonoKote, oil-soaked Banshee."
- DA: "De-emphasizing BOM for Beginner and Intermediate sounds like a good idea. They are entry-level events, and getting that first good airplane can be a real pain. Buying it is one way. I wonder how many people have been overwhelmed by the prospect of having to build a full Stunter just to try an event. Many kits are short and none are designed for .40–.60 engines. As for higher classes at the local level and the Nats, the BOM is a must."
- DC: "I believe in the BOM. Although our club has done some positive things, we routinely allow 'borrowed' airplanes. One member has been flying 'borrowed' airplanes for three years openly and takes a penalty of no appearance points. We have another who buys his airplanes and passes them off as his own and does not take the non-appearance-points deduction. This is widely known, but our leadership will not support complaints. This sport is building and flying in that order, and until a rule is changed, flying other people's work as one's own is cheating. It was done at the '85 Nats."
- JP: "The BOM should be kept intact — I will not support or fly in any contest that does not comply with the BOM rule. I have resigned from my club for this reason. I am a model builder and want to associate with other model builders. Competing with models built by others is an unsportsmanlike act."
This sampling shows how strongly people feel about our event. I have toned down some comments a bit.
Appearance points
- LO: "I think there are two ways to look at appearance. Some of the more sophisticated, image-conscious people want to keep our aircraft looking good with appearance points to keep the 'junk' out of this respected event. I see their point to a certain extent. But if there were no appearance points (or BOM) we would have more participation. After all, this is a flying event."
- DA: "As an appearance-point 'have-not,' you might expect me to favor their abolition. Not so. Far be it. Appearance points add immeasurable stature to the event. The usual argument from opponents is that we have a flying event. I suggest that is a non-issue. How can a maximum of twenty appearance points overpower the maximum of 630 flight points? We should be going out of our way to showcase our Nats appearance judging — like Formula 1 RC Pylon Racers — 50-plus Stunters polished to the max in a single setting is an awesome sight. Anyone who thinks MonoKote, etc., are easy, perfect finishes has never tried to use them. I challenge the iron users to try and get their instant 16 points using an iron-on — we'll see what the 'easy' finish is."
- MD: "Stunt is the most beautiful of all CL events. The sight of a big, beautiful plane doing tricks is what got me into Stunt. Even the pilots were clean and neat. That's impressive, and I wanted to be like some of them. Points should be deducted for MonoKote. Beginners and Intermediate pilots could be allowed MonoKote with no point loss, which would eliminate a lot of work for them in the beginning. Or have no appearance points for these two classes — strictly flying points."
- JR: "Yes (on appearance points) in Expert, no in other classes. In Australia there are no appearance points (FAI scoring), but Expert fliers still enjoyed putting fine finishes on their aircraft. Why not reward this effort?"
- PW: "Use them similar to Pylon Racing. Don't make them too costly, but use them to position the flying order. Highest appearance points gets to select his position first — and so on down the line. This removes it from the score sheet but still leaves some incentive."
- AA: "The difference between a 14–16-point airplane and a 19–20-point one is a lot of elbow grease. You might better spend your time flying to make up the four to six points. A 14–16-point airplane is still a pretty neat plane."
- BZ: "What attracts new people to our event? It's the pretty airplanes! They used to give 80 points for appearance. Old Time Stunt should retain appearance points of at least 10 to 20 points. Get some real junkers in that event. I could see going to stand-off appearance judging at the Nats to speed things up. I would take the top 10 to 15 to be more closely judged for the concours award."
- JH: "Clarify the point criteria. At one Nats a pretty airplane was downgraded due to lack of shine. Gloss is only one part of appearance."
- DM: "It's true that the first two rows at any Nats are populated by gorgeous, hand-rubbed airplanes. However, just behind them are several rows of airplanes that look very presentable with finishes within the reach of most fliers. These rows have included numerous MonoKote/Enamel planes that have scored 15–17 points — more than enough to remain competitive."
- JP: "Appearance points are an important incentive to good model building. The Stunt flier chooses design, engine, and all components. He must build, rig, test, and trim the whole airplane. When he competes with this plane, he displays a total picture of his building and flying skill."
Skill classes at the Nats
- LO: "If skill classes at the Nats would help people out, then let's go for it!"
- DA: "Last year I proposed two classes, with voluntary seeding except for fliers with known Nats backgrounds. The lower class would not compete for the Walker Cup, and fliers would have some freedom to move down if they wanted and if they were not competitive in the upper class."
- JP: "There should be no skill classes at the Nats. Skill classes are not always conclusive in the search for excellence, which the Nats should be."
- JR: "Leave what works alone."
- MD: "A good idea for obvious reasons. It lets people test their skills with others in their own class on a national level. Be aware of sandbaggers. It didn't take RC long to acquire 97 classes for their Aerobatics. Why can't we have four?"
- AA: "We already have skill groups: Jr., Sr., and Open. I don't need to see some grown man flying against a kid. Let's help the people in the lower skill groups with clinics, articles, etc."
- BZ: "For sure not the four PAMPA classes. It might work to attract more local contestants, but the most important function is to determine the Nats champion."
- DM: "I like the present Nats format. First, it works well administratively; second, it is sufficiently difficult to qualify for the 'Top 20' to be challenging, but not so hard as to prevent those of us who don't aspire to the National Championship from realizing the satisfaction of achievement at this level. I believe most 'Sportsman'-level fliers can realistically aspire to the 'Top 20', which is a decent level of accomplishment. Let's also leave the Jrs. and Srs. to compete with each other and work harder at helping more kids to become proficient."
- DC: "Skill classes would help promote local participation. Control of the 'sandbaggers' could be a problem, of course."
So, there you have it. Thanks to all the writers for their time and thoughts. I encourage any of you who have opinions to put them on paper and send them to PAMPA through Windy Utrnowski, 9 Union Ave., Little Ferry, NJ 07643.
Ted Fancher 138 Flying Cloud Isle Foster City, CA 94404
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
