I have read the proposals and will advise my coordinator Gary Hull. In a nut shell I will not support use of radio control to move any control mechanism in a Navy Carrier competition model. It's one more step in the wrong direction. I will also not support electrics flying with gas carrier models because when advantages and disadvantages are discovered it will take forever to resolve if ever. Seperate classes are a clear dilineation for those that have the need to fly electric. I support Marc Warwashana's prohibition of radio controls in the Navy Carrier event.
Thanks
Wayne

Wayne,
You are brave man to try and read through what is on the AMA site, I can't figure most of it out myself.
John

Wayne,
Yes the proposals are OK but the voting results posted don't seem to make much sense, got a like for that? I've been debugging a weird svchost.exe problem on a computer all day and maybe I am just fuzzy headed.
John

Paul, there will be the time when an advantage or disadvantage will surface when I C and electric are flown in the same class that will cause confusion and hard feelings. Mark my words, that will happen and the carrier event will suffer another destructive nose dive. I implore all to keep I C and electric seperate and not cause issues. As for R/C controls in carrier, no way was that ever the intent of the event.

John, maybe someone owes us an explanation of where the voting results stand or at the least clearly explain the process. This is downright dicusting.
Wayne

Fred, thanks for the input. I still dont understand what was said in the charts. Matters not whether they apply to previous or current proposals. Can you elaborate on what is posted in the results section.
Thanks
Wayne

I originally agreed with Wayne that R/C would be the wrong way to go in any of the C/L events, and maybe I still do. However, I had an interesting conversation with Mike Gretz who simply asked, "If they're having fun with it, why not?" The idea is to let people enjoy carrier and if using R/C helps, and perhaps gets more participation, maybe it should be considered. There are several reasons I can think of that somebody might want to use R/C:
1. Working bellcranks and handles are not available on the regular retail market. I make this rather bold statement because Brodak 3-line bellcranks and, to a lesser extent, handles have such poor quality control that few (none?) work properly out of the bag. If I were new coming in to the event, this would be a huge source of frustration for me. (We old-timers often have a stash of high-quality GS and LR hardware that we will continue to use forever.) Also, the price of the Brodak setup is really quite high, and radio may even be less expensive.
2. If they're coming in from R/C, they may own the equipment and know how to use it. It's pretty cheap and easy to use in any case.
3. If the modeler likes electric controls, which have been legal forever, avoiding the insulated lines is an advantage in convenience and reliability. Yes, performance is slightly enhanced over insulated lines, but using John Vlna's thin polyurethane insulation technique, the insulation is very thin and the performance difference is quite small.
So I'm not convinced my original negative reaction is the right one, and we should think about this carefully. Particularly, who will be using R/C? I don't think the present serious competitors are going to: We have our three-line stuff working very well and don't see R/C as adding any advantages for us. I think the R/C is going to be used by Sportsmen-type fliers, who just want to have fun, and newcomers, so maybe it won't hurt us and could help us.
Finally, I note that there are three proposals about R/C in Carrier: One to ban it entirely, one to allow it entirely (except for aerodynamic control of elevation) and one to permit it for throttle control only.  The first two are easy to enforce at a contest. The third, throttle only, doesn't strike me as too difficult to enforce, and is the sort of thing that would appeal to beginners and Sportsmen who don't want a lot of tricked-up controls anyway.
I haven't decided how I feel about all this, but I am keeping an open mind on the idea. Maybe we will hear from some of the people who are using R/C control for sport flying now to know what they are thinking. And, as Mike said, "If they're having fun with it, why not?"
Pete

One thing to keep in mind is that the technology that we use on a daily basis is constantly changing. I was flying with Virgil Wilbur in the LA area in the 1990's. He was using 3-line and Grant, Merle and myself had electronic controls. After three years of  flying Virgil told me he was going to try electronic controls. He flat out told me he was going to hate it, but was willing to give it a try. After his first flight with the electronic controls he walked up to me and asked me one simple question - "How do I convert these models to electronic controls". He was pointing to his other models currently flying with 3-line control. two weeks later he had converted his other models to electronic controls.

Now add the electric power with electronic controls and you have a new set of variables. I just flew my CL scale model (Great Planes RV-4) with an E-flite E-32 and DSC electronic controls down the flying lines (insulated). Plug everything in and you are good to go, amazing.

The advantage of 2.4 Ghz is that you can get back to normal braided lines. The only item you have in the plane is a reciver, if flying with electric power you don't need an 4.8 volt battery since you can take advanage of BEC to provide power from the main battery. Set up and throttle adjustment is also much easier. Then you can install a normal 2-line bellcrank, use a stunt handle with nuetral handle adjustment for the elevator. All around much easier to set up and use.

Control Line has lots of traditional ways for doing things and we rarely change the way we do things without a fight and often lots of complaining. My CL scale models break every traditional rule that is out there.

We all realize that carrier is racing type of event since we record the fast time for the 7 laps, because of this 2.4 Ghz presents a condition where a model with 2.4 Ghz will have an competitive advantage over a 3-line model, or a model with insuated lines.

Land Softly,
Fred Cronenwett

Fred, I have no problem with electric R/C carrier. I just do not relish the idea of permeating the current event as I know it with electric and R/C. Once the changes are made there is no turning back and that is supported by current state of the rules of the Control Line Navy Carrier event. Seperate events are the answer and will avoid conflict.
Thanks
Wayne

Concerning the rule proposal(s) to allow an RF link to operate auxiliary functions: C/L should be kept pure. The only link between the pilot and the aircraft should be the line(s). Part of the challenge involves creative solutions to make things happen within that fundamental guidline. Allowing an RF link proves nothing and I don't see it adding anything to the competition.

On the recip / electric issue my experience is that there will never be a formula that makes for even competition. One or the other will always prevail leaving open the opportunity for complaints of bias. Imagine being at the 1933 NATS when Maxwell Bassett and Bill Brown Jr. competed with the gas engine. The hobby was turned upside down. No, electric needs to be separate and distinct from recip power.

There is no shortage of three line hardware on the market.

Brodak offers the handles (in three colors, not just one) and a whole family of bellcranks in a multitude of styles, not just two.  The prices are high, but going from $20 to $55 in 50 years is not out of line with inflation.

People would not be fussing with RC if they did not believe that it holds a competitive advantage.

Bob, Wayne and Paul. How old are you guys? As in, what are your ages?
I'm 53, my kids are 30 to 15. None fly C/L anymore except the little one will still fly Scale because he likes the airplanes. I set up his and my two nephews C/L bellcranks for Scale, if they had to do it they'd just go fly foamy R/C ships at the park.
 
My point? We aren't going to be flying models too much longer because we are going to expire. Set up the rules to point to the future. C/L models with aux accessories run by 2.4 R/C stuff is a no brainer. It's easy, doesn't weigh much and you can exclude it in Nostalgia Carrier Class I and II. These kids WILL fly models if there is some relevancy, they like The Military Channel, know what Corsairs and Guardians are, and generally think MO-1's are stupid. But three line bellcranks "suck" in there opinion and I could go to lunch while these 12, 13 and 15-year-olds set up their 2.4 stuff in a Carrier model.

If I were king? I'd make Electric power and separate Class. I'd make 2.4 good for all classes except Nostalgia. I'd make Nostalgia an Official event.

Those of you thinking that 3 line is sacred are missing the boat, those line sliders (1976?) were the deal breaker on technology mimicking the past. You want hovercrafts, you gotta accept the fact that tethered flight and pitch control should be the only restriction in C/L.

Chris...
   

Hey Chris I'm 68, whats your point! Do I have to roll over to your new technology because you said. All I am asking is leave my event the way I like. Make yourself a new event with servos and electric motors and call it control line if thats what you think you should call it. Your 53 will soon be 68 and maybe I'll still be around to hear you moan about things the way they were. Just leave my event alone and let it die by itself if thats what you think is going to happen or better yet let me kill it.
Wayne

For the record I'm 63, soon to be 64. I became associated with organized modelling in 1960. As an Engineer by profession I certainly don't hate technology. I just don't see a compelling argument to make this change. Just because the technology is available doesn't make it a good thing.

As for C/L, Navy Carrier included, it is what it is. That isn't going to change. We hook some lines to a model and fly around in circles, just like it was first done.

The essence of Navy Carrier was articulated in the original 1953 Regulations ~ "Emphasis of design for this event should be on the simulation of a Navy carrier plane. Such characteristics as quick take-off, high speed, stability at slow speeds, and a fuselage strong enough to take the shock of arrested landings are desirable." If people aren't interested in the basic challenge, all the rules tweaking in the world isn't going to entice them to participate.

     I don't see how you can say control line "is what it is, that it isn't going to change". I'm 76 now and modeling sense the late 40s and control line has changed a lot. Granted we still use wires and a handle hooked to the elevator to go up or down but other than that almost everything has changed. I remember when I saw my first glow plug, I had trouble believing what I saw. Now I wonder how the guys that had fought with batteries, points, and condensers felt when this guy shows up with a glow equipped plane. Good thing they weren't all flying carrier in those days or we would all be using spark plugs, still. The characteristics you speak of wont change one iota with the introduction of electrics, radios or what ever.
     What do we say to someone who asks us about our hobby? "Oh it was introduced back in the 50s and hasn't changed sense". Boy, that ought to bring them in by the boat load. We need to open up to electrics in carrier now and not wait for when ever. Also electric and IC will mix and in the end the same people will be at the top of the top 20 list whether their flying IC or E. I say embrace it now and lets get out and go fling.  Eric

Pete, so when the issues I speak of rear there ugly head, who do I call, you?
Thanks
Wayne

I think if there were skill classes, the problem of what is best, electric or glow goes away. Competitors would naturally drift to the the technology that was best for them. Higher scoring expert class fliers would use whatever got them the best scores. Lower class fliers would not be handicapped by the better technology since by definition they don't score as high.

As Pete suggests 4 classes may be too many. A sportsman and open(Expert) in each event would likely be a better starting place. At Brodaks we are almost there. We have enough entries in both Sportsman and AMA profile so we actually have skill classes now.  There are enough entries in 15, but we usually don't have more than one or two experts. Scale is about the same story. Typically only one expert.

About your last comment.  The line sizes for two line vs three lines in Carrier were selected a LONG time ago to equalize the drag of two vs. three lines.  So I think that two are not a competitive advantage.

According to McMaster Carr the line strengths are as follows:

.012"   25 pounds
.015" (1/64") 40 pounds
.018"   55 pounds
.021"  80 pounds
.024'  100 pounds
.027" 125 pounds.

Granted, when you multiply these numbers by two or three you achieve approximately the same minimum STRENGTH, but the total aerodynamic drag is nowhere near equal. 

In speed events where one or two lines are on the menu, with supposedly equal drag, the contestants very quickly deduced that one line is faster than two.  Unless you can get away with groupers, which were banned on an emergency rule change.

The use of RC for the throttle will allow the model to be saved even when the lines go slack, a major advantage over mechanical controls.  The ultimate progression will be the bellcrank releasing only the hook and slider and the RC working both the elevator and the throttle.  Then the model will be fully flyable with slack lines.  A gigantic advantage on the windy side of the circle.

I believe Don Burke is correct when he says the line sizes were selected to approximately equalize drag. I have heard that from others who have been involved in the rules over many years. The two-line size combinations have considerably more strength and weight for the pair than the three-line sizes have for the triplet. I am not an expert on the aerodynamics, so perhaps an expert will weigh in, but I understand that the drag on the lines is proportional to the diameter, all other things being equal and the lines being separate. So for Profile, 3 X .015 = .045, to be compared with 2 X .020 = .040. It seems there is a slight advantage for two lines, although the way the lines twist together for flight may add more advantage to three lines in average drag over two lines. When you have two lines twisted together and compare with three lines twisted together, there may be corrections to the simple area rule that bring the two cases into closer agreement. Anuy experts out there, or people involved in the original decision.

Pete

Good Grief -- I just found a typo in my code from 9 years ago that caused it to overcompute the drag but it wouldn't change the relative drags shown above -
using corrected formula:

3 x .015 x 60 @ 100 mph = 1.749 lb.
2 x .020 x 60 @ 100 mph = 1.448 lb.
2 x .026 x 60 @ 100 mph = 1.739 lb.

You would have to increase the 2-line minimum size to .026 to have the line drag equal to 3-line .015's.

By the way, that does NOT imply that the 2-line plane would be 35% faster than the 3-line one -- it means that the two line plane would have to go faster before the line drags were equal.  But line drag does not account for all the drag that the engine must overcome - my guess would be that it has a POTENTIAL to add 3 - 5 mph (in the 100 mph example), if your engine/fuel/prop selection can achieve it.

All competitive motor sports are won by finding and using every possible small advantage.  If the rules allow a variety of line sizes, power systems and controls, one will rise to the top and drive out all others. 

So the question is: If you mix in RC 2-line electrics and drive out a certain number of 3-line piston engine people, will there still be enough left to run an event? 

Not around here.

So the question is: If you mix in RC 2-line electrics and drive out a certain number of 3-line piston engine people, will there still be enough left to run an event? 

Not around here.


[/quote]

Paul, good point!  The idea of electric Carrier has been presented as a way of getting new people into flying the event.  With all that promotion within the Carrier family there is still only 5 people flying electric Carrier nationally. I prefer to say that electric should be tried on a local basis for a few years and once the entry builds up enough to be a factor then rule changes should be considered.  Also, i have been led to believe that one of the major rationalization in rule changes is to insure that new rules do not make current equipment obsolete. Just a thought.

Joe

Maybe we need to regress a little and have only two classes of scale carrier.   All out electric and all out IC.   Keep IC at the current max displacement and put a voltage limit on electric.    Same with profile.   In local contests they can be combined if there are not enough entries, like we used to do with scale when the two classes came about.   I also like the idea of Sportsman and Expert in profile.  But, I also think in  my own opinion, that if you fly scale carrier you should not be flying sportsman profile carrier.

In this area there are a some people trying out R/C of the throttle.  So far there has been no mass exodus of entrants and no complaints about it.  It's just another thing to add variety to the mix.

I really don't understand the resistance to doing something different. 

NEW & DIFFERENT is just fine. 
So start up a new different event and leave the current events alone. 
That's what they do in combat, racing, speed, free flight, etc.

With a 70 mph speed limit, I don't see how electric could have been that much of an advantage in .15 carrier.  I'd much more inclined to buy Pete Mazur's measured results that electric is not yet at the level of glow, when it comes to actual use in a model.  My own use of electric has been confined to a Skyray - I can hit the speed limit with either an electric on four cells, or a plain old Fox .36 MkV.  The Fox powered model is much less hassle and headache than the electric.  At this point, I'm not the least worried that electric power represents an advantage that glow can't compete with - in fact, the opposite is true.  I won't be putting much effort into electric until I see them start to develop an advantage that my glow powered stuff can't compete with.  I don't expect to live that long.

Joe,
It is not as easy as Eric makes it look.

I still support combining with glow, and having skill classes. All the electric powered models I have tried are easier to fly, but the scores aren't any higher than the glow planes. Eric is just smarter and a better flier. But isn't that what competition is about?

John