Author Topic: Rules Proposals (Read 10221 times)

Wayne J. Buran · « **on:** March 23, 2012, 05:58:49 PM »

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

Joe Just · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2012, 07:31:36 PM »

After some long discussions with Marc I too will urge the failure of using radio transmission in Carrier. As far as urging electric to be in a class by itself I too agree with Wayne. Keep electric as a class by itself. At a time in the future when more than 5 guys are competing with electric ships is the time to even consider alowing electric.
Joe Just

john vlna · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2012, 08:13:34 PM »

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 J. Buran · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2012, 08:34:20 PM »

I got the gist of it and didnt like it. I sent Gary Hull my no votes. Hope everybody else reads it. I am not here because I like flying R/C. Try this link.

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

It takes you right to the Carrier proposals.

Wayne

john vlna · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2012, 08:45:37 PM »

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 Smith · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2012, 09:18:46 PM »

We need to go a step farther and just require that ALL models use 3-line mechanical controls and quit tap dancing around the difference between electric, electronic, and radio. Just all use the same lines and handles and let the airplanes, engines, and piloting be the basis of competition.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2012, 05:30:11 AM »

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 Cronenwett · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2012, 05:59:47 AM »

The voting results posted on the web site are from the last rule cycle. They will not vote on the current batch of rule proposals until April 2012 timeframe (I think). Notice that the voting results posed on the web site are for the 2011-2012 rule proposals that have already been put into the rule book if they were approved.

They should move the 2011-2012 rule proposals and voting results to a different section of the web site so folks don't get confused.

You need to read the rule proposals for the 2012-2013 listed on the same page....they have not voted on these yet.

And there are multiple rule proposals in CL General, CL carrier and CL scale for the use of 2.4 Ghz systems and they all address the issue in a different way. The AMA has a huge job in front of them to determine how to proceed with this issue.

It is clear that some folks like to use electronic controls and others that feel that 3-line is better. I happen to fly CL scale and in that event most folks, but not all, use the electronic controls instead of the 3-line systems. Mostly due to the fact that in CL scale we need to operate 2 or more features such as throttle, flaps, retracts and bomb drop. 3-line simply does not work very well for 2 or more features in CL scale. I have been flying with electronic controls since 1991.

Hope this helps,
Fred Cronenwett

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #8 on:** March 24, 2012, 06:46:25 AM »

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

Paul Smith · « **Reply #9 on:** March 24, 2012, 07:28:21 AM »

In general, rules proposals are voted on by eleven district committee members, most of whom were appointed by AMA District VP's long ago. They serve forever unless they are replaced by the AMA District VP, which seldom happens.

Long ago, there was just one rules committee, then three for FF, CL, and RC. Now we have a committee for each category, so at least we have people who know about the event.

Members can lobby by contacting their committee member. They may or may not listen. Like the US Supreme Court, they are quite secure in their positions.

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2012, 07:41:28 AM »

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

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2012, 10:12:15 AM »

In my opinion, Radio controls would be fine in Scale but for Carrier stick to the 3 line control, it puts everyone on the same page. There are still plenty of the old JRoberts handles and bell cranks available and the Brodak stuff can be made to work just fine. If you speak to a Brodak dealer he might give you a discount to help with the price. For that matter the two bellcrank system that Joe Just puts on his kits works and is really inexpensive.

I completely disagree that this will have any effect what so ever in the decision someone will make to fly Carrier or not. I do believe skill classes will if we can make it work as well as it does in stunt. Our little club has spawned 5 new Carrier guys in the last year and I believe everyone of them would agree with me.

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2012, 10:13:55 AM »

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

don Burke · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2012, 10:42:00 AM »

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.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2012, 04:33:55 PM »

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

john vlna · « **Reply #15 on:** March 24, 2012, 05:56:23 PM »

I am open to allowing electric and 2.4ghz control in CL. Perhaps some restrictions would make sense, such as the elevator must be mechanical, but otherwise why not? It seems to me that if the throttle was electric in carrier(and I am talking about glow engines here) what difference would it make as to how the signal was sent to the plane. And electric throttles are legal today anyway.

As far as all electric goes, we are still experimenting, but several contests are combining electric and glow on 15 profile. So far I havn't heard and negative comments from these events. Last year I included electric/glow combined in 15 and sportsman at the Fly-In. There was one electric entry in 15, none in sportsman.

john

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #16 on:** March 24, 2012, 07:46:17 PM »

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.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2012, 04:09:16 AM »

Bob, well said. Make your feelings known to Gary Hull.
Thanks
wayne

Paul Smith · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2012, 08:04:49 AM »

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.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2012, 03:23:04 PM »

Paul, I think you hit on something.
Thanks
Wayne

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2012, 03:50:31 PM »

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...

john vlna · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2012, 04:58:49 PM »

Perhaps all the carrier fliers have gone over to more progressive events like stunt and scale?

Let's all go back to those glory days before CL when rubber was king. Now when is my winder?

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #22 on:** March 25, 2012, 06:13:28 PM »

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

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #23 on:** March 25, 2012, 06:13:40 PM »

An electric (R/C) throttle would simplify things. $:-\$ 2 wires w/ no insl. line drag.

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #24 on:** March 25, 2012, 06:32:43 PM »

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.

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #25 on:** March 25, 2012, 06:44:56 PM »

Quote from: Douglas Ames on March 25, 2012, 06:13:40 PM

An electric (R/C) throttle would simplify things. $:-\$ 2 wires w/ no insl. line drag.

Ya think?

Where's the market that will support the commercialization of a proper control handle, one with decent ergonomics? J. Robert Smurthwaite developed an elegant solution.

What about the weight? What about servicing the airborne battey pack? What about packaging the stuff in an already cramped model? What about vibration shaking the servo to pieces?

Different, yes. Simpler, I don't think so.

eric david conley · « **Reply #26 on:** March 25, 2012, 07:08:46 PM »

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

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #27 on:** March 27, 2012, 09:00:48 AM »

I think Eric has it exactly right. Technology has moved on and many of us find that the new ways are better, although not for scoring. The rules that were introduced for electric carrier parallel to the AMA carrier event class rules have stood the test of time: It has become clear to anyone paying attention that there is no competitive advantage to electric carrier and that electrics are not quite able to score as well as gas. There is clearly concern that this could change sometime in the future if some major technological breakthrough occurs, such as an entirely new battery technology. If that were to occur (although I think that unlikely to occur in my lifetime) a trivial rules change could be made to keep gas and electric parallel. We can do that!
Electric is simply a better technology for a number of reasons. There is a thread listing some of them on the Stunthanger Amped Up group. It is quieter and cleaner and simpler in some ways and many of us like it a lot and plan to continue with it, even if it costs us points and trophies. The same might be said of 2.4 GHz controls: Simpler, easier to buy working equipment, and especially trivial to install for electrics: just plug a receiver into the ESC. Again, simpler but no real scoring advantage.
We have been discussing skill classes at some length because they have been successful in Stunt. It seems to me that only one contest, Brodak, has enough entries to populate more than two skill classes, Sportsman and Open. Maybe they will work there, but not likely at other places, although let's see if the NW Regionals is big enough to make them work. We can try skill classes at these two contests and we don't even need to pass any rules changes to give it a try. But my point here is that there is another factor in the strength of Stunt and that is that they allow electrics to compete head-to-head with gas. Just look at the size and activity in the Gettin' All Amped Up group. It's tremendous. We can do that.
So I understand the fears of some that adding electrics to the AMA events will add an unbeatable group, and, after working with electrics for many years, I know that this is wrong. I believe the events will strengthen, not weaken, by adding the new technologies and the opportunities they bring.

Pete

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #28 on:** March 27, 2012, 12:27:18 PM »

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

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #29 on:** March 27, 2012, 01:35:48 PM »

Wayne, if the electrics get to the point where they have an unfair advantage over gas, I will be happy to work with you to come up with a rules proposal to fix the problem and will work hard to get it passed. I want to see electric and gas compete head to head and don't want to see the gas models obsoleted because they can't keep up with scores by electrics.
Pete

john vlna · « **Reply #30 on:** March 27, 2012, 06:55:31 PM »

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.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #31 on:** March 27, 2012, 07:51:58 PM »

I have no problem at all with electric carrier, although I don't fly it and know relatively little about it. FWIW, I think the various classes could have some sort of power limitations to set them apart, such as maximum voltages, not just weight limits. But that's not the issue...

Why is it necessary for the electric and wet power events to be combined? Your score is your score, regardless of what anyone else does. If they are separate events, they can always be combined on a contest by contest basis as needed. If they are kept separate, people could fly BOTH if they wanted to. And if big performance inequities developed, the hassle of trying to correct them or re-separate the events is eliminated. I see nothing wrong with having nationally recognized electric carrier rules. I see nothing wrong with them being official. I just can't see the necessity of combining electric and wet power into one event.

As for allowing 2.4 ghz in control line, it seems contrary to the very nature of "control line" to use RF to do anything on the model. I wouldn't call it a failure to embrace progress or technology. I would call it an acknowledgment of a particular set of parameters, inherent limitations and all. If somebody wanted to use 2.4ghz technology on a CL sport model, great! I've considered it myself. But I think it's wrong for competition. And to be honest, I can't see how a kid today would want to fly a radio controlled CL model when he could fly a radio controlled RC model instead.
Make no mistake, though. If carrier allows the use of 2.4 ghz radios, I'll be all over it!

Paul Smith · « **Reply #32 on:** March 28, 2012, 07:57:21 AM »

Quote from: don Burke on March 24, 2012, 10:42:00 AM

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.

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #33 on:** March 28, 2012, 09:51:54 AM »

An important reason for some of us to have the electric and wet classes combined is the Nationals, which is important for some (not all) carrier participants. For some of us, it's the only contest of the year that really matters. For sport fliers, it hardly matters at all. But I think keeping the Nats strong helps to keep the event strong. Most people who like electric won't be able to compete in both electric and wet because of limitations of their time and resources to prepare for six events, so wet participation alone will continue to drop. Combining electric and wet will keep total official participation up.
The radio use is a bit philosophical, as Bill points out: Is it really control line or what? I go back to what Mike Gretz said, "If they're having fun, why not?" We do not want to make it have serious advantages over presently permitted systems, most closely seen as electrical control along the lines. That's one reason to think perhaps the "throttle only" rules proposal would be the minimum change needed to allow radio but to keep it from adding advantages. You would still have to use the lines for elevator, hook and slider release, etc.

Pete

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #34 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:10:49 AM »

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

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #35 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:51:01 AM »

There are a couple of line drag calculators (Pete Soule used to have one on his Racing website), I still have one based on his calculations on this computer.

The drag is not linearly proportional to the diameter -

If I plug in 3 x .015's travelling 100 mph, I get 2.013 lb. drag
change to 2 x .020's " " , I get 1.66 lb. drag

In fact, 2 x .024 is still only 1.90 lb.

(At standard atmosphere, sea level)

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #36 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:22:04 AM »

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.

john vlna · « **Reply #37 on:** March 28, 2012, 07:40:34 PM »

Mike,
Thanks for the line drag info, I have always wondered about the difference.
John

Paul Smith · « **Reply #38 on:** March 29, 2012, 06:23:17 AM »

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.

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #39 on:** March 29, 2012, 07:47:59 AM »

It is presently legal (and technically straightforward) to use electric controls with two lines to control any and all functions, including elevator. John Vlna has demonstrated how to make insulated lines with minimal diameter increase by covering with polyurethane. (It is also straightforward to have lines coated with Formvar or similar insulation commercially. It's very thin.) But except for control of throttle for electrics, for which it is extremely well suited, I don't see it happening.
In carrier, a slight technical advantage in one characteristic or another, doesn't seem to determine the winner. The winner is the guy with decent equipment who makes the best flight that day, flying well for the weather conditions. There is more due to flying skill, preparedness and, yes, even luck than there is to small differences in hardware.

Pete

Joe Just · « **Reply #40 on:** March 29, 2012, 09:34:06 AM »

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

don Burke · « **Reply #41 on:** March 29, 2012, 10:43:05 AM »

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.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #42 on:** March 29, 2012, 11:27:45 AM »

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.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #43 on:** March 29, 2012, 01:24:28 PM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on March 29, 2012, 11:27:45 AM

..... But, I also think in my own opinion, that if you fly scale carrier you should not be flying sportsman profile carrier.

What if the Profile Sportsman wants to enter his Profile, or a different one, in CL.1 ?? I tell all the newbies to build a Skyray first - you can enter it in Skyray, Profile and Cl.1

Paul Smith · « **Reply #44 on:** March 30, 2012, 05:12:42 AM »

Quote from: don Burke on March 29, 2012, 10:43:05 AM

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.

Joe Just · « **Reply #45 on:** April 01, 2012, 07:15:37 PM »

I just noticed that Eric Conley was #1 in .15 Carrier ranking for last year with a top score of 294.7 using an "E" powered plane. Looks like Eric has found the way to beat IC powerede planes. Let's keep "E" and IC seperate.
Joe

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #46 on:** April 01, 2012, 07:39:34 PM »

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.

eric david conley · « **Reply #47 on:** April 01, 2012, 08:03:32 PM »

Hey Joe, it was quite a leap wasn't it. I beat the e-rule weight by around 5ozs so I guess I could say the next one will be bigger and better but I wont. Going along with what we have said about adjusting the e-rules if it got to lop sided in favor of the e I'm just finishing up a new e-15 that is smaller, lighter, and real underpowered compared to the one I flew in 2011. We will see how it goes and adjust from there. Eric

john vlna · « **Reply #48 on:** April 01, 2012, 08:17:53 PM »

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

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #49 on:** April 01, 2012, 10:27:59 PM »

I have seen Eric's .15 and watched him fly it and I can say the top performance hasn't anything to do with it being electric: It makes the speed limit, same as gas, and it does not have a huge engine offset. It's just a better, bigger, smarter design and Eric flies it very well. That airplane would be just as good with a gas engine, or maybe better as it would be lighter. Eric has figured out how to build a much better profile .15 and as people notice it and copy it, they will discover what they are doing wrong with their .15 profile models, whether gas or electric. I predict scores are going up in tht clas regardless of power type.
I was sending a note off to Ted Kraver with a listing of contests for 2012. I noticed there are eight contests that I fly in, five plus the Nats in the Midwest area. One of those, Mike Anderson's, has lots of events combined and includes all non-rule-book events combined % of previous year's top 20. The other four just combine AMA and electric events. The only other Midwest contest that doesn't have electrics combined is the Nats. (Electric is not flown officially at the Nats.) The Nats is really the contest I want to have electric at. (Of course, if electric became part of the regular AMA carrier events, there would be nothing to stop local contest directors from specifying "no electrics" if they wish. I bet they won't bother when they discover that electrics are no threat to gas.)
Pete

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