2.4 and CL Stunt

[Hoss Cain]

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.

[bill bischoff]

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.

[Mark Mitchell]

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.

[Bruce Hautamaki]

     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.

[Reptoid]

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.........

[Hoss Cain]

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. 

Keith does not agree.            

[Fred Cronenwett]

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.

[Reptoid]

"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
Controline should be just what the name implies, "control by line/lines" JMHO

[MarcusCordeiro]

This is going to be another fine mess, I mean discussion...

 

Marcus

[bill bischoff]

"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.

[Trostle]

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

[john e. holliday]

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.

[Eric Viglione]

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)

[dale gleason]

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

[Hoss Cain]

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. 

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. 

[john e. holliday]

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. 

 

[Dave_Trible]

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

[Brett Buck]

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

[peabody]

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..

[Brett Buck]

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

[Steve Fitton]

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.

[peabody]

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...

[dale gleason]

The 2.4 "jammer" was the tip-off, Brett.   

dg

[Howard Rush]

Another attempt to abuse the 'Urgent" process.  These rules and resolutions need more scrutiny.   

[Chuck Feldman]

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

[Howard Rush]

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.

[Douglas Ames]

 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...

[Brett Buck]

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

[Reptoid]

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

[Chuck Feldman]

Hello Howard,

Could you expand on that a little for me.

Chuck

[Hoss Cain]

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!!

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.

[CircuitFlyer]

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

[L0U CRANE]

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?

[john e. holliday]

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. 

[dave siegler]

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

[FLOYD CARTER]

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

[Howard Rush]

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. 

[FLOYD CARTER]

If that happens the others will follow, and the same people will still be on top.

F.C.

[Dave_Trible]

And there will be yet fewer and fewer who will participate.

Dave

[Chuck Feldman]

Howard,

Thank you for the answer. I have little to no knowledge about Hamlet. Maybe others are like me in that reguard.

Chuck

[Jim Oliver]

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.

[Ted Fancher]

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

[Scott Richlen]

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

[Balsa Butcher]

The above two posts express my feelings on the subject a lot more eloquently than I could. Thanks.

[Brett Buck]

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

[FLOYD CARTER]

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

[Bill Morell]

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.

[Eric Viglione]

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

[proparc]

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. 

[Brett Buck]

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