F2B discussion forum

Discussion forum | List of registered users | Login/Registration | Home
Voting
K Factors; F2B Community Report & Invitation.pdf

The latest revision of the rule text(Acrobat Reader format PDF)
The Judge guide(Acrobat Reader format PDF)

Get Acrobat Reader(5.2MB)

Discussion forum

Only registered users can add comments.

1 - 15 of 380 | Show all ASC | Show all DESC | >>

Peter Germann \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	23.09.2008 - 11:24:07
Perhaps the "reward" issue boils down to the question of how important, in F2B, the material (the airplane and its motor)really is? Well, I do not really know for certain, but from what I have found myself I can clearly state that whenever I had a reasonably good airplane/motor my placings in contest always went up considerably. This, plus the fact that we now see many pilots all of a sudden climb the ladder rather quickly once they enjoy the privilege of flying one of the excellent Yatsenko machines, might be evidence that the material plays a major role in F2B. Admitting a significant influence of the material on the outcome of the contest, modestly rewarding those who go (or must go) the extra mile seems to be an almost natural consequence then.	Tree \| 412
Richard Spurling \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	23.09.2008 - 06:22:11
Quote from Claus: "Our sport is UNIQUE ! Why? Correct me if I’m wrong - but as far as I know we have the ONLY sport where competitors build their own equipment ! " Actually mate, you are incorrect. There are sailing classes that promote building - the Moths and the measurement classes (such as the America's cup yachts) do. Here in Australia, ther are still sailing classes such as the Heron where the top boats are still hand made out of timber because the fibreglass boats can't match them. There are other sports too. What you're referring to are competitions where the equiptment has been standardised for some reason (usually to conserve cost but not always). But that's a minor point and doesn't affect your agument at all. Richard	Tree \| 411
Richard Spurling \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	23.09.2008 - 06:12:28
Cripes Claus, and people call ME an old grump (for those of you who don't speak Australian, that was said with a smile, more than a dash of affection and is a sort of a back handed compliment). How's this for a thought - stunt ALREADY promotes building and building well. Why? Because the model is such an integral part of the final result. You can't be a world champ with a poorly built model. Nor can you be world champ with a poorly trimmed model (which is another discipline altogether). BUT, regardless of the model,it still has to be flown. Even there, many top pilots are already accepting outside assistance in the form of flying coaches - what's the difference between a flying coach fine tuning your flight and someone assembling a dead flat wing for you? Then there's the powertrain - I'm sure no-one would suggest we be forced to make our own engines or even propellors, but getting the power train to work correctly is an art in itself. Stunt is a multi-disciplinary sort. The model must be DESIGNED correctly. The model must be BUILT correctly. The model must be POWERED correctly. The model must be TRIMMED correctly. The pilot must be COACHED correctly. And in competition, on the day, it must be FLOWN correctly. Yet, at the moment, we judge only the FLYING. But, any flaw in one of the preceeding disciplines is reflected in the FLYING score. Therefore, although no points are given for designing, building, powering, trimming or coaching, the affects of those disciplines are reflected in what we do give points for, the flying. Maybe we've got it right after all. Richard	Tree \| 410
Claus Maikis \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	22.09.2008 - 13:03:11
I’m a little disappointed. As pointed out in the original article (on my website www.clacro.de ) - and for late entries into this discussion - the topic was: should we give any reward to F2B pilots who build their own airplanes, YES or NO, and how can we do this. The main idea was to keep, promote, and further the idea and value of building in this modern ready-built world. Discussion about BOM or appearance points was neither necessary nor wanted. It seems that my article was completely misinterpreted, and even after a second note the arguments still centered around those topics which have already been beaten to death in the USA since many decades. Really boring. The “discussion” was mainly a big NO vote on topics which were not even on the agenda. So far, except for one idea no new ones have been offered. I hope we have left this stage behind us now. I’m especially disappointed that none of the “big shots” made a contribution. Those people who are generally respected for their clever ideas and positive influence on our sport. Don’t they want to make their opinions public because they are afraid to get some opposition? Are they just too lazy, or is it that they just don’t care? That would be even worse. By discussion I understand that ideas, opinions, and suggestions are given and discussed. Until now not much has happened. Before we get into the details about how we do it we should first decide on whether we really WANT to do something; remember: “Reward Building” is the topic, not how to judge appearance! There was mention of a separate trophy. In fact this is not a new idea. I have had a busy correspondence about this topic several decades ago with American pilots ( as we know the majority of them doesn’t like this idea and prefers to keep their present system). Also, Peter Germann has already pointed out that this will not bring enough motivation. Those who prefer to buy airplanes will not go through all the work and effort to build a beautiful one - just for a trophy. And we’ll instantly run into the problem of required manpower, criteria rules, time etc. This doesn’t mean that the “reward appearance” idea is wrong. Every contest organizer can arrange such an event. If he feels like doing so he can run a contest and present a trophy. He doesn’t need our permission or a rule. But the motivation for BUILDING can only be created by some reward for exactly THAT ! How we define the criteria is another question and can be discussed later. Peter has already made a suggestion. There’s that old argument “ stunt is a flying event”. At first glance this sounds quite logical. However I feel this statement stays pretty much on the surface only. I want to make it quite clear: I do not support the American “tradition” argument ( “it’s never been a flying event ONLY”). There’s more in our sport than what meets the eye. Our sport is UNIQUE ! Why? Correct me if I’m wrong - but as far as I know we have the ONLY sport where competitors build their own equipment ! I should say: CAN build ! I mean the great possibility to create, design, and build our own thing. Where else is this possible? Look at other sports where technical tools are used for competing: be it sports with ( full size) cars, boats, airplanes, bicycles, parachutes, skis, bob-sleigh, guns, bow and arrow, sword fighting, etc. I’m sure you’ll find still more. You say: they don’t need to build? I say: they’re NOT ALLOWED ! For several years I’ve competed in catamaran regattas. You can be sure that many sailors would have liked to modify the sail and the rig in order to sail faster and beat the competition. But they are restricted to “sailing only”. They are not allowed to realize their ideas and build their own creations. WE ARE ! That makes our sport unique! And since it is unique - why not consider this uniqueness and form the rules accordingly ! Rules which put some attention on designing and building. By the way: there’s a sport where “building” is HIGHLY rewarded. In Formula One Racing they have the “Constructor’s World Championships” !!! Okay, still no new thoughts about how to reward building. You may say so far I haven’t given some myself. That’s right, and I had reasons. I do have a few ideas, but I didn’t want to offer them in the first place. I expected that the instant reaction would be a simple voting “yes” or “no” (mostly no). That’s not a discussion, and I didn’t want to influence other people’s opinion before they had offered their own ideas. The intent of the story was to make other people start to think and to make suggestions. I’ll offer mine here. Before thinking about details you have to think about methods. Peter has chosen the pragmatic method. A simple, quick, and most effective way. Promise somebody a reward and he will do something to get it. It’s the way animals are trained: promise your dog a sausage and it will do the trick. It works, and it works with people, too. I’m fully convinced that this method is a very good way to success. It has only one tiny drawback. As soon as the reward is no longer provided, the motivation quickly fades away. I tend to prefer another method. I would like to CONVINCE people; convince them of the better way, the higher value. If people are convinced a reward is no longer necessary, and motivation for keeping these values (=building) continues. I’m fully aware that this way takes much longer and this goal is harder to achieve. In order to not ask too much and demand an unbearable load on contest organizers, the chosen reward needs not be given to every competitor, on every day, on each flight. In can be given in certain instances and special situations, especially in those cases where there’s some relation to building. This can be situations which do not occur very often. But when they do the “reward” can be extremely helpful for the particular flyer. In my story I’ve used the word “privilege” (for lack of a better word, then). Maybe we should call it advantage, permission, kindness, facilitation, allowance, alleviation, etc. ( English speaking people should find a suitable term). I’ve considered a few examples. 1) In case of a crash the competitor could be given another extra flight ( not a second attempt), regardless what caused the crash ( wind or pilot error). 2) When the lines are ripped or the model is damaged from pull test, the competitor could be allowed sufficient time to replace and/or repair damaged parts; even if this takes more than 30 minutes/ 3 flyers. He could be given the choice of when to fly. 3) In case of loss or damage of the model (theft, destruction, crash, transport) the competitor could be allowed to buy a model on the site or loan a model from another competitor . 4) In case of loss or damage of model during official practice the competitor could be allowed an extra practice flight with this bought/loaned model during official practice ( especially when open practice circle is not available). 5) In case of loosing parts during rollout no Zero-score. I have some more thoughts in the back of my head, but those presented here are what I feel are the most appropriate. I do not see these examples as perfect ideas. They may serve as an impetus for you to start thinking and offer other or even better solutions. At least these thoughts might help to get out of the rut, to leave the cage of endless BOM and appearance thinking. There are other ways to concede rewards, and I’m sure that more than those mentioned here can be found. Yes, I know - installing such kind of rules will conflict with other rules in the book. So what ! If we sincerely want a change or a new goal, a rule addition will not be the problem that can hold us back. I have intentionally chosen these examples. The common main aspect of all of them is to avoid a direct addition of points to the flight score. Using the above listed measures doesn’t noticeably change the running of the contest, is no burden for the organizer, and if not applied ( in case there is no urgency) it’s no disadvantage for the buyers at all. But - whatever advantage for the builders it may have - even if small it might be sufficient to cause some doubters to consider building the model. And the benefit SHOULD be small. I have already heard a few critical voices, and I’d like to address these aspects. 1) I can already hear the complaint of some indignant buyers “this is an unfair advantage for the builders. I have no time to build. I don’t want to be penalized for something which is not my fault”. Well, as can be seen from the examples given above, the advantage is so small and is given so seldom that I cannot see a reason for serious complain. After all, if we want to reach a goal we have to pay for it; there’s no way we can get something for nothing. If we really want to support building and keep these skills and values, we have to honour these values - and that means reward these skills. Or is the general agreement only lip-service !? 2) for the instance: extra flight in case of a crash. In German we have a sentence “show mercy over right”. Is it really so bad to offer a second chance to a comrade who has just lost his airplane? At the World Championships in France the young son of Kaz Minato crashed his model. I’ve seen the disappointment and desperation in Oki’s face, and the disconcerted faces of all onlookers. I just cannot imagine that anybody around would have denied a second chance for this poor guy. And - how do you feel if you’ve beat your (better) rival because he has crashed ? Do you feel okay? If yes, sorry, I do not discuss this point; that’s below my level. 3 ) installation of a rule must never be decided on whether it’s good or bad for me. If a rule is good for the sport it must be installed without consideration of the consequences for me. So, regardless the benefits or penalties for one or a few individuals - if the rule supports our common goal we should accept it. Please remember, my modest suggestions are not just simple rewards for busy builders. They - and yours - should support those high values which our sport has to offer and which you’ll hardly find anywhere else. One last thought. I’m always a little doubtful about those ”flying event only” supporters. To me they seem to keep saying that wine is unnecessary, that it is just another “beverage only”, and that water is all you need to slake thirst. That’s right - as long as your tongue isn’t able to tell the difference between water and wine, and unable to taste the enjoyment and delight a glass of precious wine can bestow. I said I’m a little disappointed. In fact I had not expected much participation in this forum on this topic, and in fact it has been less than expected. One of my friends called me a pessimist. With lots of contribution from your side you can prove him right.	Tree \| 409
Peter Germann \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	21.09.2008 - 13:42:59
I am not trying to be valiant, Richard. Instead I am searching for effective measures, as opposed to ineffective and elaborat "beauty" contests, preserving what I consider being the essence of c/l stunt, designing, building and flying. Of course there will inevitably be problems with the principle of self-declaration but why should a couple of such rather easy to handle difficulties prevent the support of building in general? By the way, wether a system was broke or not can only be found after it has been improved. (Electrics, multiple circle flying,...)	Tree \| 408
Richard Spurling \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	21.09.2008 - 03:36:57
It's a valiant effort Peter. For the record, I would be happy to operate under it. I would be happy for no change to be made (as I feel it's something that doesn't need to be 'fixed'). You will get people who try to push the definition of 'built' and you will get people who will argue about it. It does create work for contest organisers, not a great deal I admit but having run contests, you really don't to be chasing up competitors who haven't ticked a box on the form or settling arguments afterwards where some idiot is arguing about some other idiot who might have ticked the wrong box. It's a good compromise though. Richard	Tree \| 407
Peter Germann \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	20.09.2008 - 11:34:03
Dear Friends In order to illustrate my personal point of view and to bring this discussion one step forward, I would like to submit the following to your kind attention: a.) The current FAI rule status as per September 2008 Sporting Code Volume ABR Section 4A, Section 4B, Section 4C, 2008 Edition Page 12: B.3.1. Competitor Unless stated otherwise, the competitor named on the entry form must be builder of the model aircraft entered. Volume F2 Control Line Model Aircraft, 2008 Edition Page 32: 4.2.2. Characteristics of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft h) Rule B.3.1. Of Section 4B of Volume ABR does not apply to class F2B. ---- b.) Here is a hypothetical FAI rule change proposal intended to motivate flyers to build while not really discriminating competitors using RTF’s: Sporting Code Volume F2 Control Line Model Aircraft, 2008 Edition Page 32: 4.2.2. Characteristics of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft h) Rule B.3.1. Of Section 4B of Volume ABR does not apply to class F2B. Suggested Amendment: i.) If the competitor named on the entry form is the builder of the model aircraft entered, the final scores of all his flights will be multiplied by a bonus factor of 1.01 (+ 1 percent) k.) The use of an industrially manufactured model aircraft such as, for example, ARC (almost ready to cover), ARF (almost ready to fly) and RTF (ready to fly) types or of a model aircraft built by a third party is permitted. It does not qualify the competitor for the bonus as per i). l) In order to qualify the competitor for the bonus, the model aircraft (but not its power train) entered must have been built by the competitor from scratch, from own or third party plans or from a kit containing raw materials and/or structural components prefabricated to a minor level and requiring substantial effort to complete and finish. Kit components could be, for example, cut ribs and formers, control system parts, unpainted sheeted foam parts, unpainted laminate wing and/or fuselage halves, landing gears, canopies and such. Reason: To preserve, support and promote the value of model design and building in the F2B category and to allow the use of models built by third parties. --------- At this point I must declare that the hypothetical proposal above reflects my personal opinion as a builder and flyer of F2B competition model airplanes for almost 50 years, as well as my inner attitude towards our common cause. It is however important to state that the above has nothing to do with the opinion of the members of the F2B Working Group, the point of view of the F2 Subcommittee or the FAI in general. Peter Germann	Tree \| 406
Brett Buck \| Re:	20.09.2008 - 05:19:27
>The problem with adding appearance points to the flying >score arises in the case of very close scores - the >outcome can be determined by the appearance points That's exactly how it is in AMA at the Nationals. I would guess, that over the last 10 years or so (although not as much recently) that the range of flight scoring and the range of appearance scoring works out about 50/50. I have missed the top 5 flyoff several times by about my appearance point deficit. > reducing the event to a pretty plane contest - no thanks!!! But you are completely incorrect about "reducing it to a pretty plane contest". You still have to fly very closely to the other top pilots to even get in the position that it matters. That lets out the vast majority of pilots anywhere in the world. And there have certainly been people who thought and still think they could polish their way to a Walker trophy and have been sorely disappointed. You have to build a nice airplane and you have to fly it at a World-class level. That's the point of stunt, and as below, its a shame that this is not valued. Brett	Tree \| 405
Brett Buck \| It's a shame	20.09.2008 - 05:03:08
As the chief "quote generator" for Claus' original article, I have pretty much said all I could say on the value of BOM/Appearance Points, and I know this entire discussion is not really going anywhere. But I think it's a darn shame so many people have missed the point of stunt - i.e. to build a model and then compete with it. Both are aspects of the event as designed. I feel bad for those who have only know it as a flying event, as not only has it been watered down, it has been turned in to a simple handle-waving affair. As near as I can tell, no one has ever won the W/C with a buy-and-fly model, but sadly I can see the day that it could happen. I sure hope I don't live to see it. Brett	Tree \| 404
Bruno van Hoek \| Re: Reward for Building	15.09.2008 - 09:48:35
Richard, I couldn't have said it any better. This is exactly why we shouldn't want a BOM rule. Bruno	Tree \| 403
Richard Spurling \| Re: Reward for Building	15.09.2008 - 09:21:08
Is rewarding building so important? (theoretical discussion following, I'm not trying to step on anyone's emotions here) With the current state of technology, at top level competition, models built by someone else are either going to be hideously expensive or a labour of love by the builder ... and they will NOT offer any competitive advantage. The largest part of the result will still be the dedication and effort put into flying the thing. That's top level. Further down the ranks, such as at a local competition, it's irrelevant because people pursue this sport for all sorts of reasons and swapping and buying of models is common. For most events, it's not really a problem if Dad (who gets his kicks out of building but can't fly too well any more) builds the model for his son - the results still depend on the amount of effort the pilot puts into his practice. Even in America the BOM rule only applies to their national championships (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). Further, people flying other people's models has been happening since modelling started and you won't stop it happening. I'm sure all of us have used a model built by someone else at some point simply because we ran out of time to build something. At an intellectual level, it's nice to say 'you should build it yourself', but does that really matter in the real world? I say it doesn't. I argued earlier in this thread about the definition of 'building' - I admit I took a puritanical view, but I do believe that's valid IF you are looking at top end competition ... which, I suggest, is the only place a BOM is relevant. I'll take that further. I prefer to build and fly models that I have designed myself. No, not just minor modifications to someone else's work or rough sketches on the back of an envelope - my designs are fully detailed and include individually plotted and drawn ribs. Why would I do that? Because that is where I derive my pleasure - building and flying the things is no more than an excuse to design something else. For what it's worth, I admit I'm rather weird in that respect and in no way suggest that other fliers should be forced to become designers. However, if you want to award points for 'building', why should someone who has bought all the components (including pre-sheeted foam wings and tail with controls and landing gear installed) to someone else's design and just assembled them, get the same bonus as someone who designed the model and them made every component himself? If you wish to reward building, you must reward all aspects and all levels of building. I personally think that to do so is impractical in any real sense and so you are better off either having no reward for building OR keeping it as a seperate event (which is something I do support). While a modeller can build a competitive model for a fraction of ARF models, most will choose to build their own model. Yes, I know the cost of the ARF Nobler and her sisters, but they aren't a top level model are they - in this context, we're talking models such as the Yatchenko models (I hope I spelt that right). The problems arise when you need the factory built machine to be competitive - in that case, I suggest a better move would be to restrict the technology that makes the factory built model better. A similar argument could be applied to cost. Or you could choose to apply a BOM rule ... but those reasons are not relevant yet so I suggest we do not need a BOM yet. I think that the arguments FOR a BOM are largely emotional, and I don't disagree with the sentiments. However, until we reach the point where not having a BOM affects the results at top level, we don't need it. While the definition of 'building' remains so difficult to define in any meaningful way, I don't think we should introduce a rule we don't NEED. Richard	Tree \| 401
Peter Germann \| Re: Reward for Building	14.09.2008 - 11:39:35
Thank you, Xaver, for sharing your point of view on how to support and promote building of airplanes among current and future F2B flyers. You have absolutely no reason to apologise for language. On the contrary,your effort will undoubtedly motiviate others to let the community know what they think. The Internet in general and this Forum in particular is a wonderful tool and we should make best possible us of it.	Tree \| 400
Franz-Xaver Bauer \| Reward for Building	13.09.2008 - 18:01:16
I think the idea of a separate evaluation of Konstruction, Design or Beauty is extremely useful and worthwhile. This would probably people of us to motivate built a model itself. However, such evaluation should not combine with the execution of flight figures. Reasoning: For me, still full in working life (10 to 14 hours daily) I've no time to build my models. Currently i'm dependent to fly ARF models, or those who have built others. So I would like not do disadvantage in comparison with designers and builders. Therefore I am for a separate evaluation of different disciplines. Very good i like the idea of a "Concours d'elegance" or a "Prix d'elegance" as it, very happy and to stimulate the actors, exist in Pepinster. Please, pardon me my bad english. Kind regards, Franz-Xaver Bauer	Tree \| 399
Peter Germann \| Re: Appearance Points?	12.09.2008 - 15:55:32
I must obviously apologise for not being clear. Wht I meant to initiate was a discussion on whether the flyer should receive Something like a "builder-bonus" when he built his own aircraft. He should not be rewarded for the "beauty" of the model which means no appearance points.	Tree \| 398
Jim Hatch \|	12.09.2008 - 11:56:14
I see this has become discussion on appearance points. In my first post I said that I was for a B.O.M. rule and made no mention of awarding points for such. I still believe that there should be a B.O.M. rule to encourage modellers to be modellers and not just flyers but would be against the awarding of points. You either built the model or not. If you built it then you can fly it. If not then don't enter the contest was what I envisaged with no competition being decided on how pretty a model looked. Jim	Tree \| 397

Peter Germann \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	23.09.2008 - 11:24:07
Perhaps the "reward" issue boils down to the question of how important, in F2B, the material (the airplane and its motor)really is? Well, I do not really know for certain, but from what I have found myself I can clearly state that whenever I had a reasonably good airplane/motor my placings in contest always went up considerably. This, plus the fact that we now see many pilots all of a sudden climb the ladder rather quickly once they enjoy the privilege of flying one of the excellent Yatsenko machines, might be evidence that the material plays a major role in F2B. Admitting a significant influence of the material on the outcome of the contest, modestly rewarding those who go (or must go) the extra mile seems to be an almost natural consequence then.	Tree \| 412
Richard Spurling \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	23.09.2008 - 06:22:11
Quote from Claus: "Our sport is UNIQUE ! Why? Correct me if I’m wrong - but as far as I know we have the ONLY sport where competitors build their own equipment ! " Actually mate, you are incorrect. There are sailing classes that promote building - the Moths and the measurement classes (such as the America's cup yachts) do. Here in Australia, ther are still sailing classes such as the Heron where the top boats are still hand made out of timber because the fibreglass boats can't match them. There are other sports too. What you're referring to are competitions where the equiptment has been standardised for some reason (usually to conserve cost but not always). But that's a minor point and doesn't affect your agument at all. Richard	Tree \| 411
Richard Spurling \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	23.09.2008 - 06:12:28
Cripes Claus, and people call ME an old grump (for those of you who don't speak Australian, that was said with a smile, more than a dash of affection and is a sort of a back handed compliment). How's this for a thought - stunt ALREADY promotes building and building well. Why? Because the model is such an integral part of the final result. You can't be a world champ with a poorly built model. Nor can you be world champ with a poorly trimmed model (which is another discipline altogether). BUT, regardless of the model,it still has to be flown. Even there, many top pilots are already accepting outside assistance in the form of flying coaches - what's the difference between a flying coach fine tuning your flight and someone assembling a dead flat wing for you? Then there's the powertrain - I'm sure no-one would suggest we be forced to make our own engines or even propellors, but getting the power train to work correctly is an art in itself. Stunt is a multi-disciplinary sort. The model must be DESIGNED correctly. The model must be BUILT correctly. The model must be POWERED correctly. The model must be TRIMMED correctly. The pilot must be COACHED correctly. And in competition, on the day, it must be FLOWN correctly. Yet, at the moment, we judge only the FLYING. But, any flaw in one of the preceeding disciplines is reflected in the FLYING score. Therefore, although no points are given for designing, building, powering, trimming or coaching, the affects of those disciplines are reflected in what we do give points for, the flying. Maybe we've got it right after all. Richard	Tree \| 410
Claus Maikis \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	22.09.2008 - 13:03:11
I’m a little disappointed. As pointed out in the original article (on my website www.clacro.de ) - and for late entries into this discussion - the topic was: should we give any reward to F2B pilots who build their own airplanes, YES or NO, and how can we do this. The main idea was to keep, promote, and further the idea and value of building in this modern ready-built world. Discussion about BOM or appearance points was neither necessary nor wanted. It seems that my article was completely misinterpreted, and even after a second note the arguments still centered around those topics which have already been beaten to death in the USA since many decades. Really boring. The “discussion” was mainly a big NO vote on topics which were not even on the agenda. So far, except for one idea no new ones have been offered. I hope we have left this stage behind us now. I’m especially disappointed that none of the “big shots” made a contribution. Those people who are generally respected for their clever ideas and positive influence on our sport. Don’t they want to make their opinions public because they are afraid to get some opposition? Are they just too lazy, or is it that they just don’t care? That would be even worse. By discussion I understand that ideas, opinions, and suggestions are given and discussed. Until now not much has happened. Before we get into the details about how we do it we should first decide on whether we really WANT to do something; remember: “Reward Building” is the topic, not how to judge appearance! There was mention of a separate trophy. In fact this is not a new idea. I have had a busy correspondence about this topic several decades ago with American pilots ( as we know the majority of them doesn’t like this idea and prefers to keep their present system). Also, Peter Germann has already pointed out that this will not bring enough motivation. Those who prefer to buy airplanes will not go through all the work and effort to build a beautiful one - just for a trophy. And we’ll instantly run into the problem of required manpower, criteria rules, time etc. This doesn’t mean that the “reward appearance” idea is wrong. Every contest organizer can arrange such an event. If he feels like doing so he can run a contest and present a trophy. He doesn’t need our permission or a rule. But the motivation for BUILDING can only be created by some reward for exactly THAT ! How we define the criteria is another question and can be discussed later. Peter has already made a suggestion. There’s that old argument “ stunt is a flying event”. At first glance this sounds quite logical. However I feel this statement stays pretty much on the surface only. I want to make it quite clear: I do not support the American “tradition” argument ( “it’s never been a flying event ONLY”). There’s more in our sport than what meets the eye. Our sport is UNIQUE ! Why? Correct me if I’m wrong - but as far as I know we have the ONLY sport where competitors build their own equipment ! I should say: CAN build ! I mean the great possibility to create, design, and build our own thing. Where else is this possible? Look at other sports where technical tools are used for competing: be it sports with ( full size) cars, boats, airplanes, bicycles, parachutes, skis, bob-sleigh, guns, bow and arrow, sword fighting, etc. I’m sure you’ll find still more. You say: they don’t need to build? I say: they’re NOT ALLOWED ! For several years I’ve competed in catamaran regattas. You can be sure that many sailors would have liked to modify the sail and the rig in order to sail faster and beat the competition. But they are restricted to “sailing only”. They are not allowed to realize their ideas and build their own creations. WE ARE ! That makes our sport unique! And since it is unique - why not consider this uniqueness and form the rules accordingly ! Rules which put some attention on designing and building. By the way: there’s a sport where “building” is HIGHLY rewarded. In Formula One Racing they have the “Constructor’s World Championships” !!! Okay, still no new thoughts about how to reward building. You may say so far I haven’t given some myself. That’s right, and I had reasons. I do have a few ideas, but I didn’t want to offer them in the first place. I expected that the instant reaction would be a simple voting “yes” or “no” (mostly no). That’s not a discussion, and I didn’t want to influence other people’s opinion before they had offered their own ideas. The intent of the story was to make other people start to think and to make suggestions. I’ll offer mine here. Before thinking about details you have to think about methods. Peter has chosen the pragmatic method. A simple, quick, and most effective way. Promise somebody a reward and he will do something to get it. It’s the way animals are trained: promise your dog a sausage and it will do the trick. It works, and it works with people, too. I’m fully convinced that this method is a very good way to success. It has only one tiny drawback. As soon as the reward is no longer provided, the motivation quickly fades away. I tend to prefer another method. I would like to CONVINCE people; convince them of the better way, the higher value. If people are convinced a reward is no longer necessary, and motivation for keeping these values (=building) continues. I’m fully aware that this way takes much longer and this goal is harder to achieve. In order to not ask too much and demand an unbearable load on contest organizers, the chosen reward needs not be given to every competitor, on every day, on each flight. In can be given in certain instances and special situations, especially in those cases where there’s some relation to building. This can be situations which do not occur very often. But when they do the “reward” can be extremely helpful for the particular flyer. In my story I’ve used the word “privilege” (for lack of a better word, then). Maybe we should call it advantage, permission, kindness, facilitation, allowance, alleviation, etc. ( English speaking people should find a suitable term). I’ve considered a few examples. 1) In case of a crash the competitor could be given another extra flight ( not a second attempt), regardless what caused the crash ( wind or pilot error). 2) When the lines are ripped or the model is damaged from pull test, the competitor could be allowed sufficient time to replace and/or repair damaged parts; even if this takes more than 30 minutes/ 3 flyers. He could be given the choice of when to fly. 3) In case of loss or damage of the model (theft, destruction, crash, transport) the competitor could be allowed to buy a model on the site or loan a model from another competitor . 4) In case of loss or damage of model during official practice the competitor could be allowed an extra practice flight with this bought/loaned model during official practice ( especially when open practice circle is not available). 5) In case of loosing parts during rollout no Zero-score. I have some more thoughts in the back of my head, but those presented here are what I feel are the most appropriate. I do not see these examples as perfect ideas. They may serve as an impetus for you to start thinking and offer other or even better solutions. At least these thoughts might help to get out of the rut, to leave the cage of endless BOM and appearance thinking. There are other ways to concede rewards, and I’m sure that more than those mentioned here can be found. Yes, I know - installing such kind of rules will conflict with other rules in the book. So what ! If we sincerely want a change or a new goal, a rule addition will not be the problem that can hold us back. I have intentionally chosen these examples. The common main aspect of all of them is to avoid a direct addition of points to the flight score. Using the above listed measures doesn’t noticeably change the running of the contest, is no burden for the organizer, and if not applied ( in case there is no urgency) it’s no disadvantage for the buyers at all. But - whatever advantage for the builders it may have - even if small it might be sufficient to cause some doubters to consider building the model. And the benefit SHOULD be small. I have already heard a few critical voices, and I’d like to address these aspects. 1) I can already hear the complaint of some indignant buyers “this is an unfair advantage for the builders. I have no time to build. I don’t want to be penalized for something which is not my fault”. Well, as can be seen from the examples given above, the advantage is so small and is given so seldom that I cannot see a reason for serious complain. After all, if we want to reach a goal we have to pay for it; there’s no way we can get something for nothing. If we really want to support building and keep these skills and values, we have to honour these values - and that means reward these skills. Or is the general agreement only lip-service !? 2) for the instance: extra flight in case of a crash. In German we have a sentence “show mercy over right”. Is it really so bad to offer a second chance to a comrade who has just lost his airplane? At the World Championships in France the young son of Kaz Minato crashed his model. I’ve seen the disappointment and desperation in Oki’s face, and the disconcerted faces of all onlookers. I just cannot imagine that anybody around would have denied a second chance for this poor guy. And - how do you feel if you’ve beat your (better) rival because he has crashed ? Do you feel okay? If yes, sorry, I do not discuss this point; that’s below my level. 3 ) installation of a rule must never be decided on whether it’s good or bad for me. If a rule is good for the sport it must be installed without consideration of the consequences for me. So, regardless the benefits or penalties for one or a few individuals - if the rule supports our common goal we should accept it. Please remember, my modest suggestions are not just simple rewards for busy builders. They - and yours - should support those high values which our sport has to offer and which you’ll hardly find anywhere else. One last thought. I’m always a little doubtful about those ”flying event only” supporters. To me they seem to keep saying that wine is unnecessary, that it is just another “beverage only”, and that water is all you need to slake thirst. That’s right - as long as your tongue isn’t able to tell the difference between water and wine, and unable to taste the enjoyment and delight a glass of precious wine can bestow. I said I’m a little disappointed. In fact I had not expected much participation in this forum on this topic, and in fact it has been less than expected. One of my friends called me a pessimist. With lots of contribution from your side you can prove him right.	Tree \| 409
Peter Germann \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	21.09.2008 - 13:42:59
I am not trying to be valiant, Richard. Instead I am searching for effective measures, as opposed to ineffective and elaborat "beauty" contests, preserving what I consider being the essence of c/l stunt, designing, building and flying. Of course there will inevitably be problems with the principle of self-declaration but why should a couple of such rather easy to handle difficulties prevent the support of building in general? By the way, wether a system was broke or not can only be found after it has been improved. (Electrics, multiple circle flying,...)	Tree \| 408
Richard Spurling \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	21.09.2008 - 03:36:57
It's a valiant effort Peter. For the record, I would be happy to operate under it. I would be happy for no change to be made (as I feel it's something that doesn't need to be 'fixed'). You will get people who try to push the definition of 'built' and you will get people who will argue about it. It does create work for contest organisers, not a great deal I admit but having run contests, you really don't to be chasing up competitors who haven't ticked a box on the form or settling arguments afterwards where some idiot is arguing about some other idiot who might have ticked the wrong box. It's a good compromise though. Richard	Tree \| 407
Peter Germann \| Re: How to promote building in F2B	20.09.2008 - 11:34:03
Dear Friends In order to illustrate my personal point of view and to bring this discussion one step forward, I would like to submit the following to your kind attention: a.) The current FAI rule status as per September 2008 Sporting Code Volume ABR Section 4A, Section 4B, Section 4C, 2008 Edition Page 12: B.3.1. Competitor Unless stated otherwise, the competitor named on the entry form must be builder of the model aircraft entered. Volume F2 Control Line Model Aircraft, 2008 Edition Page 32: 4.2.2. Characteristics of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft h) Rule B.3.1. Of Section 4B of Volume ABR does not apply to class F2B. ---- b.) Here is a hypothetical FAI rule change proposal intended to motivate flyers to build while not really discriminating competitors using RTF’s: Sporting Code Volume F2 Control Line Model Aircraft, 2008 Edition Page 32: 4.2.2. Characteristics of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft h) Rule B.3.1. Of Section 4B of Volume ABR does not apply to class F2B. Suggested Amendment: i.) If the competitor named on the entry form is the builder of the model aircraft entered, the final scores of all his flights will be multiplied by a bonus factor of 1.01 (+ 1 percent) k.) The use of an industrially manufactured model aircraft such as, for example, ARC (almost ready to cover), ARF (almost ready to fly) and RTF (ready to fly) types or of a model aircraft built by a third party is permitted. It does not qualify the competitor for the bonus as per i). l) In order to qualify the competitor for the bonus, the model aircraft (but not its power train) entered must have been built by the competitor from scratch, from own or third party plans or from a kit containing raw materials and/or structural components prefabricated to a minor level and requiring substantial effort to complete and finish. Kit components could be, for example, cut ribs and formers, control system parts, unpainted sheeted foam parts, unpainted laminate wing and/or fuselage halves, landing gears, canopies and such. Reason: To preserve, support and promote the value of model design and building in the F2B category and to allow the use of models built by third parties. --------- At this point I must declare that the hypothetical proposal above reflects my personal opinion as a builder and flyer of F2B competition model airplanes for almost 50 years, as well as my inner attitude towards our common cause. It is however important to state that the above has nothing to do with the opinion of the members of the F2B Working Group, the point of view of the F2 Subcommittee or the FAI in general. Peter Germann	Tree \| 406
Brett Buck \| Re:	20.09.2008 - 05:19:27
>The problem with adding appearance points to the flying >score arises in the case of very close scores - the >outcome can be determined by the appearance points That's exactly how it is in AMA at the Nationals. I would guess, that over the last 10 years or so (although not as much recently) that the range of flight scoring and the range of appearance scoring works out about 50/50. I have missed the top 5 flyoff several times by about my appearance point deficit. > reducing the event to a pretty plane contest - no thanks!!! But you are completely incorrect about "reducing it to a pretty plane contest". You still have to fly very closely to the other top pilots to even get in the position that it matters. That lets out the vast majority of pilots anywhere in the world. And there have certainly been people who thought and still think they could polish their way to a Walker trophy and have been sorely disappointed. You have to build a nice airplane and you have to fly it at a World-class level. That's the point of stunt, and as below, its a shame that this is not valued. Brett	Tree \| 405
Brett Buck \| It's a shame	20.09.2008 - 05:03:08
As the chief "quote generator" for Claus' original article, I have pretty much said all I could say on the value of BOM/Appearance Points, and I know this entire discussion is not really going anywhere. But I think it's a darn shame so many people have missed the point of stunt - i.e. to build a model and then compete with it. Both are aspects of the event as designed. I feel bad for those who have only know it as a flying event, as not only has it been watered down, it has been turned in to a simple handle-waving affair. As near as I can tell, no one has ever won the W/C with a buy-and-fly model, but sadly I can see the day that it could happen. I sure hope I don't live to see it. Brett	Tree \| 404
Bruno van Hoek \| Re: Reward for Building	15.09.2008 - 09:48:35
Richard, I couldn't have said it any better. This is exactly why we shouldn't want a BOM rule. Bruno	Tree \| 403
Richard Spurling \| Re: Reward for Building	15.09.2008 - 09:21:08
Is rewarding building so important? (theoretical discussion following, I'm not trying to step on anyone's emotions here) With the current state of technology, at top level competition, models built by someone else are either going to be hideously expensive or a labour of love by the builder ... and they will NOT offer any competitive advantage. The largest part of the result will still be the dedication and effort put into flying the thing. That's top level. Further down the ranks, such as at a local competition, it's irrelevant because people pursue this sport for all sorts of reasons and swapping and buying of models is common. For most events, it's not really a problem if Dad (who gets his kicks out of building but can't fly too well any more) builds the model for his son - the results still depend on the amount of effort the pilot puts into his practice. Even in America the BOM rule only applies to their national championships (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). Further, people flying other people's models has been happening since modelling started and you won't stop it happening. I'm sure all of us have used a model built by someone else at some point simply because we ran out of time to build something. At an intellectual level, it's nice to say 'you should build it yourself', but does that really matter in the real world? I say it doesn't. I argued earlier in this thread about the definition of 'building' - I admit I took a puritanical view, but I do believe that's valid IF you are looking at top end competition ... which, I suggest, is the only place a BOM is relevant. I'll take that further. I prefer to build and fly models that I have designed myself. No, not just minor modifications to someone else's work or rough sketches on the back of an envelope - my designs are fully detailed and include individually plotted and drawn ribs. Why would I do that? Because that is where I derive my pleasure - building and flying the things is no more than an excuse to design something else. For what it's worth, I admit I'm rather weird in that respect and in no way suggest that other fliers should be forced to become designers. However, if you want to award points for 'building', why should someone who has bought all the components (including pre-sheeted foam wings and tail with controls and landing gear installed) to someone else's design and just assembled them, get the same bonus as someone who designed the model and them made every component himself? If you wish to reward building, you must reward all aspects and all levels of building. I personally think that to do so is impractical in any real sense and so you are better off either having no reward for building OR keeping it as a seperate event (which is something I do support). While a modeller can build a competitive model for a fraction of ARF models, most will choose to build their own model. Yes, I know the cost of the ARF Nobler and her sisters, but they aren't a top level model are they - in this context, we're talking models such as the Yatchenko models (I hope I spelt that right). The problems arise when you need the factory built machine to be competitive - in that case, I suggest a better move would be to restrict the technology that makes the factory built model better. A similar argument could be applied to cost. Or you could choose to apply a BOM rule ... but those reasons are not relevant yet so I suggest we do not need a BOM yet. I think that the arguments FOR a BOM are largely emotional, and I don't disagree with the sentiments. However, until we reach the point where not having a BOM affects the results at top level, we don't need it. While the definition of 'building' remains so difficult to define in any meaningful way, I don't think we should introduce a rule we don't NEED. Richard	Tree \| 401
Peter Germann \| Re: Reward for Building	14.09.2008 - 11:39:35
Thank you, Xaver, for sharing your point of view on how to support and promote building of airplanes among current and future F2B flyers. You have absolutely no reason to apologise for language. On the contrary,your effort will undoubtedly motiviate others to let the community know what they think. The Internet in general and this Forum in particular is a wonderful tool and we should make best possible us of it.	Tree \| 400
Franz-Xaver Bauer \| Reward for Building	13.09.2008 - 18:01:16
I think the idea of a separate evaluation of Konstruction, Design or Beauty is extremely useful and worthwhile. This would probably people of us to motivate built a model itself. However, such evaluation should not combine with the execution of flight figures. Reasoning: For me, still full in working life (10 to 14 hours daily) I've no time to build my models. Currently i'm dependent to fly ARF models, or those who have built others. So I would like not do disadvantage in comparison with designers and builders. Therefore I am for a separate evaluation of different disciplines. Very good i like the idea of a "Concours d'elegance" or a "Prix d'elegance" as it, very happy and to stimulate the actors, exist in Pepinster. Please, pardon me my bad english. Kind regards, Franz-Xaver Bauer	Tree \| 399
Peter Germann \| Re: Appearance Points?	12.09.2008 - 15:55:32
I must obviously apologise for not being clear. Wht I meant to initiate was a discussion on whether the flyer should receive Something like a "builder-bonus" when he built his own aircraft. He should not be rewarded for the "beauty" of the model which means no appearance points.	Tree \| 398
Jim Hatch \|	12.09.2008 - 11:56:14
I see this has become discussion on appearance points. In my first post I said that I was for a B.O.M. rule and made no mention of awarding points for such. I still believe that there should be a B.O.M. rule to encourage modellers to be modellers and not just flyers but would be against the awarding of points. You either built the model or not. If you built it then you can fly it. If not then don't enter the contest was what I envisaged with no competition being decided on how pretty a model looked. Jim	Tree \| 397