Some time ago I remember seeing a homemade 3-line handle system that was much smaller and lighter than the J.Roberts system. 
Any body have a lead on that ?

Several years ago I made a run of 3-line handles baised on "Kelly's" handle as featured in his Hellcat article in MA.  I still have two or three left. In researching profile plans it is evident that Sturdybuilt did not have a complete monopoly on bell cranks and handles.  As to the proposed inclusion of "Radio Control" to Carrier use, I will pass on that one.
Joe

Are not allowed to use RC rigs in control line if the crystal is still in them.  The latest in radio is opening up a whole new world.   

OK, here is a handle option to consider. I have a Sew Mew model someone built about twenty years ago (using engine era dating - a K&B S WART 40) that has a interesting control system. It is a two line system with the up line going to a twist torque unit. I would use a handle that allows the flier to twist the top line for throttle. I have not seen a handle for this system and can imagine a couple of was of built one.
Ron Bennett

Here's something that I cooked up one day, before I realized that I barely have time for picking up CL stunt, much less carrier.

It answers the question "how can I make a balanced handle with a minimum of parts?"

It's shown in the mid-throttle position.  There's three moving parts: the up-line arm, with the throttle lever on it, the down-line arm, and the throttle-line link.  The up- and down-line arms pivot on the frame, the throttle-line arm pivots on the other two arms.

There will be slight interaction between elevator and throttle, because the throttle link tilts as you pull throttle in or out.  I think that there's probably way too little mechanical advantage between the throttle lever and the throttle line movement -- you could extend the down-line arm up instead, but then you may be too insensitive.

So, anyway -- it's a thought, but not fully developed and not even reduced to practice.  About the only thing that I'll say that it does do is show a mechanical arrangement that'll give you zero net force on the throttle lever (at mid throttle) given equal line tensions.

Aaagh!  Not rules!!!

On the one hand, it's just another bit of techno-dinglewazzery that one may choose to use or not.

On the other -- do two thicker lines and a radio really give you that much advantage over three thinner lines (or two insulated lines)?

And, finally -- I don't fly carrier, and if I did I'd do it for the reason you give in your tag line.

Back to handles, here are some pics of the one I mentioned, including the kind of Bc hook up it uses.

Joe,
I think it is feasible to put the 2.4ghz stuff into a handle as I do with my electric control up the wire today. This winter I intend to give the idea a look. I have a 2.4ghz heli unit, but may start simpler with a 3 ch car unit.
The attached pic is of one of my u/tronics handles. All components are in the handle, not trying to use two hands which is more difficult.
john

Joe,
It seems to me that you could do it from your belt, or make a two hand 'handle' to vary the throttle. I have done the belt thing, and have seen others do it. I have a 72mhz system that I hang from my belt, doable, I just preffer everything in my hand, and of course i can't use the 72Mhz if anyone is at the RC field next door.

For multiple functions you have to use the other hand anyway, and with the controls mounted on/in the handle it is easier to see and coordinate.

The attached is a pic of a handle I made quickly for a model that works better two handed. I always meant to put the trigger inside, but moved on to a new design instead

John