Leo Pilachowski said: John Barker's comments confused me. After some thought, I assume John must be speaking about outdoor free flight in Great Britain. The current indoor BMFA rules still have a BOM rule for the indoor classes.
I am Sorry Leo, the whole lot was rather breathless as I tried to say quite a lot without being too long in doing it and, truth to tell, I had forgotten that English Indoor flyers had had another go at writing a BOM rule, which now reads as follows:
The entrant must be the constructor of the model. The constructor may employ generally available building aids or small components in the production of their model but the airframe must be the competitor's own work.
All the Indoor flyers I have met I regard as my friends so I hope none will be offended when I say that I think this 'new rule' only supports my contention that NOBODY COULD WRITE A SENSIBLE BOM RULE. The constructor may employ (use?) small components seems to invite the use of a VP unit! The phrase 'the airframe must be the competitor's (constructor's, entrant's?) own work just highlights the great difficulty of writing International rules. English speakers are notably poor speakers of other languages and although other nationalities are often very good in English it is not easy to write rules involving technical terms that may have many nuances. For example 'airframe' is reasonably well covered in dictionaries but the usual impression I think will be the parts of an aeroplane excluding the Power Train which I am sure would seem to mean that Propellers could be purchased.
John Barker - England
Received on Mon Oct 22 2012 - 14:20:02 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET