Some of you asked about the following so I have included it here so you can see what's been going on at the AMA level:
AMA RULES PROPOSALS
You can see this at http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals.aspx
CLA-09-1 This proposal is to eliminate the Builder of the Model rule as a requirement for CLPA participation.
The Builder-of-the-Model rule does not apply to CL Precision Aerobatics events.
The current rule has become unenforceable. I also feel that the current "interpretation" of the rule is not in the intended spirit of the rule and renders the BOM rule useless.
Submitted by: Steve Moon, AMA #521164
CLA-09-2 - Change the current CLA rules to comply with the FAI Sporting Code as defined in Section 4 Aeromodeling Volume F2, Class F2B. Volume F2, Control Line Annex 4B-Class F2B-Judges Guide and Volume F2, Control Line, Annex 4-H-Class F2B Maneuver Diagrams also apply.
Refer to the FAI Sporting Code Section 4 Aeromodeling, Volume F2 Control Line Class F2B, Annex 4B and Annex 4H. The exceptions to the above rules are as follows:
· The existing AMA three (3) age classification will be retained.
· Safety thongs are required.
· Paragraph 4.2.10 Scoring The K-Factors for all maneuvers shall be one (1).
· Paragraph 4.2.13c Allowable flight time shall be 8 minutes.
· The existing precision aerobatics skill classes shall be retained with all references to the builder of the model deleted. The average score guidelines shall be adjusted to reflect the 10 point maximum/maneuver scoring system.
Currently the USA is the only country that does not use the FAI Sporting Code to define the Control Line Precision Aerobatics event. This proposed change would bring the USA in accord with the rest of the world. The AMA Junior, Senior and Open age classifications would be retained to insure continued competition for the Jim Walker Trophy. The use of the FAI Sporting Code for F2B also eliminates the BOM rule which is virtually impossible to enforce as currently interpreted by the AMA.
Submitted by: Warren Tiahrt, AMA #1751
CLA-09-3 - Allow use of high strength fiber lines in events that currently use stainless steel cables.
General Para.5 .......All lines used to control flights shall be steel music wire or metal of equivalent strength, or braided cables made from gel-spun ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene(GSUMP). ......
The following chart gives the equivalent sizes for GSUMP when substituting them for seven strand stainless steel cables.
.021 stainless= .021(.53 mm) 150 lb. test 30 lb. monofilament equivalent
.018 stainless = .0181(.46 mm) 100 lb test 20 lb. monofilament equivalent diameter
.015 stainless = .0153(.38 mm) 80 lb test. 18 lb monofilament equivalent diameter
.012 stainless = .0122(.31 mm) 50 lb. Test 12 lb. monofilament equivalent diameter
paragraph 5.3.1 (added paragraph)
Gel spun braided lines (Spectra(tm) or Dyneema (tm) fiber) may be terminated two ways. The first is to fold the line back against itself and tie the loop in a double overhand knot by forming a loop with the doubled line and passing the folded end through the loop twice. Lubricate the line with water or saliva to assist in pulling it smoothly tight. To terminate lines using line clips the line should be tied to the clip using a "half blood knot". Loop the line through the clip, wrap the line around the standing end 5-6 times and bring the free end back through the loop on the line clip. Lubricate the knot with water or saliva and pull tight smoothly.
The gel-spun ultra high molecular weight lines offer many advantages over steel wires, both solid and stranded. The GSUMP material is does not kink. It is almost totally immune to fatigue (the lines will not break from vibration at a point where they have been bent). The high visibility colors make it much easier to see the lines laying on the ground. They are highly resistant to wear when rubbed against each other (approximately four times more wear resistant). They stretch less and are easier to make up when they do wear and need replacement. The lines are made of many, many fibers so when wear and fiber breakage are seen they can be replaced in a timely manner.
Control Line Racing: add to paragraph. 5.3 Refer to the control line general rules for control line materials and line construction.
Control Line Navy Carrier: add to paragraph. 4.1 Refer to the control line general rules for control line materials and line construction.
Control Line Precision Aerobatics: add a new paragraph, 4.1 Refer to the control line general rules for control line materials and line construction.
Combat: add a new paragraph: 3.5 Refer to the control line general rules for control line materials and line construction.
Control Line Special Events, (Control Line Endurance, Event 332): add to paragraph. 5 Refer to the control line general rules for control line materials and line construction.
Control Line Scale (Event 508): add to paragraph. 4 Refer to the control line general rules for control line materials and line construction.
Submitted by: Phil Cartier, AMA #6249
CLA-09-4 This proposal adds up to ten (10) additional points to a pilot's score in CLPA events based on construction. It also allows use of certain types of aircraft in CLPA skill class events.
Page CLA-4, 10. Appearance.
Add the following:
Models which are constructed by the modeler may receive up to ten additional appearance points. Models previously excluded from competition per the interpretation of the BOM rule may be considered for appearance and construction bonus provided that the contestant has changed or substantially repaired the airframe and has completely refinished the model. Photographic evidence and/or signed statement of such work shall be provided to persons awarding appearance and construction points upon request. Models presented for construction bonus must be accompanied by photos taken during construction. At least one such photo must be of the plan view of the model, including two scales of commercial manufacture, clearly showing the principal dimensions of the model.
Models made with no pre-formed components (except power train and control system) shall receive the maximum ten points. Models constructed entirely of pre-formed components shall receive minimum construction points.
This change is to properly recognize a contestant's effort to comply with the spirit of CLPA and the BOM rule.
Control Line Precision Aerobatics, for over fifty years, has been populated by contestants who value the construction and appearance of their models as well as flying them. The Academy, in an effort to be attuned to the marketplace, has recently changed the BOM rule. Precision Aerobatics Model Pilots Association, the AMA SIG for CLPA, has also recognized the necessity for change to accommodate the needs of a new generation of modelers. In keeping with this, AMA has endorsed the PAMPA skill classes and included them in the rule book.
This construction bonus properly recognizes the tradition of CLPA and further encourages new modelers to work on the construction and repair of models in addition to flying.
Modelers who build and fly their own model airplanes tend to be long-term members of the Academy. They have brought model aviation to where it is today. This proposal, which recognizes the effort invested by them and supports it continuation, follows the AMA mission statement precisely.
Submitted by: Russell Gifford, AMA #92095
CLA-09-5 For the Control Line Precision Aerobatics event, increase the maximum number of appearance points from the current 20 to 40, with 10 points available separately for realism, originality, workmanship and finish.
In the CLPA rulebook, at the end of Paragraph 10, delete the line "Appearance (Minimum 0 Maximum 20).
Renumber Paragraph 10.1 to Paragraph 10.2.
Add a new paragraph 10.1. The following guidelines are provided to assist the judges:
Workmanship. This category should be basically a qualitative judgment. Quantity should not play any part here except in terms of increased quality. Some of the considerations in this category should be as follows:
On overall inspection does the ship appear to be properly aligned? Are the surfaces smooth without nicks, bumps or tips symmetrical, as well as such other supposedly duplicate areas as wheel pants, etc. Does the plane sit level on the ground? Are the wheels aligned? Does the plane have any obvious flaw?
On the closer inspection are the hinges properly installed? Are the plane's control line/rods neatly finished? Are any seams in evidence? Are the fillets even and smooth? Is the canopy on straight and neatly installed? Is the cockpit detail well executed, and is it in relation to the type of plane rendered? Is the engine cowl well executed? With regard to the finish, is it evenly applied? Are there any faded or smudged spots? Are the trim lines straight and not ragged? Is the detail well defined and evenly applied?
Please note that these are qualitative questions intended to determine only the quality of workmanship and building ability of the modeler.
Realism. Is the model truly realistic? A true scale model of an existing aircraft would be realistic. A novelty model such as a flying locomotive surely is not realistic. Since neither of the two above examples is likely to be seen in a Stun circle, we must judge somewhere in between. The question here is, "Does the model look something like the real airplane"? If the answer is yes-how much so? The type of plane and how real are its finish, markings, etc., in comparison to full-size aircraft of its type, should be the criteria. A beautifully detailed semi-scale F86 Sabre, Bearcat or Chipmunk, etc., should rank higher than a comparatively plain Nobler, Dolphin or Skylark, etc. Markings, lettering, texture, finish and details all play an important part in this category as long as they concur with the mode of aircraft rendered. A complexly detailed cockpit may be required for a jet, but it doesn't belong on the WWI biplane.
Finish. This category has some of the same considerations as Workmanship. In addition to the manner in which the finish has been rendered, the main consideration here is the appearance of the model.
Are the lines of the plane, the color scheme and the overall impression pleasing? If the finish well polished or flat in accordance with the type of plane rendered? So shape and color of appendages such as rudder, stabilizer, wing tips, wheel pants, cowl and spinner fit the overall shape and color of the model? What about the little touches such as a painted prop and spinner or tinted canopy or particularly intricate trim; do they fit the impression of the plane; are they appropriate? In the area of lines, words, rivets and markings, are they excessive or are there too few for the model rendered?
In summation, regardless of what type of plane it is, how much does it appeal to the eye?
Originality: This is a question of design, not of construction. Is the model truly original? This is the only criteria for this category. A semi-scale version of an actual plane such as a Fokker Monoplane, F86 Sabre, Chipmunk or Cosmic Wind is not original. A modified Nobler, Skylark, Dolphin, Ruffy, etc., is not completely original. In fact, there are very few completely original designs being flown today. Originality points should be awarded from a minimum score for a kit or "published plans" mode, through a medium score for a non-kit and non-published and/or extremely modified version of an existing design or semi-scale plane, to a high score for a truly original design.
Poor Fair Good Excellent
Workmanship 4 6 8 10
Realism 4 6 8 10
Finish 4 6 8 10
Originality 4 6 8 10
This proposal reinstates the four categories used through the early 70's of workmanship, realism, finish and originality to emphasize the importance of the builder of the model rule and to recapture the flavor of the event from that era.
Submitted by: Lou Wolgast, AMA #7442
CLA-09-6 Change the title of Paragraph 14 in the Control Line Precision Aerobatics rules to "Judges' Guide" so that it will be used for its intended purpose. Also, a sentence in the introductory paragraph is deleted as it has not bearing as to the purpose of the judges' guide.
In the Control Line Precision Aerobatics rules, change the title of Paragraph 14 " Judging Procedures" to Judges" Guide".
In Paragraph 14.1, delete the last sentence that currently reads, "This document forms part of Section 4 of the FAI Sporting Code applicable to Class F2B Aerobatics".
Insert new Paragraph 14.1.1 and add the words "The maneuver descriptions and maneuver diagrams of Paragraph 13 take precedence over any differences that might appear in this Judges' Guide.
The current CLPA judges guide was incorporated into our AMA rulebook in 2005 and is based on what was then the FAI Control Line Aerobatics (F2B) judges' guide. This guide replaced the previous AMA judges' guide. When the change was made, the section was included as Paragraph 14, "Judging Procedures". This new section is intended to be only a guide to help judges with their subjective task of judging the CLPA pattern. Since this section has not had the title as a guide, confusion has resulted in wording differences in the maneuver descriptions and diagrams of Paragraph 13 and what is contained in Paragraph 14. Paragraph 14 is only to be used as a guide while the maneuver descriptions and diagrams of Paragraph 13 have precedence over whatever differences that might appear in Paragraph 14, which should have been titled "Judges' Guide at the time it was inserted in the rulebook.
Submitted by: Keith Trostle, AMA #3533
CLA-09-7 Eliminate Control Line Precision Aerobatics Pattern Points and adopt the FAI F2B Aerobatics provisions on penalties regarding omitted and incomplete maneuvers.
Replace Paragraph 11, Flight Pattern with a new Paragraph 11, Execution of Maneuvers.
"The maneuvers must be executed in the order listed in Paragraph, Flight Maneuver and Scoring. The contestant may attempt a maneuver only once in any one flight. A score of 0 (zero) will be given for any maneuver omitted or not attempted at all, for any maneuver started but not completed, any maneuver with an incorrect number of consecutive figures (either too few or too many), any maneuver flown out of sequence, and/or any maneuver flown without a minimum of the nominal (two) laps interval after the previous maneuver. When a maneuver is omitted or not attempted at all, the remaining maneuvers shall be scored provided they are attempted in the correct order. When performed after the completion of the Four Leaf Clover maneuver but before the start of the Landing maneuver, other maneuvering shall be permitted. All such maneuver shall not be officially observed nor scored by the judges".
Retain paragraph 11.1
Delete Paragraph 11.2 since the provisions above required a zero score for an attempted or incomplete maneuver. The current AMA rules allow a minimum score of 10 for such a maneuver.
Paragraph 14.21.3 currently states that "every maneuver which is started but not completed by the competitor should be awarded 10 (ten) points". Change this Paragraph 14.21.3 to read: "Judging incomplete maneuvers: any maneuver which is started but not completed shall be awarded a mark of 0 (zero) points".
Paragraph 14.21.5 currently states that maneuvers with an incorrect number of multiple figures are to be awarded a mark of 10 (ten) points. Change the last sentence of Paragraph 14.21.5 to read: "All maneuvers flown in such ways are incorrect and shall be awarded a mark of 0 (zero) points".
This proposal aligns the AMA CLPA rules with the FAI CL F2B Aerobatics rules, effective January 2006 regarding proper execution of the CLPA pattern. Pattern points are now included in the AMA rules as a bonus for fliers to complete the pattern. If a maneuver is not completed, the flier is now penalized twice for not completing the maneuver and for the loss of pattern points. Loss of points for not performing a maneuver is sufficient incentive for the pilot to complete the entire pattern as described in the rulebook.
Submitted by: Keith Trostle, AMA #3533
CLA-09-8 The AMA CLPA rulebook does not (and should not) specify that the climb and dive portions of the square loops and the dive segments of the horizontal square eight are to be vertical to the ground. Paragraph 14 which is to be titled as a "Judges' Guide" states that these segments are to be vertical to the ground which is the wording from the FAI F2B rulebook from which the Judges' Guide was adopted. The wording in our AMA Judges' Guide should be changed so as to not be in conflict with the maneuver descriptions and diagrams for the square maneuvers in the AMA rulebook.
Paragraph 14.28.4: change to read "Judging the first turn plus "vertical climbing segment: the model aircraft should reach and maintain a flight path which is nearly at right angles to the ground".
Paragraph 14.28.6: change to read "Judging the third turn plus "vertical" diving segment; the model aircraft should reach and maintain a flight path which is nearly at right angles to the ground".
Paragraph 14.28.10: delete the sentence that reads "Climb and/or dive segments no "vertical".
Paragraph 14.29.4: change to read "Judging the first turn plus "vertical" dive segment; the model aircraft should reach and maintain a flight path which is nearly at right angles to the round".
Paragraph 14.29.6: change to read "Judging the third turn and "vertical" climbing segment; the model aircraft should reach and maintain a flight path which is nearly at right angles to the ground.
Paragraph 14.29.11: delete the sentence that reads "Climb and/or dive segments no "vertical".
Paragraph 14.32.7: change the last phrase from "reaching and maintaining a flight path which is at right angles to the ground" to "reaching and maintaining a flight path which is nearly at right angles to the ground".
Paragraph 14.32.11: change the last phrase from "reaching and maintaining a flight path which is at right angles to the ground" to "reaching and maintaining a flight path which is nearly at right angles to the ground".
Paragraph 14.32.17: change the eighth sentence from ""Vertical" climb and/or dive segment(s) are not flown at right angles to the ground" to "Vertical" climb segment(s) are not flown at right angles to the ground.
The AMA CLPA rulebook does not specify 90 degree turns on any of the nearly vertical legs of the square loops nor on the diving portions of the horizontal square eights. Currently, Section 14 was copied from the FAI F2B rulebook and states that these legs are to be at right angles to the ground. This change proposal aligns the wording in the Section 14 Judge's guide so that the guide would no longer be contradictory to the AMA descriptions for these maneuvers.
Submitted by: Keith Trostle, AMA #3533
CLA-09-9 The line diameters for piston engine powered Control Line Precision Aerobatic models are currently based on engine displacement while line diameter requirements for electric powered models are based on model weight. This proposal deletes the current line size chart for piston engine powered CLPA models and changes the existing line diameter chart for electric powered CLPA models to include all models.
At the beginning of the CLPA section of the rulebook, delete the entire line diameter/pull test chart for Total Piston Engine Displacement. In the remaining CLPA rulebook charts for line diameters and pull tests, delete "Electric Powered" that appears in the two left hand blocks so that only the term "Model Weight" remains in these two blocks. Maintain the heading at the top of the chart that shows "CL Precision Aerobatics".
The current CLPA rulebook specifies minimum line diameters based on total engine displacement. Power available and total model weight can vary considerably for any given engine displacement. Establishing minimum line diameters based on model weight regardless of the type and size of the powerplant provides a more logical and consistent methodology.
Submitted by: Keith Trostle, AMA #3533
CLA-09-10- The proposed change is to revise and simplify the Builder of the Model (BOM) requirements of the Control Line Precision Aerobatics event.
In the rules for Control Line Precision Aerobatics, insert a new paragraph 2.2 and renumber each succeeding paragraph in Section 2 accordingly. (Old Paragraphs 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 become 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 respectively).
Add Paragraph 2.2 to read: 2.2 The builder of the model for Control Line Precision Aerobatics event is the contestant who performed at least 51% of the effort to complete the model. The Contest Director shall make every reasonable effort to assure that a contestant who receives appearance points has complied with the above stated requirement.
The rulebook definition for the Builder of the Model (Paragraph 6, General Information) is outdated in its reference to prefabrication and the average kit. The proposed change provides a more reasonable standard to determine the Builder of the Model.
Submitted by: Keith Trostle, AMA #3533
WITHDRAWN CLA-09-11 To use same pull test and line requirements for gas powered models as now used for electrics.
Eliminates all reference to "Total Piston Engine Displacement" for Control Line Precision Aerobatics charts. (i.e. required line length and required minimum diameter chart).
Replace with chart based on model weight only e.g. Electric powered model weight chart. This allows models of equal weight whether piston powered, jet/turbine powered or electric powered to fly on the same diameter line/s.
The science and formulas to determine line tension don't differentiate between gas and electric. Rules should reflect the science formulas of weight and speed.
Submitted by, Windy Urtnowski, AMA #72618
Control Line Aerobatics Cross Proposals
CLA-09-9CP1: Add full fuel requirement for piston powered airplane for purpose of determining total model weight.
1. Add the following line to the Model Weight Chart as shown below.
Existing: Electric powered measured model weight includes weight of batteries.
Add: Piston engine powered measured model weight includes full tank of fuel.
2. Change paragraph 2.4 to read: Maximum model weight including any batteries and full fuel is 3.5 kg (7 lbs, 11 oz).
CLA-09-9 proposal is intended to equalize the line diameter and pull test requirements for piston powered and electric powered models. As presently written, the electric models must be weighted with the full power source on board. To make these two classes of powered airplanes equal, the piston powered airplanes have to be weighed with full fuel on board to determine the line size and pull test required.
It could be argued that the piston powered planes don't always require a full tank of fuel and therefore only the amount of fuel required to complete the flight should be weighed. This would lead to judgment calls and be very hard to determine. Electric powered planes always carry excess power to complete the flight and must be weighed with their full battery load, therefore the piston powered planes should be weighed with a full load of fuel.
The intent of CLA-09-9 is to make the piston powered and electric powered planes equal. This cross proposal will accomplish that intent.
Submitted by: Wayne Foster, AMA #959
Proposals CLA-09-6, CLA-09-7, CLA-09-8, and
CLA-09-9 passed. All the rest failed and CLA-09-11 was withdrawn.
Here is something you might be interested in! Here is the letter I received:
I am writing this email on behalf of my dad who read your article in the stunt news magazine. He has several model airplane kits that he is unable to use. Here is a list of what he has:
PDQ Lion Tamer
Nobler Jr Green Box
New Fox 19 old but con.
Gasket set with screws
Needle valve (2)
6 Flo-torque props 8-6
Price: $95.00 Shipping: $10.00
If interested e-mail me and I will arrange to send them.
Thank You ... Pauline
This page was updated Aug. 11, 2008