Now You're Talking
Jean Pailet
From time to time this section will present thought-provoking ideas on modeling/AMA issues. Timeliness and available space are factors which may affect publication. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as being those of AMA Headquarters staff or the AMA officers.
While driving home from the Y2K Nats (Nationals) this past summer, John Carbone and I were discussing the terms “model” and “toy” as they relate to aeromodeling in general, and to the ongoing controversy over the Builder of the Model rule (BOM) in particular.
Certainly, we agreed, most people would envision buying a toy as opposed to making a model. Similarly, the general public, I think, views our hobby as modelbuilding (as do most of us!). One of the more recent and popular publications devoted to aeromodeling was, in fact, titled Model Builder magazine.
A follow-up reference to two Webster’s dictionaries yielded, in part, the following (emphasis mine).
Toy:
- Any article to play with
- A plaything for children
- Something that is paltry or trifling
- Something for a child to play with
Model:
- To make a model of
- To shape or form
- To construct
- To design
To me, it follows that you purchase a toy while you build (create?) a model.
Aeromodeling has always been a hobby incorporating the three facets of design, construction, and flying — not just “buy it and fly it.” When you simply buy it and fly it, you turn the hobby into a sport. As in all sports, the equipment is bought and then used to play the game.
Certainly, there are many in aeromodeling (and in the AMA hierarchy) who already view it as a sport, to the detriment, in my opinion, of the activity.
While the very serious and complex “store-bought” airplanes being flown in so many FAI (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale) events these days are not mere “toys,” I find it just as hard to regard them as true “models” as to regard those who fly them as real model builders.
You need only to look at the participation level in the non-BOM-rule events at virtually any contest to determine that the ready-built airplanes are diminishing and destroying the hobby by discouraging participation.
As evidenced in one of the FAI Free Flight events at the Y2K Nats, you don’t even have to own the airplane you compete with anymore, much less build it! Two adult (?) fliers competed against each other (and the other entrants) using the same airplane in the same event by simply interchanging taped-on AMA license numbers.
While this is perfectly permissible under the FAI Sporting Code, which has neither a Builder of the Model nor an “Owner of the Model” rule for many events, it is difficult to imagine what possible level of personal satisfaction is achieved by competing in such a manner.
Personally, I don’t get much satisfaction from competing with a model that I didn’t actually design, much less build. Admittedly it’s a bit extremist, but having to fly models designed by someone else is what deters me from competing in the popular Nostalgia and Old-Timer events. I think both of those categories would benefit if newly designed models conforming to the old rules were permitted to compete.
As a nonparticipant in Radio Control I won’t presume to comment on that category of model aviation, except to note that their “buy-and-fly” guys seem to be mostly recreational “Sunday fliers.”
In Free Flight, however, the lack of flying sites restricts recreational flying and most of us do our only flying in competition at contests.
While some may contend that being able to buy or borrow an airplane with which to compete encourages more people to fly, my observations indicate just the opposite.
Those who choose to participate in the highly competitive non-BOM-rule FAI events are seldom novices (of any age level), even though purchased airplanes are permitted. They are almost exclusively highly capable and experienced model builders (in the classic sense of the term).
Unless they believe (as Vince Lombardi did and I don’t) that “winning is everything” or “the only thing,” or whatever it was he said, there has to be some other or additional motivation. Since I’ve not yet been able to grasp just what that is, this leaves me (and you too, I hope) with two rhetorical questions:
- What is that extra motivation?
- Wouldn’t competing (and particularly winning) with one’s own creation be more satisfying and a greater accomplishment?
Jean Pailet Brookfield, New York
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
