stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Hoss Cain on October 30, 2012, 01:00:01 PM
-
Just wondering if anyone is working on and/or trying stunt patterns using the new to come Jan 1st new AMA rule allowing 2.4 for throttle control on a ukie-stunter.
Back in the past Spring I tied to get a new Stunter ready for this year but it is yet in an almost ready-to-cover and paint. Need I replace the UKIE needlevalve with a throttle? Going to be interesting.
Plan on trying with the Ringmaster in my back-yard as soon as the Event Season winds down this November.
My sympathies to the East Cost folks. Rita and Ike messed up some things in this area several years ago, but not like you folks are getting it. May HE bless you all.
-
I believe the new rules don't explicitly allow 2.4 in stunt competition. The general rule that passed essentially says "the use of 2.4 is allowed as prescribed in individual event rules." Carrier, for example, passed rules allowing 2.4 for use in carrier, but stunt did not pass any similar proposal. Some will argue that it isn't legal until it is specifically stated as legal; others will argue that there is no longer anything that makes it illegal. ???
-
If the camel's nose is creeping under the tent is it time to invite the whole camel in? One could, let's say just for the heck of it and not aimed at any sort of competition whatsoever god forbid, use a 2.4 for both throttle and pitch. To wit: One oversized line to plane from a small ply trans mount with handles. Micro receiver, micro servo for throttle, small high torque servo for elevator. Adjust to taste. Discuss, and dis of course.
Might induce a few RCers to try sitting down at the round table. Also line tension becomes rather less of an issue.
-
Electrics are already doing it. It's pre programed but it still is a throttle. The camel is already in we just don't know it yet.
-
Actually, the new rules do not allow R/C for pitch control in Carrier.
For the record, I'm not a fan of any kind of R/C link for any controline. It's supposed to be "controline", not "R/C on a tether"
Imagine, if you will, a full house 6-9 channel carrier airplane with only elevator controlled by the bellcrank. To include: ailerons mixed with flaps for low speed and gyros for stabilization. Totally do-able with current technology.
and no, it will not entice a reasonable R/C pilot to fly "controline"
Also don't think electrics should compete in the same class as I.C. engine power (they don't in most other modeling catagories: FF, speed, etc.) but that's a topic for another day.........
-
Maybe you folks might review the "RULES" forum. http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=28703.0
I tried to wiggle a way to stop the use of throttle for stunt as IMO throttle is an up-down control. Power up, machine rises, Power back, machine descinds in real world. S?P
Keith does not agree. n1 S?P :##
-
After flying with electronic controls since 1991 and now have two models with 2.4 Ghz I can't wait for this to pass so I can use this in CL scale competition. The rules are written so that elevator must be controlled with a bellcrank. While you do have a RC reciever and servos in the model controlling functions such as throttle, flaps and other features that does not make it RC, the model still flies on 2 wires with a bellcrank. Flying with 2.4 Ghz is just like the down the wire electronic controls that have been used for over 35 years except now the electrical hookup to the flying lines is gone, it responds the same.
The 2.4 Ghz controls is great, full control of the throttle and other features, Once you have flown with the electronic controls you may never fly with 3-line again.
Bill is right I believe the general rules have to allow the 2.4 Ghz first, but then each category of CL also has to allow the 2.4 Ghz, only Carrier and Scale have wording to allow 2.4 Ghz for competition.
Fred C.
-
"Once you have flown with the electronic controls you may never fly with 3-line again."
Really??
That's like saying once you've flown a full house RC airplane you'll never go back to controline. I've been flying model airplanes for over 50 years including very complex aircraft up to 4 meters in wingspan with multiple flight modes and fully programmable mixing. I still fly controline because of the unique feel of having direct control and a physical contact with the airplane you don't get with free flight or radio control.
For those who strive to duplicate all the functions of a real aircraft or add as many gizmos as possible why would you not fly R/C. Then you can actually duplicate real aircraft flight scenarios like left and right turns and OMG Rolls y1
Controline should be just what the name implies, "control by line/lines" JMHO
-
This is going to be another fine mess, I mean discussion...
LL~
Marcus
-
"For the record, I'm not a fan of any kind of R/C link for any controline. It's supposed to be "controline", not "R/C on a tether"
Imagine, if you will, a full house 6-9 channel carrier airplane with only elevator controlled by the bellcrank. To include: ailerons mixed with flaps for low speed and gyros for stabilization. Totally do-able with current technology."
The above scenario is already legal today. The only difference is that until January 1 2013, the signals for the receiver have to be sent down the lines rather than through the air. With people insulating their lines with varnish, fat nylon coated lines aren't even necessary anymore. So literally, the only difference is how the signal reaches the receiver. At that point, does it really matter anymore? We haven't seen a mass defection to tethered RC yet, and I don't think we will.
-
The above scenario is already legal today. The only difference is that until January 1 2013, the signals for the receiver have to be sent down the lines rather than through the air. With people insulating their lines with varnish, fat nylon coated lines aren't even necessary anymore. So literally, the only difference is how the signal reaches the receiver. At that point, does it really matter anymore? We haven't seen a mass defection to tethered RC yet, and I don't think we will.
BINGO!!
An urgent change proposal is in the works to allow the 2.4 GHz system for CLPA similar to the change proposal already approved for the CL Carrier events.
Keith
-
Why??? We still have the pull of the plane on the two lines to the airplane for elevator control or in very rare cases single line. As already stated the additional controls have been done via electronics in one form or another thru the years. I still say we do not need it in stunt.
-
Yeah, normally I bow to your wisdom on a lot of things Keith, but this one has be baffled. First, I don't see it as a congruous necessity or nicety for aerobatics, and second I certainly don't see it as an "urgent" worthy proposal. I thought "urgent" last minute proposals were usually reserved for last minute safety issues? I can certainly see the appeal to the scale guys. But for stunt, most of us see it as more of a purist event. Like baseball, biking, etc. no steroids wanted or needed here, just the boy and his bat, man and his bike, whatever, on the line showing weather he will choke or make history. That's always been the beauty of the event for me and many others I talk to. The invasion of these other aspects totally change the foundation of the event.
Either way, I don't see the time needed being given to get the CLPA community's take on this if we as a majority want this in our event.
Why the rush? Please, if you have any influence at all on this, push to put it on the back burner for next cycle and let's get the community's take on this one, it's no small thing and I think you will find the backlash substantial.
EricV
(Edit to fix spelling)
-
Thank you, Doc, Thank you, Eric, Thank you, Brett, and all others who reject this idea. I'll be informing my rep today about how I feel about this intrusion of RC into stunt. We do get to voice our opinion and be counted when it comes to an "urgent" vote, do we not?
dg
-
Just wondering if anyone is working on and/or trying stunt patterns using the new to come Jan 1st new AMA rule allowing 2.4 for throttle control on a ukie-stunter.
Back in the past Spring I tied to get a new Stunter ready for this year but it is yet in an almost ready-to-cover and paint. Need I replace the UKIE needlevalve with a throttle? Going to be interesting.
Plan on trying with the Ringmaster in my back-yard as soon as the Event Season winds down this November.
My sympathies to the East Cost folks. Rita and Ike messed up some things in this area several years ago, but not like you folks are getting it. May HE bless you all.
Come on Fellows! The original thread question asks if there is any current use of using the RC allowance for throttle in a CL Stunt model airplane. To argue the use - allowance - etc. of the new rule is not answering my request, albeit an interesting replay. mw~
I think any sharing of such use could be very helpful to all the stunt fliers, especially myself. However, Thanks for your inputs regardless of the nature of your subjects. :##
-
Okay, in Fargo North Dakota, the year I was there, a couple of guys had throttle controlled planes they were using in competition. In the early days of my competition we had a local gent that tried throttle control on his stunt plane. He thought that throttling back in level laps would help. He flew it one season and hung it up. He stated, for him it was much to his advantage to have a decent engine run so he could concentrate on the pattern. I think even with the new radio for throttle a person would spend too much time backing off the throttle or advancing it. Now for in air needle valve adjustment it might be an advantage in case a person messed up on his/her setting on the ground. But, then again you can only go so far with it.
And when you think of slowing down between maneuvers, you will be adding to air time. Some people are running close on air time now even with good starts.
-
Okay maybe I'm blind (don't answer that) but I don't think I see what anyone would gain with it. I know we aren't nimble enough to reset a throttle between square corners. Slow the level laps and you'll overrun. Change anything much will change the trim and blow mental timing off. Planning to add sabre dance or powered landing to the pattern? Throttle response/power transmission isn't quick enough for during-manuever changes-likely flameout. So what is it? Bomb drop? Air brakes?.....retracts....that must be it. Maybe its about electric. Still in confusion here.
Dave
-
Thank you, Doc, Thank you, Eric, Thank you, Brett, and all others who reject this idea. I'll be informing my rep today about how I feel about this intrusion of RC into stunt. We do get to voice our opinion and be counted when it comes to an "urgent" vote, do we not?
I am not sure how I got in this one, since I haven't responded or commented. However I must be pretty predictable because I can't see why we need to rush to change the stunt rules to incorporate this. I think in general that allowing RC is not in our best interests. I can see the counter-argument for scale, and I certainly won't second-guess the carrier guys, any more than I would expect them to second-guess us. For stunt, I am not hard-over about it because I can't see how this makes any big difference, and we have allowed IR controls in the past with no particular advantage shown. By the same token there's no reason to hurry to allow it, certainly can't see how it is important enough to require an urgent change.
Brett
-
Will this rule require "frequency boards" and the like at Controline sites?
Kinda tough to run a Nats with any other RC event....
Kinda makes the Windy TV remote IR look progressive..
-
Will this rule require "frequency boards" and the like at Controline sites?
Kinda tough to run a Nats with any other RC event....
Kinda makes the Windy TV remote IR look progressive..
You mean the Zigras IR system that Windy bought? the "Z" in "ZTron" stands for Sergio Zigras, who designed and markets it. No one objected, I might note, partially because it wasn't clearly against the AMA rules but also because it appeared to provide no advantage.
No frequency control is required, it's a kind of rudimentary "spread spectrum" that is for the most part free of frequency control issues.
Brett
-
I don't see a need to fast track this for CLPA either. After all, we need to give Howard more time to develop his autosurfaces and miniature inertial guidance system for stunt planes. Then crude efforts at control such as throttle control from the pilot will be unneeded.
-
The plus side of using radio is that it might enable those that use IC to creep toward the advantages that programmable stuff gives ion power...
-
The 2.4 "jammer" was the tip-off, Brett. :)
dg
-
Another attempt to abuse the 'Urgent" process. These rules and resolutions need more scrutiny.
-
I can see this as an improvement to our event. For example; With this equipment one can control the throttle and make very realistic take offs and landings. The over run can be eliminated. You can have features like a retractable landing gear. I do not see it being useful for changing power settings during the maneuvers. To me this is a change in technology that we should welcome. I do not believe it will be something that will be required to compete. Further will any of this give someone an advantage? Probably not.
Chuck
-
Further will any of this give someone an advantage? Probably not.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Chuck, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
-
Imagine, if you will, a full house 6-9 channel carrier airplane with only elevator controlled by the bellcrank. To include: ailerons mixed with flaps for low speed and gyros for stabilization. Totally do-able with current technology."
Now, if you could rotate the gyro to 60 deg for the low speed portion...
-
The 2.4 "jammer" was the tip-off, Brett. :)
dg
I actually never used my ZTron jammer, after I saw how the airplane flew.
As I understand 2.4 ghz it would be pretty easy to jam, not so easy to actually actively take it over.
Brett
-
Now, if you could rotate the gyro to 60 deg for the low speed portion...
Childsplay, actually. Have you seen a model helo hover inverted? Flip one switch on TX and it flies just like upright (including 2 axis gyro control)
The real threat for serious competitors in CLPA who like to fly IC engines in their aircraft is combining RC with electric and allowing it to compete in the same class with IC....Not a level playing field and not how it's done in most other modeling disciplines R%%%%
-
Hello Howard,
Could you expand on that a little for me.
Chuck
-
Hi I just wanted to throw in that , while you can reverse the throws on a r/c heli transmitter, I dont know ANY heli pilots who do this. Especialy for flying 3d. This is a good example of a useless function on a transmitter. It would be similar to flipping your c/l handle over when you fly inverted. Just not how its done. I cant see any big advantage in stunt. And for the record I do fly helis(though not inverted yet) and also fly an electric flying clown that I control with a 2.4 transmitter (so I can fly alone with no stooge).
Mr. Danker, as one of the gifted, you might think that there are those of us, like me, that are not so coordinated and have some difficulties with transfers of different modes without some help. Look at these youngsters that catch on very quickly to RC and even CL. While they may be gifted or just smart, some functions may not be needed for you and them, yet some of us need all the help we can get. ??? I refused to use a number of options on RC, then I decided to try some. Makes life different and saves airplanes.
Way Way back as a youngster in school, I taught myself CL and could do well, but I could NOT get INVERTED flying. One day several of us from Livingston TX went to Beaumont and visited DON STILL's Happy Hobby Haven to complain of our plight. Don took the bull by its horns and called a friend of his between Beaumont and our homes. We went there and he took us out to a vacant space and individually taught us how to easily grasp inverted. Friend James P. caught on quickly, but I and another did not. Then our instructor showed us how to twist our hands as we went inverted. Within a couple flights we were all flying inverted simply by rotating the wrist so the bottom of the hand was as about 45-60 degrees up. I still do it today. If I try to do inverted without rotating the hand, before the 4th lap I will pull UP when the UP is the other way!! HB~>
Now did it really do me any good? Well this picture, made back about 1980, shows some of the trophies I gathered over the previous 20 years, with some estimated 80% were CL Stunt.
Again many kudos to one MR. Don Still of Beaumont TX, and his friend, for their super recognition of some early teenagers needing that help.
-
What about safety? Having the ability to shut down when something goes terribly wrong can only be seen as a positive step in the right direction.
Paul
-
As I see it, allowing 2.4 GHz has only one application in CLPA: Preventing over-runs. Intreractive throttle management would be too demanding on the pilot and on the equipment, IMHO. Timing is everything. Engine shut-off w/in the allowed 8 minutes from "start" signal sounds good to me.
We allow pre-programmed power delivery and defined shutdown time already for electrics, don't we? Adding a faint whiff of pilot involvement in regard to "power-off, glide and landing" is not as deep a change from "launch it and pray" radio, is it?
-
Average time for me to do the pattern from launch to landing roll stop is 5 1/2 minutes. So a start taking 2 minutes 59 seconds is not going to matter if you have a way of shutting down the IC power plant.
-
Think how much eaiser trim flight would be. Wings not level, shut it down, adjust and refly.
Or put a servo on the mixture control and eliminate bad runs.
How about a trim tab? Not a primary flight control.
Also blipping the trrottle may not work but what about throttle presets for level flight, overheads and the squares?
Landing gear for sure
-
Retract L.G. is a fun thing for stunt. However, you should first think of the weight penalty. I have two stunters with retracts. The very best I could do was 5 oz. on a RSM P-51 with OS46LA. It definitely hinders performance.
Floyd
-
Could you expand on that a little for me.
What Hamlet said? I'd sure want to keep radio or other electronic controls out of the pitch axis. One electronic advantage in pitch would be elimination of hinge moment effect on mechanical control via control lines. It presents other challenges-- Kim is not yet world champion-- but the state of the art in competitive stunt could switch from control line as we know it to RC on a string. We have already forfeited throttle control to the geeks. I'll go so far as to predict that someday an aero flight controls engineer will be European and world champion flying an airplane with a autothrottle using inertial sensors.
-
If that happens the others will follow, and the same people will still be on top.
F.C.
-
And there will be yet fewer and fewer who will participate.
Dave
-
Howard,
Thank you for the answer. I have little to no knowledge about Hamlet. Maybe others are like me in that reguard.
Chuck
-
With full knowledge that my comment won't be a response to the OP, my position is that no radio control, 2.4 or otherwise, nor any other device that allows any control by other than the control lines, should be allowed in any CLPA event. It's either "Control Line" or it's not.
Further, at our contest, any such devices will be disallowed and it will be so stated in the sanction application.
-
With full knowledge that my comment won't be a response to the OP, my position is that no radio control, 2.4 or otherwise, nor any other device that allows any control by other than the control lines, should be allowed in any CLPA event. It's either "Control Line" or it's not.
Further, at our contest, any such devices will be disallowed and it will be so stated in the sanction application.
Not that it should matter to anyone but...
All of the obnoxious attempts to simplify and modify and otherwise distort the event that was a huge part of my life from age 10 or so has literally sucked about 80% of my enthusiasm for continuing to participate in the event. Still love and enjoy the company of my many friends, but the event itself is becoming bastardized to the point it no longer lifts my spirits to participate or even think about it. If, in fact, yet another "device" to "alter the event's nature to make it more attractive...or whatever the excuse is" has risen to the point that rules changes to make it happen become "urgent" and demand immediate attention lest we self-immolate ourselves I'm afraid the last 20% of my mental and physical kinship with the event will have gone the way of the first 80%.
Stunt is (was) quite possibly the quintessential form of "model aircraft" competition requiring of its champions exquisite physical and mental competence with respect to its multiple challenges. I fail to see how the events of the last 20 or so years (or this proposal to further corrupt its nature) have been a positive thing. "Urgent"????? Excuse me.
Ted Fancher
-
Ted:
I agree. Sometimes, people get caught up in the idea that "change" will improve a situation. In some situations we fail to realize that the current state might be the best it can be under current conditions. For an event as long-standing as PA, we should think long and hard before making changes. Have we even tried to identify any negative unintended consequences of the new rule? We should also ask ourselves "so what?" Is the proposed change going to significantly improve the event? Or is it just a peripheral thing that we labor to justify? If it doesn't provide a vital important benefit to the event, why bother? Prop strikes and over-runs and bad runs are part of the excitement of the event! Why take that away? For example: don't want an over-run? Pay attention to your fuel metering. Don't want a bad run? Make sure you've charged your batteries fully/correctly. These unpredictables are part of why competition is so appealing. If you come up with ways of eliminating all the unpredictables of an event, you eliminate the tension, excitement, and surprise. Why would we want PA to be a wrapped-in-bubble-plastic yawner?
Scott
-
The above two posts express my feelings on the subject a lot more eloquently than I could. Thanks. 8)
-
Stunt is (was) quite possibly the quintessential form of "model aircraft" competition requiring of its champions exquisite physical and mental competence with respect to its multiple challenges. I fail to see how the events of the last 20 or so years (or this proposal to further corrupt its nature) have been a positive thing. "Urgent"????? Excuse me.
I don't debate the motives of anyone involved, but it's like someone decided, for reasons unknown, to hit the "panic" button about 3 years ago, and everything since has been one desperate attempt to fire out one change after another like a shotgun. I can see no reason for any of it.
Brett
-
I would welcome a "kill" device, (2.4 GHz or something). I've lost too many pattern points from slight over-runs in the past. I measure fuel load, but sometimes a slight needle adjust, or weather condx, or an engine that leans out in air gives impossible long runs.
Floyd
-
I would welcome a "kill" device, (2.4 GHz or something). I've lost too many pattern points from slight over-runs in the past. I measure fuel load, but sometimes a slight needle adjust, or weather condx, or an engine that leans out in air gives impossible long runs.
Floyd
That's why it is a contest.
-
OK, I'm gonna call BS on this for over runs. I see no reason why a receiver is needed any more than a timer to prevent over runs. The other carb parts and the rest are the same weather you use 2.4 or not. Use the same electrickary as the E-Power guys, just with a servo/carb for IC. No need for adding a radio. They can do that right now, but no one does... wonder why? Hmmm...
The sad part is excuses like this are what will be used to get the rule in place, but no one will want to run a carb or use it for that... there will be other "unintended" uses discovered that will change the nature of our event.
I still see no place where 2.4 does CLPA more good than harm, and definitely no need for an urgent last minute rule to cram this down our throats.
EricV
-
I usually don't get involved in any of the "rules business” but I personally don't want to see any RC control in stunt. Stunt flyers have a well deserved reputation as first class engine men.
Part of the prestige and alour of stunt is competence with your front end. Among other modelers, stunt flyers have a reputation for all around skill. You start cheapening the event with this nonsense; you devalue that long developed reputation and status.
Stunt flying is not for everybody. It is an event for people that aspire to a higher level of model aviation competence and skill. If you can’t handle this event, you can always fly F3A.
-
OK, I'm gonna call BS on this for over runs. I see no reason why a receiver is needed any more than a timer to prevent over runs. The other carb parts and the rest are the same weather you use 2.4 or not. Use the same electrickary as the E-Power guys, just with a servo/carb for IC. No need for adding a radio. They can do that right now, but no one does... wonder why? Hmmm...
The sad part is excuses like this are what will be used to get the rule in place, but no one will want to run a carb or use it for that... there will be other "unintended" uses discovered that will change the nature of our event.
I still see no place where 2.4 does CLPA more good than harm, and definitely no need for an urgent last minute rule to cram this down our throats.
Given that there is no "intended" use, I can't see how you could call anything an "unintended" use. What we are doing is, apparently, permitting any use you can think up with one exception.
BTW, everybody is talking about ground -> aircraft transmissions. As far as I can tell there is nothing preventing it from going from the airplane to the ground (and then maybe back). Thus enabling closed-loop control of any parameter you might want, with all the processing on the ground where it's trivial and has no weight penalty.
Brett
-
Brett, that's why I put unintended in quotes... I think you and I are on the same page with this one, my mediocre communication skills aside.
EricV
-
Brett, that's why I put unintended in quotes... I think you and I are on the same page with this one, my mediocre communication skills aside.
EricV
I thought spelling it out would crystalize the vision.
Brett
-
I don't see why Ted or Brett care about this. There is no benefit to how anyone flies the pattern with any 2.4 gimmick. Except a shut off. (The Russians had shut offs in their '89 Nationals Stunters, they were mechanical but they were in there.) One could use a F/F timer, but it's not that big of a deal.
Any program one writes, for say the power, will not be able to keep up with the inputs of the pilot, and for sure the pilot cannot keep up during a normal flow, look at how Windy did with the Typhoon.
It's Chicken Little, as far as I can tell.
Chris...
-
Then what's the rush? Somebody has more in mind than a shutoff. That can't require an 'urgent' response. Its taken many smart people over 60 years to cultivate, groom and tweek PA into the premier model competition it is. Some of us who have been along for most of the ride have deep respect for the work and principal. I can find little reason to change much of anything-least of all introduce an r/c poison pill into it. What I wonder most is who keeps trying to put up these hoops to jump through? Is it side-line barkers who have little or no skin in the game? Once bored with this they'll be off flying gliders or something? Are they the ones making the investment in treasure and time to jump through those hoops to be competitive or just offering suggestions. I would be in favor of a way to get a handle on this stuff-maybe a peer review group made up of nats level flyers to give input. Stunt flying has been an important part of many of our lives. Don't blame us for trying to protect it.
Dave
-
Then what's the rush? Somebody has more in mind than a shutoff. (SNIP)
(? 1 ) What I wonder most is who keeps trying to put up these hoops to jump through? Is it side-line barkers who have little or no skin in the game?
Folks that sell RC equipment would be a good start. The foreign input of 2.4 is bringing new competition into the two main players that are so use to having the market all to themselves. They are constantly looking for more potential customers, and the CLer just may well be a place to start. After all, the competition percentage of any model discipline is small potatoes in reference to the sport market. Yet when one competitor brings a new item with new possibilities into the foal, then everyone has to have one. I recently purchased 4 brand new 72MHz. 4 channel systems, with trainer switches, with all servos, batteries etc. just like systems used to sell for $60.oo per set from a big time supplier. They are not for CL but for teaching some grandkids.
I got two 5-channel 2.4 units, Tmttrs and long range receivers with some extras, for $70.oo per set. All long time Name-Brand units.
Customers are in demand.
(SNIP)
I would be in favor of a way to get a handle on this stuff-maybe a peer review group made up of nats level flyers to give input. Stunt flying has been an important part of many of our lives. Don't blame us for trying to protect it.
Dave
Good idea, but just an addition to the bureaucracy. Look at AMA now. Bureaucracy like government. So few AMA members take any interest in AMA. The DVPs get elected by a handful of friends. The DVPs then appoint the Contest Board members. CBMs follow the few that make noise and along with the DVPs, they don't like any others poking into what they consider as their private domain.
Do you ever hear of an AVP disagreeing with his DVP?
Lord knows that I have been down those roads for many years. HB~> Not all items having to do with toy airplanes!!! S?P
-
I don't see why Ted or Brett care about this. There is no benefit to how anyone flies the pattern with any 2.4 gimmick. Except a shut off. (The Russians had shut offs in their '89 Nationals Stunters, they were mechanical but they were in there.) One could use a F/F timer, but it's not that big of a deal.
Any program one writes, for say the power, will not be able to keep up with the inputs of the pilot, and for sure the pilot cannot keep up during a normal flow, look at how Windy did with the Typhoon.
It's Chicken Little, as far as I can tell.
Chris...
I agree that it doesn't immediately offer any obvious advantage right off the bat. By the same token, why does it needs to be an urgent change, and it sure doesn't fit the notion of C/L. Hey, I bet we would get more entrants if we allow micro RC helicopters you can buy at Wal-Mart!
Why I am concerned, just as examples, a few recent actions:
Allowing (actually, defining) ARCs with no contest board action,
Trying ban Sharks by indirectly reinterpreting rules with no contest board action,
Trying to ban stranded lines with no contest board action,
Banning certain handles with no contest board action, (which took multiple urgent proposals to undo),
Unbanning sharks by overriding the ED
Banning ARCs (maybe) by fiat after someone noticing that it was put in by fiat the first time (3 months before the contest),
Adding Expert to the NATs,
Adding R/C to C/L (makes some sense for Scale, less for Carrier)
Rushing to make it allowable to use R/C in C/L Stunt.
Most of that happened since the 2010 NATs. All for something that WAS NOT and IS NOT broken in the first place. I built my own airplane including control hardware and handle, and I had no idea if it was going to be legal at the 2011 NATs until I got there. THAT is a real problem.
I am not Chicken Little. I am not among those who are apparently desperate to change a whole bunch of stuff as fast possible to fix some undefined problem. I care as much about this event as anyone but I have seen no evidence that we have a serious problem and certainly not any problems that RC will solve.
I am providing feedback for all this. I have gotten too tired of trying to fight this out on a day to day basis, and while I am not quite to the point that Ted is, I can certainly see how he got there.
Brett
-
Why I am concerned, just as examples, a few recent actions:
Allowing (actually, defining) ARCs with no contest board action,
Trying ban Sharks by indirectly reinterpreting rules with no contest board action,
Trying to ban stranded lines with no contest board action,
Banning certain handles with no contest board action, (which took multiple urgent proposals to undo),
Unbanning sharks by overriding the ED
Banning ARCs (maybe) by fiat after someone noticing that it was put in by fiat the first time (3 months before the contest),
Adding Expert to the NATs,
Adding R/C to C/L (makes some sense for Scale, less for Carrier)
Rushing to make it allowable to use R/C in C/L Stunt.
Most of that happened since the 2010 NATs. All for something that WAS NOT and IS NOT broken in the first place. I built my own airplane including control hardware and handle, and I had no idea if it was going to be legal at the 2011 NATs until I got there. THAT is a real problem.
Brett
Hi Brett, I guess I need to make a comment about your "observations" listed above.
"Allowing (actually, defining) ARCs with no contest board action"
!. I think that the evolution of what a BOM compliant model has become has had little to do with any Contest Board action. (The BOM rule, except for an almost meaningless AMA imposed interpretation, now removed, has been in the rulebook for over 50 years.) That evolution started years ago when foam wings first appeared in a contest circle. Then, there was a BOM interpretation added to the rules by AMA HQ (for reasons we do not need to get into here) that had nothing to do with any Contest Board action. Then the AMA removed that interpretation, again outside the purview of the Contest Board. The ensuing aftermath has resulted in ARC's being allowed to fly as BOM compliant models. I think the Contest Board has been trying to address this situation and came close to establishing a meaningful BOM rule for our CLPA event, but failed in this last change cycle. There are ideas afloat now to get something done, positively, in the next cycle starting in two months.
"Trying ban Sharks by indirectly reinterpreting rules with no contest board action"
2. See comment 1 above.
"Trying to ban stranded lines with no contest board action"
3. This was the result of an AMA Nats official making an interpretation of the rulebook in response to a query from a Nats entrant. Given the words in the rulebook at that time, the interpretation was not really incorrect, but it could have been ruled differently given some insight as to the intent of the rules. You are correct that the Aerobatics Contest Board was not involved with that interpretation.
"Banning certain handles with no contest board action, (which took multiple urgent proposals to undo)"
4. See response 3 above. You are correct it took considerable collective effort by the CL Contest Boards to unravel that criticized "interpretation" that affected control lines, handles and all materials that connected the pilot to the CL airplane. Bill Lee was instrumental in getting that mess unraveled. But, that was one good use of the Urgent Change Proposal process.
"Unbanning sharks by overriding the ED"
5. This is something similar to what was involved with No. 1 above. Given the BOM rule as changed by the AMA (where the CB was not involved), the AMA essentially ruled that as long as the contestant stated/signed he was compliant with the rules (including the current BOM rule), then he was the builder of the model and the ED would have to accept that. It is possible that a CLPA specific BOM rule can be developed that will give an ED more authority to not allow an obviously prebuilt/pre-finished model to fly in a BOM required event. The contest Board is going to work on that and ideas are already being generated.
"Banning ARCs (maybe) by fiat after someone noticing that it was put in by fiat the first time (3 months before the contest),"
6. Again related to No. 1 above. The Contest board had its hands tied on this. The existing General BOM rule overides all when we fly an event that requires the BOM. The ED only had a few options to work with dealing with ARCs and the existing BOM rule.
"Adding Expert to the NATs"
7. This is an initiative considered by the PAMPA leadership. The Contest Board had nothing to do with this proposal. The PAMPA leadership chose to include Expert at the next Nats in accordance with PAMPA procedures and as allowed by the AMA rulebook and also in accordance with arrangements that PAMPA has with the AMA to administer the CLPA events at the Nats. Some feel this is a good idea. Others, obviously feel otherwise.
"Adding R/C to C/L (makes some sense for Scale, less for Carrier)"
8. There was no rush to judgement on this one. A proposal (in fact several proposals) were made in this current and just ended change cycle to allow the 2.4 GHz system for CL. This went through the initial, interim and final votes of the two year process. The concept that this could be used for CL models in the CL General rules passed the collective vote of all five CL Contest Boards with the provision that each specific event would need to have rules to allow it in each respective event. The Carrier Contest Board initiated a cross proposal to allow it in their event during this two year cycle and they approved it for their event. Unless one flies contest carrier events, one should probably not criticize the Carrier Contest Board approving what they did for their event. Same with CL Scale events.
"Rushing to make it allowable to use R/C in C/L Stunt."
9. If any CLPA enthusiast who might have wanted to see the 2.4 GHz system to be allowed in CLPA during this now ended change cycle, a Cross Proposal could have been submitted to initiate the process in the normal flow of processing such a change proposal. (Granted, the CL Aerobatics Contest Board might not have passed such a proposal) It was my understanding and in my communications with the CL Contest Board, that if the CL General rules proposal passed, we would be able to use the 2.4 GHz system on our CLPA models. What I missed (and maybe others) was the specific requirement of the CL General proposal that each event had to specifically adopt a rule to do so. So, I have submitted an proposal, under the Urgent Change category, to catch up as soon as possible after the new rulebook is published in January where we would have been if we had taken the initiative to consider this earlier this year. The AMA has not yet published this change proposal. Before that happens, the AMA will ask the Contest Board to agree that this is a legitimate Urgent proposal. That question has not yet been submitted to the Contest Board to consider. It will require a 60% approval of the Board to further consider the proposal. If that happens, there will then be a 6 week review process at which time the Contest Board will give a final vote, 60% approval required to pass. I have no idea how this will proceed through the voting process. There are some Board members who wish to go on as an Urgent proposal. Others do not. There are some Board members who favor the idea at this time. Others do not.
What happened to you at the 2011 Nats was totally unforeseen and the Contest Board had nothing to do with the initial interpretation but was much involved to get the matter fixed.
Things happen. We even got the Pattern Points put back into the rulebook, though the reasons for some not to understand the long standing F2B rules (which we essentially adopted when we eliminated Pattern Points) still escape me.
Our rulebook has been almost constantly evolving. I like to think mostly for the good. I think we do have a problem now with the rulebook because it is a hodgepodge of things added during different change cycles. There are the basic rules, then a judges' guide, then more rules on skill classes. Now there is talk that there will be a proposal to add an appearance judges' guide. All of this needs to be redrawn into a comprehensive, coordinated package.
-
I origanally got involved in C/L because I burned out on R/C after 25 years of it. I have no desire to go back to it, I like the simplicity of C/L, don't think it needs 2.4 technology. HB~>
-
Well, some people like to tinker and play with complicated things. Others like me want it super simple.