Author Topic: Good News: AMA Rules Allow "Electric landings" (Read 3212 times)

Rudy Taube · « **on:** April 13, 2007, 02:19:50 PM »

My guess is that we will hear more of these things as we progress in Elec. CL. Like they already are in FAI?

After seeing my power on landings the small but vocal Anti-Elec. group in our club said they were illegal. They said the AMA rules did not permit them. They did not know what the rule said, but that they were sure they were not allowed.

Since the rules were written for IC engines a Long time ago, the wording reflects this type of "ON or Off" power supply. It is a stretch to say our slow down on power while landing is not allowed. Here is what I think they are referring to, it is from the judges guide section of the AMA book:

14.37.2 Start judging; when the model aircraft leaves the descent entry height at the
beginning of its engine-out landing approach (glide).

They are also saying the slow Take-offs are unfair, and maybe illegal as well.

Does anyone out there have a friend (or at least someone who is pro-elec.) on the CL contest board that could give us an official AMA interpertation? Or should we get a ruling from PAMPA? This negative resistance to Elec. does not mean the sky is falling, and it is certainly not unexpected. ;-) I'm sure it will all get sorted out OK eventually, but I think the earlier we get out ahead of these things the better off we will be.

Any ideas out there? ... Dean? ... TIA

Bill Smith · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2007, 06:45:41 PM »

Not to take a stand one way or the other. I have always been told that touching the ground under power during a judged flight is considered a crash and the flier looses pattern points and what ever maneuvers are yet to be done.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2007, 09:31:19 PM »

Quote from: bill smith on April 14, 2007, 06:45:41 PM

Not to take a stand one way or the other. I have always been told that touching the ground under power during a judged flight is considered a crash and the flier looses pattern points and what ever maneuvers are yet to be done.

Hi Bill,

Yikes! .... This problem may be worse than I thought. :-(

Bill, please tell us where they saw that in the rules? I have not seen it anywhere, but I may have missed it? Thanks for sharing your opinion with us. :-)

Regards,

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2007, 11:39:53 PM »

HI Gang,

Well, it's official. I flew my electric. P-40 in an AMA contest today and one of the anti-elec. guys protested my landings. Fortunately we have a very nice, pro-elec., reasonable CD (who also is a good friend of mine.). He ruled that the elec. landings, and TOs were legal within the rules. The protester is still not satisfied and I am sure he will protest at the next contest (in May). This next contest is in another town and I do not know how the CD there feels.

My defense was in 2 parts:

The actual "rule" regarding landings is in:
"13.15 Landing. A correct landing is judged when the model descends smoothly to land with no bounce or unusual roughness, and without any part of the model other than the LG having touched the ground .... The duration of the flight ends when the model rolls to a stop."

There is nothing in this "rule" about engines (or motors ;-) being off, on, or otherwise!

The other part of my defense was that the "engine-out" reference in the Jude's guide (14.37.2)was actually put there to help the judge realize that the landing scoring begins ONLY at the beginning of the landing decent and not to judge anything that comes before this landing decent. The reference the judge has for this "beginning decent" with the IC engine (as it is presently used) is it stopping, being that it is an ON/OFF device. The "engine-out" reference was NOT put there to imply anything about the engine being required to be stopped, but only to help the judge know when to begin scoring the actual Landing maneuver.

The CD agreed with both parts.

I am going to call Steve Kaluf on Mon. and try to get an official AMA interpertation on this before this happens to me again. I really don't want to go back to the elec. landings when the prop turns into a generator and brings the plane down like a rock (well almost like a rock! ;-).

I was hoping that when I got back into CL recently, after a 40 year absence, and started with Electric that I would find support from the AMA and other flyers on this (elec.) because of it's excellent potential for saving flying sites, and even adding more flying sites for CL flying. It looks like I may have been a little naive?

BTW, I hope no one misunderstands my feelings on this. I am not upset, only a little disappointed. And I have not lost sight of the fact that we are just boys trapped in adult bodies playing with toy airplanes, we are not curing cancer here!

Steve is a good guy, I'm confident he will help us out.

Regards,

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #4 on:** April 14, 2007, 11:48:24 PM »

I have always felt that the judges guide actually adds a parallel set of (sometimes inconsistent) pseudo-rules. It would seem like to me the rules are the rules. A judge's guide should be completely separate. But since there seem to be even a third set of "we know better what the rules mean" rules, I doubt much can be done. I wouldn't count on AMA doing much, and I consider myself an AMA supporter!

Now after saying that, I would argue that it is one thing to land with the prop turning (because the motor breaking power can't stop it from windmilling), and actually landing under power. I'm not sure how I feel about it myself since I would like control line to remain "simple", and not go the route of super complexity.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2007, 06:22:45 AM »

Look at rule 14.37.2,

The engine needs to be stopped at the beginning of the descent. This applies equally to piston, jet, and electric power. This rule was in place long before the rules were amended to include electrics.

You need to develpe the technology to stop to prop prior to descent, or else negotiate yet another rules change. In F1c, they developed a prop brake just to get another 0.3 seconds of run time. Considering the often-touted advantages of electric, stopping the prop is low hurdle.

Bill Smith · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2007, 08:55:10 AM »

I can't find it myself (I don't have the most complete reference), but I have seen it used and been the victim of it myself. I fly a 1/2a barecat and once in a while the bladdered engine takes four laps to stop, losing power the whole time. so I have touched down with a running motor and lost pattern.
I have also seen a friend touch wheels at the bottom of a hourglass (got REAL low) and was hit with the same rule.
maybe its a local thing.?

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #7 on:** April 15, 2007, 09:16:23 AM »

Paul,
As I mentioned, the 14 section is NOT the rule. The rules are given in the 13 section. The "14" section is a judge's guide. Here is the leadin--a copy paste from the pdf file. The rules say nothing about the engine (or motor) stopping.

14. Judging Procedures.
14.1. Purpose. This Judges’ Instructions
document is an aid to judging and marking Control
Line Precision Aerobatics competitions. It should be
used both for the training of potential judges, and for
maintaining the proficiency of judges who are
already practicing. This document forms part of
Section 4 of the FAI Sporting Code applicable to
Class F2B Aerobatics.

Paul Smith · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2007, 11:24:17 AM »

OK, so it's in the Judges' Guide. You sure can't complain when judge follows the Judges' Guide.

I'm please to read that there's an "anti-electric group". Somebody told me I was the only one.

One thing about individual stunt scores: they can't be protested or changed either way. So if the judge gives you 30 & 25 for Landing and Pattern, nobody can take it away from you. Likewise, if your motor looks like it's running, he gives you zero-zero and you live with it.

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2007, 05:08:16 PM »

There is a national competition precedent on this: At a Nats a few years back Windy Urtnowski flew a Typhoon equipped with a glow engine with throttle and he used a Zetron infrared device (before it was outlawed) to slow the engine for landing. Once the model was on the ground he shut it off remotely. I was one of the judges at that affair and really liked the effect. He was not disqualified and the event director was well aware of the device in the model.

Note: Only the Zetron portion of Windy's routine was eventually outlawed; the landing under power has been allowed under the current rules and should be judged as legal with the use of electrics.

Why is it that there are those who are constantly against development of new ideas? If they had their way we wouldn't have cars, computers, or any other modern devices. If we do not continue to develop and progress, we will wither and die.

Bob Hunt

Bill Smith · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2007, 05:53:23 PM »

With the growing popularity of electric it would be nice to get some definitive rules set down now. Not guidelines.
Who should we talk to?

Clint Ormosen · « **Reply #11 on:** April 15, 2007, 10:54:54 PM »

Although I can't find it in the rules, I'd always understood that a timing device couldn't be used to shut the motor down. At the risk of sounding like an Anti-Electric, why can electric powered models do it? I think that is what I've been reading about prop brakes, isn't it? Somebody is gonna call foul on those.

I'm not a big poster here in the elec. forum, but I do lurk here a lot. Sorta learning on the sly.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #12 on:** April 16, 2007, 12:08:21 AM »

Sometimes the moon and stars align in our favor, I have very GOOD news! :-)

We are fortunate to have Keith Throstle as a member of our club. Keith was at our Palmer Memorial contest this weekend flying his beautiful Bearcat. As most of you know, Keith was instrumental in putting the Judges guide in the AMA rule book (with help from others). Kieth is also an influential member of the AMA CL Aerobatic Contest Board. Keith has been involved with our rules for decades.

I met with Keith this morning and he gave me a definitive answer to our landing rules question:

Quote: "What we are doing with our power landings is ABSOLUTLY within the AMA rules. There is NO restriction on this in our AMA rules."

Keith said he will take a personal interest in this and have a written statement come from the Contest Board in the near future. Keith is also on the board of PAMPA and will do the same with our SIG.

He stated that the judges guide he put into our rules came from the FAI judges guide. He had edited out the words that did NOT apply to our AMA flying. The sentence that I quoted from 14.37.2 with the words "...engine-out landing approach..." are from the FAI guide and Keith said he just missed it and it should have been edited out before it got into our AMA judges guide. He said that he would get the wording corrected as soon as he could.

The other wording issue that he said needs correction is at the very beginning of section 14, where it says: "Judging Procedures". That was a misprint. It was written by him and the contest board as: "Judging Guide". He will also get this wording error changed as soon as he can. These are NOT "rule" changes, only corrections in wording errors to the "Judges GUIDE" when the info was converted from the FAI wording over to our AMA rules.

The above is only needed to make the wording match the contest boards original intent, that was to use as much of the FAI GUIDE as we could, while adapting it to reflect our AMA rules.

Kieth was VERY clear that the RULES regarding Landings are in section 13.15. This is the RULES section (NOT section 14). And this (13.15) is the section that CDs use to govern our contests.

It is interesting that Bob Hunt used the Windy example. This is exactly the example Keith used this morning. Keith said the AMA CL contest board has already addressed this landing issue in the Windy case, and the precedent still stands.

As I said above, Keith will get us something in writing on this soon. This will give us someting official to show a CD to help the CD blunt any protests at contests this summer.

Bill, ...... I think your right, it sounds like a "local" rule.

Allan, ..... Your point regarding "KIS" is well taken. Fortunately, this landing method is very simple to set up. (If I can do it, ANYONE can!! ;-). And it does not require any additional equipment, and/or knowledge to make it work properly, it's free, and very KIS.
But I do know what you meant. You were not just referring to this setup, but cautioning us to be careful not to get "carried away" with HIGH ZOOT technology that would put being competitive out of the reach of those that do not have a laptop computer in their tool box, along with a NASA aerospace electronic engineer to run it! ..... Your caution is insightful, and I hope we all keep it in mind as we move forward.

We are very fortunate to have knowledgeable, dedicated and innovative people like Bob&Dean, Mike, Will, and many others who generously share their discoveries with us. They all seem to be sensitive to the importance of KIS. They also go out of their way to keep us all in the loop, so that we all move forward together.

Regards,

Paul Smith · « **Reply #13 on:** April 16, 2007, 12:20:31 PM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on April 15, 2007, 05:08:16 PM

Why is it that there are those who are constantly against development of new ideas? If they had their way we wouldn't have cars, computers, or any other modern devices. If we do not continue to develop and progress, we will wither and die.

Bob Hunt

When new technology complies with the rules and wins, that's progress.

The people who have invested years of time and money in piston engines would be fools to "adjust" the rules to make it easier to exterminate themselves. The timer was one mistake. No need for more.

"Electric Stunt" was OK as lounge act. It should have stayed that way.

Giving somebody a one-time break is not precedent-setting. Ref: 1966 Indy 500.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #14 on:** April 16, 2007, 02:34:41 PM »

More good news.

A group of CDs from our area got together during this weekends contest and we decided to align our P-40 rules with the rest of the SW (and most of the country) and eliminate the .40 engine size limitation. The popularity of larger profiles like the Cardinal, enlarged Tutor, etc. that like the affordable .46 and .51 engines have encouraged us to addapt to meet the wishes of those wanting to enter this popular event at our contests. This is for IC engines, but by pure coincidence (and dumb luck ;-) it solves one of the last minor "rule" problems the anti-electric groups have with us.

Another protest at this contest was about the "size" of my motor in my P-40 entry. They said that they had read in Stunt News that the AXI 2826/10 could fly a 650 sq. in. 65 oz plane. They said that this means that it must be larger than a .40 IC engine? ..... The CD observed that I was using the same prop (Randy Smith CF 11 x 4 3B) as used in a P-40 entrants AeroTiger, in the same plane I was flying (ARF P-40), and I had my plane flying slower than the AT powered plane, .... so he ruled in favor of allowing the AXI to fly in P-40.

Like the TO & L issue, it looks like this minor problem will also soon disappear. Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good! ;-)

Regards,

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #15 on:** April 16, 2007, 02:41:43 PM »

It's hard to argue with logic such as yours Paul. Fortunately we can simply side step your view on things and get on with progress. And, by the way, all of the eletric technology that all concerned have used does indeed comply with the rules.

I've tried very hard to see the logic in your thinking. My eyesight is just not that good anymore...

Trust me, electrics are here to stay and they will win and win big in a very short amount of time. In the process they will open all sorts of new vistas of performance and also save a bunch of fields in the process because of their low noise emissions. Wonder what the developers of the rubber band said when modeling went from rubber to ignition power, or what the gas station owners said when glow replaced ignition. Guess that was okay with you, eh Paul?

Still, this is America and I will fight to the death for your right to have your opinions on this. Would you do the same for me?

For progress - Bob Hunt

Bill Smith · « **Reply #16 on:** April 16, 2007, 05:06:06 PM »

Rudy

I responded to your email before I had read your posting. I like what I'm reading but I can see some big arguments coming.

jordan miller · « **Reply #17 on:** April 16, 2007, 06:25:17 PM »

I believe that landing with a engine running is against the rules in stunt i am in the same boat as Bill Smith and have seen this take off for pattern points. sorry Electric guys!!!

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #18 on:** April 16, 2007, 06:27:12 PM »

Well spoken Mr. Hunt. I agree wholeheartedly, I struggled to come up with words to say what you did but was not able to. Hope you dont mind if I do a "yeah what he said" on your post,,

Paul Smith · « **Reply #19 on:** April 17, 2007, 05:58:14 AM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on April 16, 2007, 02:41:43 PM

Still, this is America and I will fight to the death for your right to have your opinions on this. Would you do the same for me?

For progress - Bob Hunt

Bob, I have never attacked yours, or anybody else's right to an opinion.

I agree with your strong belief that the electric is superior technology that can out-perform piston engines.

A motorcycle can outrun a horse and a Jet Ski and beat a swimmer. So how come you can enter a Harley in the Kentucky Derby? Or a SkiDoo in a swimming race ?

Answer: Because sport is not war. The object to the game is not unlimited "technical progress", it's personal competititon within certain defined limits.

That's way they don't have rules changes in Cricket, if you changed the rules it would be Cricket.

It's good to discuss this issue. We don't want everybody to get the idea that electric conversion is a sure thing. If you spend $2,000 on electric and find out you can't use it, don't be surprized.

Ken Deboy · « **Reply #20 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:56:36 AM »

Quote from: ama21835 on April 17, 2007, 05:58:14 AM

It's good to discuss this issue. We don't want everybody to get the idea that electric conversion is a sure thing. If you spend $2,000 on electric and find out you can't use it, don't be surprized.

Since section 2 of the rules specifically allows for electric motors, why wouldn't I be able to use them?

cheers,
Ken

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #21 on:** April 17, 2007, 09:28:04 AM »

The name of the event in question is "Precision Aerobatics." It is not "Glow Engined Precision Aerobatics." If it were, none of this would have ever come up in the first place.

The power source is not the issue here; precision geometry is. I don't care if someone shows up with a turntable hooked up behind the prop with two - or more - hamsters running their little hearts in it out to achieve the appropriate thrust. If they fly better geometry doing it then I'm heading for the pet shop instead of the hobby shop or Radio Shack. Let's do keep our eye on the ball here; Precision Aerobatics is the game. (And, trust me, if that hamster/turntable thing happens, I will NOT try to enhance the hamster's performance with strategically applied electricity...

).

Those who strive to limit development are only putting an expiration/extinction date on the event. Let's extend that date indefinitely by applying some science to achieve not only more performance - for EVERYONE - but also less annoyance for those who do not understand our affliction. We can make this thing better, safer, quieter, more consistent and eventually more affordable. Why do some have a problem with that? Would you prefer to wait until all localities outlaw all model flying because it is perceived by them to be noisy, dangerous and messy? (And, by the way, that has already happened in many places throughout the country.) We need to begin to act now to be better neighbors, if we want to change perceptions and maybe even attract new blood.

We went through a similar exchange when the tuned pipe was introduced. Let the record show that the pipe did not end the event, but rather enhanced it with just one more option.

Bob Hunt

Paul Smith · « **Reply #22 on:** April 17, 2007, 09:31:24 AM »

Quote from: Ken Deboy on April 17, 2007, 08:56:36 AM

Since section 2 of the rules specifically allows for electric motors, why wouldn't I be able to use them?

cheers,
Ken

Maybe because, if you achieve overwhelming supremancy, the contests will start to disappear.

Maybe because the people who currently run AMA events will just start to have "local" gas-only events.

Maybe, like speed, racing, scale, carrier, and combat, you should be building a new event rather try to invade an exisitng one.

Ken Deboy · « **Reply #23 on:** April 17, 2007, 10:10:23 AM »

Quote from: ama21835 on April 17, 2007, 09:31:24 AM

Maybe because, if you achieve overwhelming supremancy, the contests will start to disappear.

Maybe because the people who currently run AMA events will just start to have "local" gas-only events.

Maybe, like speed, racing, scale, carrier, and combat, you should be building a new event rather try to invade an exisitng one.

If a majority of people flying WANT to fly electric, why would the contests start to disappear? I also don't see this overwhelming supremacy of electrics. Yes, they have some advantages as well as some disadvantages. An Aero Tiger 36 has significant advantages over some other glow engines. Should Aero Tigers be disallowed? For that matter, glow engines have lots of advantages over ignition engines running on gas. Should we disallow glow engines?

As for gas-only events, nothing wrong with that. OTOH, I can also see electric only events being held, especially in areas where noise concerns are a factor. (I'm aware that an IC engine can be muffled to be as quiet as an electric, but some people even get offended by the idea of having to run a muffler. We have a couple of people in my club like that. Ahem, our field is right behind a public library, in a park that is used by others for outdoor weddings and other activities, etc...) I think a strong case could be made for keeping Old Time and Classic stunt limited to IC engines, but for CLPA I don't see what the big deal about electrics is.

As for the other events you mention, I'm not sure I follow the analogy. I think Stunt is healthier than other Control Line events, at least by number of people flying each event. Carrier at least has also evolved over time - sliders, etc. I also don'e see how flying electrics is an "invasion" of CLPA. I think the event is strong enough to adapt to new technologies. In fact, I think in order to stay healthy it NEEDS to be able to adapt. Stock car racers aren't running Chrysler Hemi's anymore (or Ford Flatheads).

cheers,
Ken

Dean Pappas · « **Reply #24 on:** April 17, 2007, 11:41:39 AM »

Oh! Look at the fun I've been missing ...

Hey Bob, do you remember the stink when we introduced the tuned pipe setup twenty years ago?
Some folks said that it wasn't Stunt,
others that the RC technology was not welcome (tell that to the late Bill Wizniewski!)
and others just called us the anti-Christ.
That last one is only a slight exaggeration, as back then we were called names that
if I heard my son ever utter them, I'd have to smack him.
Some of us will always resist change,
some of us will always look for progress,
and others will sanely watch and adopt what has been proven.

Sometimes I wish I could be one of those ...

all the best
Dean Pappas

Mike Ferguson · « **Reply #25 on:** April 17, 2007, 01:38:21 PM »

One of (many) things I love about Stunt is its wide variety of ideas. It is truly an event where there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.

When the tuned pipe first came on the scene, people said it couldn't win. That didn't last long.

Soon after that, there was a complete about-face from that opinion - people said you absolutely *needed* a tuned pipe to win. Bob Baron (ST. 60 in 1996) and Paul Walker (Saito .56 in 2002) showed that to be wrong as well - you don't *need* it to win at a National Championship level. You need a well-trimmed plane with a consistent motor ... an axiom that's been consistent for well over 50 years, well before electric motors, tuned pipes, foam wings, and a whole host of other 'modern' accessories.

People have said that "bigger" motors - the ones winning at a National Championship level - would kill off the demand for smaller motors. Yet some of the most popular motors I see at contests are the Aero Tiger 36, the RO-Jett 40, and the PA Merlin 40 - all smaller, lighter motors.

Some people like to fly a Green Box Nobler with a Fox 35. Nothing wrong with that - and the advent of the pipe didn't take that option away from anyone. You can still buy a brand new Fox 35 engine and a new Green Box Nobler kit today, if you so choose. Or you can build a piped Impact. Or any variety of options that lie in-between ... and they're all pretty darn competitive, and capable of putting up a 500+ point pattern.

The electric stuff from Dean, Bob, Mike Palko, and a slew of others opens up yet another option for people to try. But that's all it is - an option. I really can't see the advent of electric motors heralding the demise of the Fox 35 and its kind.

I may never build or fly an electric stunter ... but I can't wait to see what Bob - and everyone else flying electric - develops. It should be fun.

frank carlisle · « **Reply #26 on:** April 17, 2007, 08:11:54 PM »

You could give a guy that can't fly a decent pattern the airplane that won the world champs just that afternoon and he still couldn't fly a decent pattern. Give him an electric hi-zoot stunter and he still won't be able to fly a decent pattern.
No matter what you have in the nose of the airplane you still have to be able to fly it.
Stunt really is about flying skills. Whether it's IC, electric or Bob's hamsters if you ain't got it nothing will help.

Dean Pappas · « **Reply #27 on:** April 17, 2007, 09:39:23 PM »

No! No! No Hamsters!
We are animal friendly around here. Besides, it's a terrible waste to go electrocuting good shooting critters.

Dean

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #28 on:** April 17, 2007, 10:45:16 PM »

Quote from: Dean Pappas on April 17, 2007, 09:39:23 PM

No! No! No Hamsters!
We are animal friendly around here. Besides, it's a terrible waste to go electrocuting good shooting critters.

Dean

Dean,

You must be running for some political office. You kissed up to the far left and the far right in two short sentences. That is not easy to do. ..... BTW, I think they disconnect your Disney channel out here for saying what you said!

We are all looking forward to seeing the drawings Bob has for his Hamster powered CLPA plane. He did promise NOT to use electronic stimulator's, but he did not rule out steroids.

Thanks for bringing us a little Levity to the sometimes overly serious subject of rules.

Rudy Taube · « **Reply #29 on:** April 17, 2007, 11:25:49 PM »

Hi All,

Since we seem to be near the end of my subject/post (the rules part anyway ;-), I want to thank 99% of you for your thoughtful, constructive inputs. As Dean says: "Constructive criticism is always welcome". There are many excellent, insightful posts here that help us keep the power part of our planes in perspective. Although it is important, it is not a major part of winning. As I have said before, this forum allows us to function as the BORG. In a very short time we can cover a lot of ground. Thanks Dean, and Sparky!

It looks like the rules covering electric CL Take offs, Landings, etc. are now clear and allow us to move forward into the contest season knowing that what we are doing is "LEAGAL". We will soon have it in writing from the CL contest board. And eventually have the Guide section, on the AMA web site, corrected too. This should make our lives, and CDs, a little easier. :-)

BTW: This rule clarification may inspire some IC pilots to start experimenting with timers and throttles on their engines? (please don't reply to this last comment here. Please start another thread, this subject deserves it.)

Regards,

Trostle · « **Reply #30 on:** April 18, 2007, 10:23:51 AM »

Quote from: Clint Ormosen on April 15, 2007, 10:54:54 PM

Although I can't find it in the rules, I'd always understood that a timing device couldn't be used to shut the motor down. At the risk of sounding like an Anti-Electric, why can electric powered models do it? I think that is what I've been reading about prop brakes, isn't it? Somebody is gonna call foul on those.

(clip)

This is one of those myths that continue to be perpetuated by people who do not bother to read the rules.

There is nothing in the CLPA rules that prohibit timing devices of any kind on our CLPA airplanes. Nor has there been any such rule, at least for the past 40 or more years.

The FAI rules did prohibit such devices, but that was changed several years ago. Automatic control devices such as timers can be used in FAI Control Line Aerobatic competition for functions like engine starters, engine shut offs, or gear retraction.

Keith Trostle

Mike Foley · « **Reply #31 on:** April 26, 2007, 04:34:46 PM »

As Mr. Hunt stated >>>>Why is it that there are those who are constantly against development of new ideas?<<<<

--These are the same people that are Anti ARF, Anti ARC, Anti Electric, Anti Monokote, Anti Foam Wings, anti Pre built components, bla bla bla.. You get the picture. Basically if it ain't scratch built covered with silkspan and powered by a Fox with dope finish then you don't belong. Isn't that what the VSC is all about? To relive the past which is fun to visit but not to live. I like to see progress and respet peoples right to decide for themselves so long as it is not forced down my throat, then I will fight back.

Bottom line, if you don't like it then don't do it. Just respect peoples right to choose

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #32 on:** April 26, 2007, 05:59:38 PM »

Lesseee prop still turning when the airplane is decending for landing... Sounds like a mid 1970's vintage FSR 45 with the dykes ring. The prop used to "turn" because the dykes ring offered little compression braking effect and with the large props and fast decents - a (barely) spinning prop was inevitable. Us iron piston junkies tried grumbling about the turning prop - either to blank stares or people laughing their... heads off!

Oh well I tried...

The point of that story - where's the NEWS here? Can you even TELL if an electric is turned off or spooling down? WHO CARES?
Smooth descent to a smooth touchdown - everything else is rubbish.

Like someone else said: dependable power, dependable aircraft & effective practice win-out.

Mike Foley · « **Reply #33 on:** April 26, 2007, 07:32:20 PM »

>>>The people who have invested years of time and money in piston engines would be fools to "adjust" the rules to make it easier to exterminate themselves<<<

Like the "Boiler Makers" during the steam era. I'm sure they didn't like the advent of the IC engine. Imagine driving a steam powered automobile worrying about the tank blowing up in your face.

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #34 on:** April 26, 2007, 10:37:32 PM »

Saw my first E-Stunt flight last weekend in P'land. Interesting. PW did a 'shutoff loop' to 'shut off' the electric motor...Paul's subtle humor at work. Well, it does mark the beginning of the landing for the Judges, which is a good idea. I was thinkin' that it would be fun if the model glided in without the prop spinning, then give a burst of reverse to whoa it to a stop...in front of the Judges, if possible (and PW could, trust me, but then he can do that with a glow engine).

Speaking of Judges, and being one on occasion, I've noticed that some Judges like to hoard points. Giving them out as sparingly as they can get away with, while not being lynched. Or maybe trying to become uninvited to be a Judge again?

I like to watch good stunt, but I'm willing to watch some boogers to see the good stuff. Being a Judge gives me the right to sit/stand in about the right location to see it done from the best viewing point. My preference is to give the most points I can justify, rather than the least. If this is a bad approach, you are free to fly in front of other Judges. I'll be the scorecard hobbler and be there to watch the takeoff.

I'd rather not have to interpret rules...they should be clear, and I think some new ones are faulty. I've always thought that level flight was level flight, but now, it is apparently what is known in 1:1 scale aviation as 'contour flying', or 'flying on the deck'. Plus, the maneuvers are supposed to be done 90 degrees to this 'level' flight, which is a strange concept. What's the matter with 'vertical'?

Steve

Author Topic: Good News: AMA Rules Allow "Electric landings" (Read 3212 times)

Alan Hahn

Alan Hahn