Author Topic: Rules Proposals (Read 10220 times)

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #50 on:** April 01, 2012, 10:54:12 PM »

Actually, we allow you to enter electric or glow in any of the 'rulebook' events also. Or you can enter electrics in our 'NCS Sport' event for "% of top 20" electric classes. Basically, NCS Sport is fly anything that fits one of the top 20 categories - Nostalgia's, Skyrays, Sportsman Profile, Electrics. Just a catch-all event to allow you to bring whatever you have flying. I had decided to drop .15 carrier and just fly those in the NCS Sport event, but I have a couple of newbies with .15's so the entry may merit having it stay separate for at least one more year.

By the way -- Polk City, Iowa; Dates are May 5-6; Carrier is Saturday, all day. Class 1-2 combined, AMA Profile, .15 Denver Rules, NCS Sport

Class 1-2 combined % of record (you can fly both, if you want - you will be credited with the best % score of the two)

.15 Denver rules (We still allow .19 cross-flow engines, though no one has ever brought one)

NCS Sport (Fly as many classes as you have planes that fit -- You will be credited with the best % score of them)

ALL FLIGHTS will be submitted to HLL for top twenty inclusion, not just your best % score(s).

Joe Just · « **Reply #51 on:** April 02, 2012, 09:29:44 AM »

My point is, and I hope that I won't dive in again, with Eric's fabulous improvement in "E" .15 the die has been cast. "E" now has the advantage and Eric will only have others following his ground breaking efforts with different setups than what they are now flying. "E" .15 is now the top preforming way to go. Either we set up "E" as a separate event, or be happy with being an also ran competitor. What harm can having "E" separate happen? On the other hand, just how many classes an we support? We already have 13 classes, and while I do not hasten to say this, we are getting some really poor comments from other Cl folks including this one that came to me via a phone call. ..........(quote) " you want me to fly Carrier? What a joke! You got more classes now than competitors at the Nats!"

Now, to the close, and I promise not to say more on this series of threads. In the past 4 years i have shipped nearly 100 Profile kits, the majority going to places within the U.S. I have received numerous positive feedback on these kits. However in watching closely I can only find less than 10 buyers of my kits even flying in any Carrier competition. The only result I can even try to come up with is while interest in flying with the 3rd line is possibly growing, interest in competing is waning. I seriously doubt, and I hope I am 100% wrong in this, Carrier competition will fade away unless we seriously consider major changes in our event. I am hoping that the NCS will setup a "Competition Panel" to iron out what should be the future of Carrier, and then live with the changes they come up with.

Thanks for looking at this ranting. I only hope it will be my last rant on the topic. PM's readily accepted.

Joe Just

eric david conley · « **Reply #52 on:** April 02, 2012, 11:16:11 AM »

Well Joe, I'm afraid that my 2011 e-15 and I are sadly over rated as far as something new and so wonderful. I took advantage of a new and untried rule that I saw as one I could realy work with and worked to that end. The weight rule in e-carrier is the greatest thing that ever came along and I wish all carrier rules would be changed to the way it is written. As long as you build the plane to such and such weight you can put anything in it you want. The most simple rule and clearest rule I have ever seen. Finally the builder flier gets to use his or her brain and build the plane that he thinks will do the very best, fly fast, fly slow, and take off and land on the carrier deck, period.. What a great idea.
We have been building .15 planes the same way with the same engines and flying them the same way for so long that we've become blind to anything else. I think there are only 2 people using the Nelson 15 to power there planes and there planes are small like all 15s are and they have never tried to test the waters of anything different that might work a little better. If they had my e-15 would not be looking so out of place. So what do we do about that? I try to come up with a plane that will still be competetive but will not perform as well as my 2011 e-15.
And yes I want e and ic blinded together because I would prefer to fly electric for a number of reasons other than performance because they really dont perform as well as ic in the AMA events. With e I can build in my home using UltraCote to cover them with. No smells, happy wife (well you know what I mean), I'm worm not freezing out in the garage,and so on and so forth. All of this makes it easier for this old man and many others that fly carrier to keep on flying carrier for a few more years. And NO, I'm not very worried about the new carrier flier because there are none or few in the waiting line.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #53 on:** April 02, 2012, 11:20:50 AM »

Quote from: Joe Just on April 02, 2012, 09:29:44 AM

My point is, and I hope that I won't dive in again, with Eric's fabulous improvement in "E" .15 the die has been cast. "E" now has the advantage and Eric will only have others following his ground breaking efforts with different setups than what they are now flying. "E" .15 is now the top preforming way to go.

Joe Just

And everyone else's point is - that is not a correct assumption. E-power or glow power does not define the flight Eric put up to gain the top spot, especially in .15 class. Pete Mazur has been putting up extremely high Skyray scores with an electric for the last couple of years, also. Neither one of those cases relegates glow to 'also ran' status because those flights would have been just as high scoring (and maybe even higher) if glow power had been used. As long as you can hit the speed limit with your glow engine - and I tried to emphasize how easy that really can be - the low speed will define the score and low speed is dependent on factors other than the power source.

john vlna · « **Reply #54 on:** April 02, 2012, 01:00:56 PM »

Mike and Pete sum it up well. You can only get 70 points for high speed in 15, add 100 for landing and the rest is slow speed.
Eric just found a better design.

john

don Burke · « **Reply #55 on:** April 02, 2012, 01:32:15 PM »

On top if it, Eric practices a lot!

I've seen him fly and there's no doubt he really knows what he's doing!

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #56 on:** April 02, 2012, 02:56:06 PM »

Quote from: don Burke on April 02, 2012, 01:32:15 PM

..... Eric practices a lot!

BINGO!!!! Give that man a cigar !!!

Joe Just · « **Reply #57 on:** April 02, 2012, 04:14:15 PM »

[quote.
Eric just found a better design.

john
[/quote]

And by so doing will establish "E" carrier as superior to IC. A strong reason to seperate the two classes.
Joe

eric david conley · « **Reply #58 on:** April 02, 2012, 04:54:38 PM »

OK, Joe. Eric

john vlna · « **Reply #59 on:** April 02, 2012, 06:01:12 PM »

Joe,

Let me make sure I understand your position. You really want to keep glow and electric separate, or did I miss something?

John

Joe Just · « **Reply #60 on:** April 02, 2012, 06:53:19 PM »

John, Yes, 2 separate events. one for E, one for IC. The IC rules are well established. E on the other hand will need some leeway as things progress.
Joe

PS I am also very firm on having skill classes, dropping Sportsman, combining Class 1 &2, dropping nostalgia, and making NW Sport .40 an event sponsored by the NCS to really make an effort to draw new fliers, offering a yearly $100 prize for Rokie of the year Award at the Nats as well as voting no on R/C addition to throttle control in Carrier. So you can see I am not all that demanding.

john vlna · « **Reply #61 on:** April 02, 2012, 07:15:10 PM »

quote [ John, Yes, 2 separate events. one for E, one for IC. The IC rules are well established. E on the other hand will need some leeway as things progress.
Joe

PS I am also very firm on having skill classes, dropping Sportsman, combining Class 1 &2, dropping nostalgia, and making NW Sport .40 an event sponsored by the NCS to really make an effort to draw new fliers, offering a yearly $100 prize for Rokie of the year Award at the Nats as well as voting no on R/C addition to throttle control in Carrier. So you can see I am not all that demanding.]

Joe,
We disagree on most items, I am for skill classes, combining E and G, keeping Nostalgia and no I don't like any kind of restriction to a particular engine such as NW 40. I am for electric throttle control, either through the lines or via 2.4GHZ
I think the $100 for Rookie of the year is a good idea. ( retroactive to 1990)
John

eric david conley · « **Reply #62 on:** April 02, 2012, 08:16:13 PM »

Joe what do you mean by "E on the other hand will need some leeway as things progress"? Eric

bill bischoff · « **Reply #63 on:** April 02, 2012, 09:22:05 PM »

While I applaud NW sport 40 carrier's intent and wish it great success, I think it would be ill advised to base a national event around an engine that has been out of production for about 10 years already.

As for the raging IC vs. E debate, I still think lumping them together has the potential to do more harm than good.
Eric praises the unlimited power/ weight limit only structure of the E carrier rules. Guess what? IC doesn't have the same benefit! Combining airplanes limited by displacement with airplanes limited by weight is by its very nature inequitable at best.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #64 on:** April 03, 2012, 05:48:25 AM »

This is not a debate.

It's just a softening-up exercise before the ruling majority of the Contest Board pulls the trigger on what they've already decided.

This is the coupe de' grass after the 1975 points debacle that got rid of 90% of the event in the name of increasing interest.

Joe Just · « **Reply #65 on:** April 03, 2012, 09:38:19 AM »

Quote from: eric david conley on April 02, 2012, 08:16:13 PM

Joe what do you mean by "E on the other hand will need some leeway as things progress"? Eric

Eric, IC rules have been rather stable since the 70's, with only minor tweaking since. E on the other hand is barely beginning and with anything new there will come a time rather quickly when E will need tweaking to get the rules stable. At 75 sometimes my mind works faster than my typing fingers. Perhaps 'leeway" was not the right word, perhaps "time" might have been a better word.
Joe

Joe Just · « **Reply #66 on:** April 03, 2012, 09:47:32 AM »

Quote from: john vlna on April 02, 2012, 07:15:10 PM

Joe,
We disagree on most items, I am for skill classes, combining E and G, keeping Nostalgia and no I don't like any kind of restriction to a particular engine such as NW 40. I am for electric throttle control, either through the lines or via 2.4GHZ
I think the $100 for Rookie of the year is a good idea. ( retroactive to 1990)
John

John, Hey, we finally agree on something. However, even if we did make the $100 retroactive to 1990 (For those of you who are wondering, John was the NCS Rookie of the year, and the first ever to win that title) the NCS really wouldn't be given out scads and scads of money that just sit in the treasury doing nothing constructive.

PS Time to tell one and all that I really love this site! Overall differences in opinion don't lead to fighting, character demeaning, etc.

eric david conley · « **Reply #67 on:** April 03, 2012, 10:02:13 AM »

Well Joe it was kind of clear but at 76 it really has to be clear and repeated at least 20 times before it starts to sink into my head. Yes the rules may have to be tweaked somewhere along the way but keep in mind that the e-rules with the exception of the weight rule is exactly the same as the AMA rules. So any tweaking would probably be to change the weight up or down and that change would probably be in ounces. As far as being unfair for several years because of the rules change procedures I would hope that we (the contestants) could agree (choke) immediately to change the weight after some big change on the e side of the rule that could obsolete the IC side. Eric

john e. holliday · « **Reply #68 on:** April 03, 2012, 07:41:12 PM »

I applaud the NW for their 40 carrier event getting people to fly. One engine requirement is what the Class II Goodyear was supposed to do. Get people flying. But, as with any competition there are those that will take the time and money to come up with the unbeatable engine that is such and such engine. I could go with just one class of scale carrier for each IC and E power class. Max weight and go for it. Just look at the Hi-Lo landings top twenty and you will see how many classes there are. Sportsman Profile shoud be for the guys that don't want to fly the scale planes in competition and don't want to hang. Also no sliders even tho they are easy to set up, but scare the new guys away. Maybe if I were about 20 years younger I would go with a plane for each and every class. But, it irks me to see people fly sportsman when they are flying scale carrier.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #69 on:** April 03, 2012, 08:37:52 PM »

"Also no sliders even though they are easy to set up, but scare the new guys away. "

John, it's not that sliders "scare guys away". They just make it too easy to stop, hover, and back up. Then we need a reliable center judge to decide if he wants to penalize his buddy who will probably be center-judging him later in the day. The game has become one of predicting just how much violation the center judge will tolerate.

Better to have stationary leadouts and judge the 15-20 MPH low with a stopwatch.

eric david conley · « **Reply #70 on:** April 03, 2012, 09:15:15 PM »

Surely you jest Paul. I have come to the conclusion that if your not the judge don't complain. I also back that up with not looking which probably helps the most other wise you will go nuts or blow one of your gaskets. We could pray for the judges to fall dead if they let someone get away with anything but then there wouldn't be any more judges and it all could happen in one day, bad idea I guess. Best thing Paul is don't watch. Eric

john e. holliday · « **Reply #71 on:** April 04, 2012, 10:19:12 AM »

Best is not have judges that are flying the same class of carrier he is judging. Can't call the stoppage/backing up unless you are in the center of the circle behind the pilot. Don't ask me how I know.

Trostle · « **Reply #72 on:** April 04, 2012, 04:26:34 PM »

I would like to add a few comments here. For those who do not know me, I have flown a Class I carrier for a number of years at local contests and have enjoyed it. It is at best a steady performer for nostalgia. I hope to build more airplanes for the Carrier event but right now those are low on my priority list. The reason for this post is to comment on the 2.4GHz proposal for the CL General rulebook section that all of the CL Contest boards will be voting on later this month. This does not pertain to the other related proposals in Scale or Carrier that those respective Contest Boards will be voting on.

I hope, that in the collective wisdom of all of the CL Contest Boards who will be voting on this CL General proposal (Aerobatics, Combat, Speed, Racing, Carrier) that the required 60% majority will pass this proposal. Then, each of the individual Contest Boards can generate whatever they want specific to their event. That way one Contest Board will not be dictating what another Contest Board might find desirable or undesirable.

I would like to think that the people in Combat, or Speed, or Racing should have little or no objection to the use of 2.4 GHz systems, or at least should not have reservations as long as suitable restrictions are in place peculiar to those event. But I can envision enough people on all of these boards that might feel that somehow the sanctity of CL is somehow violated with the use of an RF link to our CL models and this proposal will not pass. All I am suggesting is that the Contest Boards should collectively allow this proposal to pass, allowing it to be used in those categories where those respective Contest Boards approve of it and then let those Contest Boards who do not want it for their event to craft a cross proposal during the next phase of this change cycle to tailor whatever restrictions they want for their specific event.

I can see the Aerobatics group would like to see this proposal passed in the CL General section. Same for the Scale people. Once the proposal is passed in this change cycle and some refinements are found to be necessary, then that can be done in future change cycles.

Keith Trostle
Chairman
Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board

Mike Greb · « **Reply #73 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:51:24 PM »

I am excited by the prospect of being able to use 2.4 gh radio for throttle and other controls. Carrier has been pretty static for many years, it will be interesting to see what cool stuff some people could come up with if new technology is allowed. Competitive advantage? Well to get to the top of the heap in carrier, it takes a lot more work than most people are willing to put in, me included, to be successful no matter what.

eric david conley · « **Reply #74 on:** August 01, 2012, 07:03:45 PM »

Your right Mike, it is an exciting time and opens up some options for new cl-fliers. There are several guys in our UC club here in Reno that are flying planes using 2.4 through the air. They were RC fliers that had not flown CL for many years and then one day they stopped by our flying sight and expressed the disire to get back into CL. We all jumped in and were offering planes and lots of advise and so on. One of the guy's was given a combat plane and a couple of weeks later he showed up with a electric power combat plane. We all went over to see how he had done it. Not knowing what else to do and having quite a extensive back ground in RC he had put it together just like one of his RC planes would have been put together with the exception of the UC control of the elevator. He now flies regularly with another member of the club flying combat. He feels it was one of the easiest ways to go. Hopefully the ruling body's in CL will vote in favor of the new rules before them and we can get the show on the road so to speak. It sure worked for these two fliers and I think it will bring in more and who knows maybe we will learn something from them to boot. Eric

don Burke · « **Reply #75 on:** August 14, 2012, 08:51:07 PM »

Quote from: Joe Just on April 01, 2012, 07:15:37 PM

"... Looks like Eric has found the way to beat ..."

Eric has found the way to beat just about everybody in carrier IC or E. It's called PRACTICE!
He's also the thinking man's builder and an very skilled one at that.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #76 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:04:17 PM »

As one of the guys in Tulsa I was talking to stated, "This carrier flying takes a lot more concentration than stunt". As stated, it takes practice and learning to set the plane up. I don't do enough practicing.

Mike Greb · « **Reply #77 on:** August 18, 2012, 06:36:32 PM »

This is a quick and dirty retrofit to a profile carrier plane. A new build airplane would have the battery and receiver built into the wingtip as wing weight, and a mini servo would be either built into the wing or attached to the fuselage for throttle control.

Joe Just · « **Reply #78 on:** August 21, 2012, 04:44:44 PM »

OK, you got my attention. Where, and what, and how much?
Also what about the transmitter? Is it mounted on the flying handle, or what?
Joe

david smith · « **Reply #79 on:** August 21, 2012, 05:39:57 PM »

Its nowhere near as expensive as people think. Hobby king sells a car transmitter and receiver for $30, battery and servo you can get for less than $5 each. So you could be in a 2.4 setup for less than the cost of a 3 line handle. As Mike said the battery and receiver can be used as tip weight so there isn't really any weight disadvantage. As far as the transmitter I am planning on taking it apart and building it in the handle but the easiest option would be to just attach it to your belt, fly with your right hand and operate the throttle with your left.

David

Mike Greb · « **Reply #80 on:** August 21, 2012, 05:46:32 PM »

The transmitter at least for the first is just going to be held in the left hand. Bill Bishoff gave me a car transmitter and receiver, the other parts were salvaged from an old RC plane. The RC components are attached to the inboard side of the fuselage with double sided mounting tape. With the full size RC stuff and os46fx with muffler it is a bit porky at 53 oz. I made an abdaper plate out of 1/8 inch aluminum to mount the bellcrank on. I have some .021 and .024 wire rope ordered from McMaster-carr. Will make lines of both sizes. The motor has a performance specialties P/L , that made the motor into one of the sweetest running motors that I have. Too bad the P/L is not available any more. It has not flown yet with the RC throttle, hopefully it will this weekend. If I were to make a new model I would use a second servo to release the line slider and the tail hook

don Burke · « **Reply #81 on:** August 21, 2012, 06:33:47 PM »

Quote from: david smith on August 21, 2012, 05:39:57 PM

Its nowhere near as expensive as people think. Hobby king sells a car transmitter and receiver for $30, battery and servo you can get for less than $5 each. So you could be in a 2.4 setup for less than the cost of a 3 line handle. As Mike said the battery and receiver can be used as tip weight so there isn't really any weight disadvantage. As far as the transmitter I am planning on taking it apart and building it in the handle but the easiest option would be to just attach it to your belt, fly with your right hand and operate the throttle with your left.

David

Here's where I got a TX/RX.

http://www.hobbypartz.com/79p-gt2-blue.html

Mike Greb · « **Reply #82 on:** August 22, 2012, 02:48:36 PM »

It was pretty interesting taxing my profile carrier in the driveway. It would go pretty straight on low throttle, but would instantly go into a ground loop when the throttle was goosed,

john e. holliday · « **Reply #83 on:** August 23, 2012, 09:40:00 AM »

Must be all the weight on the outboard side.

Joe Just · « **Reply #84 on:** August 26, 2012, 10:10:01 AM »

Quote from: Mike Greb link=. If I were to make a new model I would use a second servo to release the line slider and the tail hook
[/quote

From what I have read, the 2.4 rule for carrier will only be used for the throttle. Am I wrong? BTW I ordered a NIB 2.4 Car Transmitter & reciever set up for under $30. But I dont think it comes with a servo or reciever battery. How and where do I get them?
Now that I am no longer tied to producing runs of Carrier kits I have to do something to keep my mind (?) active. Please however, don't let the word get out that Joe is meddling with the "Dark Side!

Joe

don Burke · « **Reply #85 on:** August 26, 2012, 12:10:57 PM »

Quote from: Joe Just on August 26, 2012, 10:10:01 AM

[quote author=Mike Greb link=. If I were to make a new model I would use a second servo to release the line slider and the tail hook

From what I have read, the 2.4 rule for carrier will only be used for the throttle. Am I wrong? BTW I ordered a NIB 2.4 Car Transmitter & reciever set up for under $30. But I dont think it comes with a servo or reciever battery. How and where do I get them?
Now that I am no longer tied to producing runs of Carrier kits I have to do something to keep my mind (?) active. Please however, don't let the word get out that Joe is meddling with the "Dark Side!

Joe

Joe,
I think the proposals were written to prevent use of 2.4 to control "elevation", all other functions should be OK. I don't know if the final vote has taken place so we can read the actual rules as will be effective on Jan 1, 2013.

don Burke · « **Reply #86 on:** August 26, 2012, 12:14:21 PM »

Quote from: Joe Just on August 26, 2012, 10:10:01 AM

[quote author=Mike Greb link=. If I were to make a new model I would use a second servo to release the line slider and the tail hook

From what I have read, the 2.4 rule for carrier will only be used for the throttle. Am I wrong? BTW I ordered a NIB 2.4 Car Transmitter & reciever set up for under $30. But I dont think it comes with a servo or reciever battery. How and where do I get them?
Now that I am no longer tied to producing runs of Carrier kits I have to do something to keep my mind (?) active. Please however, don't let the word get out that Joe is meddling with the "Dark Side!

Joe

Hobbypeople.net, amain hobbies, dymond, tower hobbies, are just a few. Sometimes servos are on sale for a little as $4.99. Small nimh battery packs that will easily last for a carrier flight are also available from the same places.

Joe Just · « **Reply #87 on:** August 26, 2012, 03:44:38 PM »

OK, without appearing more stupid than I am...Will my( purchased from whoever) 2.4 servo's work or do they have to be matched with the transmitter/reciever? My new purchase will use AA batteries. Will they (I have a charger for this size battery) work for the reciever? It would be so much easier if someone would provide a "plug and play" set up.I hear through the unoficial grape vine that Brodak will be making this available. How difficult will be take apart my new transmitter and have the components mounted on a 2-line handle?
Joe

bill bischoff · « **Reply #88 on:** August 26, 2012, 07:02:16 PM »

Servos are all basically interchangeable these days. Any servo you buy new should work. Servos vary tremendously in size and strength, and there is no single servo that is right for all applications. That's why most radios are sold without servos now. Rather than have to pay for servos you may not want, simply buy the ones you do want.

As for batteries, 4 AA's will work, either rechargeable or dry cell. If you have a holder for individual cells, throw-away AA's are very convenient, and will last for many hours running only one servo.

There are two different carrier proposals dealing with the use of 2.4 radios. One will allow radio control of any function other than elevator, and the other will allow its use for throttle only. The logic is that some people may be opposed to using radio for slider, hook, flaps, etc, but would be OK with it for throttle, and just throttle would be better than nothing.

Mike Greb flew his proof of concept profile carrier with radio throttle today. He had some non-radio issues to work out with the engine, but the radio worked fine and he didn't seem to have any trouble simply holding the radio in his left hand to operate the throttle, Perhaps he will have more to add on the subject...

Mike Greb · « **Reply #89 on:** August 26, 2012, 07:12:52 PM »

I flew my model today. The RC part of the model seemed to work fine, but the motor system needs a bit of work. I flew the model with my right hand for elevation and held the transmitter in my left. That is except for the second flight when I picked up the handle with my left hand, did not notice that until the model took off. Flying the throttle left handed worked ok, did not get confused for the most part. I may have had some radio problems, the motor was surging at times, but that may have been a motor/linkage problem. I was wondering if the lines were sometimes blocking the radio signal, if so, repositioning the receiver or antenna should cure that. Sometimes handling the model and radio on engine starting seemed to need three or four hands. For the most part I could adjust the linkage with servo travel and trim. I had to reduce the throw on the linkage to get it within the range of adjustment for the servo. With the three line i end up with the linkage overtraveling the throttle throw, as the three line system never is quite right, and line slider forward and reverse seems to be different on the throttle. With the radio that problem goes away. I flew the model on .021 lines today. McMaster-carrr backordered the .024 wire rope that I had ordered, should have that in in a week or so.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #90 on:** August 27, 2012, 07:58:32 AM »

Quote from: Joe Just on August 26, 2012, 03:44:38 PM

..... How difficult will be take apart my new transmitter and have the components mounted on a 2-line handle?
Joe

Practically speaking, it won't be difficult -- it will be impossible. Transmitters are the size they are because they need to be in order to house all the guts. You still will need the batteries and the RF module/antenna. You could mount the batteries on your belt, I imagine, but you still would need to be wired to the handle, then, and there still would not be room in any normal size two-line handle for the pc boards and the throttle trigger pot, so you are still talking about a handle with an auxiliary box hanging off the bottom (or top).

It will be easier to convert the transmitter into a handle, rather than the other way around.

don Burke · « **Reply #91 on:** August 27, 2012, 11:44:07 AM »

Quote from: Mike Anderson on August 27, 2012, 07:58:32 AM

Practically speaking, it won't be difficult -- it will be impossible. Transmitters are the size they are because they need to be in order to house all the guts. You still will need the batteries and the RF module/antenna. You could mount the batteries on your belt, I imagine, but you still would need to be wired to the handle, then, and there still would not be room in any normal size two-line handle for the pc boards and the throttle trigger pot, so you are still talking about a handle with an auxiliary box hanging off the bottom (or top).

It will be easier to convert the transmitter into a handle, rather than the other way around.

One of our local experimenters has been flying a carrier model with 2.4 radio for a couple of years now. He hangs the xmtr, an airplane variety, from his belt and uses his left hand for the throttle, just a matter of getting used to it.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #92 on:** September 01, 2012, 06:20:50 PM »

I have been flying with electronics since 1991 and I currently have two models with 2.4 Ghz controls. I hang the transmitter on my belt and do everything by feel. The handle I use is a normal stunt handle complete with nuetral adjustment. What you will find is that your left hand does the throttle and the right hand does the flying, keeping them separate, you get smoother flights and the two are not connected.

Some folks like the controls on the handle, others like the controls separate and on the belt. Either way works, use what is best for your application. I have everything ready to convert to 2.4 Ghz soon as it's official so I can use it in competition. Setting up a 2.4 ghz system is really easy, once the transmitter is linked to the reciever you are ready to go. Just be careful....not all recievers will work with all transmitters. Make sure the reciever you buy is matched to your transmitter.

It works.....

Land softly,
Fred Cronenwett

john vlna · « **Reply #93 on:** September 03, 2012, 10:46:22 AM »

So getting back to the original issue, does anyone know where the 2.4ghz rule actually stands. All I have seen are preliminary voting. I have my 2.4ghz radio, but will I be able to use it?

don Burke · « **Reply #94 on:** September 03, 2012, 11:25:33 AM »

Final vote not posted yet on AMA website.

Trostle · « **Reply #95 on:** September 03, 2012, 01:19:58 PM »

Quote from: john vlna on September 03, 2012, 10:46:22 AM

So getting back to the original issue, does anyone know where the 2.4ghz rule actually stands. All I have seen are preliminary voting. I have my 2.4ghz radio, but will I be able to use it?

There was in Interim Vote conducted by the 5 CL Contest Boards for the two CL General rules change proposals regarding the 2.4 gHz system. Evidently, the one proposal, CLG 13-2 by Dick Perry passed that Interim Vote. (I know the results from the Carrier, Racing and Aerobatics Contest Boards, but not from the Combat or Speed Contest Boards.) The reason I state that the one proposal passed the Interim Vote is that the AMA sent this one proposal out to the CL Contest Boards for their final vote to be completed by September 15. (60% of the responding Board members must approve this proposal for it to pass.)

That proposal is shown at

http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/clgeneral.aspx

Stand by.

Keith

john vlna · « **Reply #96 on:** September 03, 2012, 09:46:19 PM »

Thanks Keith,
I'll look forward to the final rsults later this month.

By the way ever remember flying at wheaton plaza? Seems to me you did once or twice long ago.
John