Rules Proposals Part 2

[john e. holliday]

I have gotten only one response from my district on the cross proposal for aerobatics.  I think it will put too much of a burden on contest directors and event directors.  So I guess you can see how I am going to vote on it.  Now in the Control Line General there is a proposal that should be accepted.  It is CLG-09-2 and pertains to profile fuselages.  Anyway I hope the appropiate people get the word.  DOC Holliday

[Crist Rigotti]

I have gotten only one response from my district on the cross proposal for aerobatics.  I think it will put too much of a burden on contest directors and event directors.  So I guess you can see how I am going to vote on it.  Now in the Control Line General there is a proposal that should be accepted.  It is CLG-09-2 and pertains to profile fuselages.  Anyway I hope the appropiate people get the word.  DOC Holliday

Doc,
Can you explain a little bit more on your statement "I think it will put too much of a burden on contest directors and event directors."?
Thanks.

[Marvin Denny]

  Doc,  I see no need for any of the cross proposals--  I say vote against all of them.  I speek only for myself as I haven't been able to talkto any of the others here in Wichita

  bigiron

[john e. holliday]

The cross proposal means that all the planes must be weighed ready for flight.  That means batteries on board as well as full fuel tanks for the nitro planes.  Then having a chart to pull test each airplane.  I can see the FAI weighing each and every airplane, but, I don't think they require fuel to be on board.  I am thoroughly satisfied with the current way of pull testing.  It would obsolete a peice of equipment that has been in use and refined over the last few years.  Later,  DOC Holliday

[Wayne Foster]

The cross proposal means that all the planes must be weighed ready for flight.  That means batteries on board as well as full fuel tanks for the nitro planes.  Then having a chart to pull test each airplane.  I can see the FAI weighing each and every airplane, but, I don't think they require fuel to be on board.  I am thoroughly satisfied with the current way of pull testing.  It would obsolete a peice of equipment that has been in use and refined over the last few years.  Later,  DOC Holliday

Hi Doc,

What piece of equipment would this Cross Proposal obsolete?

[john e. holliday]

The pull test machines used at places like The NATS, VSC and a few other big contests for aerobatics.  DOC Holliday

[RC Storick]

Vote NO on this cross proposal, Reason being does a battery weigh more with a full charge? If it does then we can add fuel to equal it out. But I know it does not.

[Doug Moon]

I dont think you weigh it with battery or fuel.  You weigh the planes dry. 

[Crist Rigotti]

The pull test machines used at places like The NATS, VSC and a few other big contests for aerobatics.  DOC Holliday

Doc,
What about an electric airplane now?  Don't those have to be weighed and pulled tested now using existing equipment?  I know at the NATS at least 1 electric airplane flew (Paul Walker's).  With all due respect, I don't buy the arguement that it is too much hassle, obsolete equipment, etc.  We are processing eletrics now and getting by.  Sure they'll be a few hiccups along the way, there always is.

The cross proposal in the General section is for racing and such, it doesn't apply to CLPA.  There is no rule in CLPA that defines a Profile fuselage, at least as far as I know.

[Crist Rigotti]

I dont think you weigh it with battery or fuel.  You weigh the planes dry. 

Doug,
The rulebook says that electric planes are weighed with batteries.  See page CL-3. 

[Paul Smith]

This is clearly a serious SAFETY issue.  If pull test is to be based on weight, it needs to be TRUE worst-case weight, which means everything, fuel and/or batteries.  

To weigh all airplanes "dry" less fuel or batteries would understate weight by 4-to-6 ounces on liquid fueled models and 18-to-30 ounces on battery-fueled models.  Is that safe and fair?

If it's too much trouble, just let everybody fly on .021" lines and pull 60 pounds.  Maybe those who want thinner lines and lower pull tests could voluntarily run their planes across the scale.

Perhaps the smartest solution would be to just let the electrics start a new event.

[Wayne Foster]

The pull test machines used at places like The NATS, VSC and a few other big contests for aerobatics.  DOC Holliday

Hi Doc,

I’m afraid I don’t see your logic in voting against the Cross Proposal CLA-09-9C.  You have already voted FOR Proposal CLA-09-9 which does away with your specialized pull test devices.  If CLA-09-9 passes the second vote, you will be required to weigh each airplane at every contest and determine the amount to pull it based on some lookup tables.  If you didn’t want to have to do this, you should have voted against CLA-09-9.

For those who may not know what this is all about, here is Rules Proposal CLA-09-9 which was proposed by Keith Trostle and has passed the first vote.

The only people to vote against this proposal were District II, Tom Hampshire and District X, Keith Trostle


CLA-09-9 – The line diameters for piston engine powered Control Line Precision Aerobatic models are currently based on engine displacement while line diameter requirements for electric powered models are based on model weight. This proposal deletes the current line size chart for piston engine powered CLPA models and changes the existing line diameter chart for electric powered CLPA models to include all models.

At the beginning of the CLPA section of the rulebook, delete the entire line diameter/pull test chart for Total Piston Engine Displacement. In the remaining CLPA rulebook charts for line diameters and pull tests, delete “Electric Powered” that appears in the two left hand blocks so that only the term “Model Weight” remains in these two blocks. Maintain the heading at the top of the chart that shows “CL Precision Aerobatics”.

Logic:
The current CLPA rulebook specifies minimum line diameters based on total engine displacement. Power available and total model weight can vary considerably for any given engine displacement. Establishing minimum line diameters based on model weight regardless of the type and size of the powerplant provides a more logical and consistent methodology.

Submitted by: Keith Trostle, AMA #3533


 If CLA-09-9 passes the second vote there will be no difference in how Electric and Piston Engine Powered airplanes are processed for flying.  Since the Electric airplane pull test is based on 10G times the weight of the airplane, you will have to weigh each airplane and determine the appropriate pounds to pull test it.

Since the Electric pull test is determined with ALL BATTERY SOURCE on board at the time of weigh in, it is only right that the Piston Powered airplane have the fuel on board during the weigh in.  If you didn’t do this you would not know which size line to use since the line diameter is now based on WEIGHT and NOT Displacement.

Doc, I would like you to reconsider and vote for Cross Proposal CLA-09-9C.

[Doug Moon]

Doug,
The rulebook says that electric planes are weighed with batteries.  See page CL-3. 

Crist,

That makes sense.  Batteries dont gain or lose weight.  So it would be fair to weight them with batteries on board. 

[Doug Moon]

.....

The only people to vote against this proposal were District II, Tom Hampshire and District X, Keith Trostle

.....

Why would Keith vote against his own proposal?

[Wayne Foster]

Crist,

That makes sense.  Batteries dont gain or lose weight.  So it would be fair to weight them with batteries on board. 

Hi Doug,

So if it's OK to weigh the Electric airplane with the batteries, why would you not weigh the Piston Powered airplane with their fuel on board.  After all, this is how we are determining what line size and pull test the airplane is going to be subjected to.

[Wayne Foster]

Why would Keith vote against his own proposal?

Hi Doug,

That's a good question.  perhaps Keith will reply and tell us.  Here are the voting results:

Control Line Aerobatics Initial Vote Results

Proposal   DIST I   DIST II   DIST III   DIST IV   DIST V   DIST VI   DIST VII   DIST VIII   DIST IX   DIST X   DIST XI   YES   NO   PASS/FAIL
CLA-09-1   Y   N   Y   Y   N   N   N   N   Y   N   N   4   7   FAIL
CLA-09-2   Y   Y   Y   Y   N   N   N   N   Y   N   NP   5   6   FAIL
CLA-09-3   N   Y   Y   N   NP   Y   Y   N   N   N   N   4   7   FAIL
CLA-09-4   N   N   N   N   Y   N   Y   N   NP   Y   N   3   8   FAIL
CLA-09-5   N   N   N   N   Y   N   Y   N   NP   Y   N   3   8   FAIL
CLA-09-6   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   NP   Y   Y   10   1   PASS
CLA-09-7   Y   Y   Y   Y   N   Y   N   N   NP   Y   Y   7   4   PASS
CLA-09-8   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   N   NP   Y   N   8   3   PASS
CLA-09-9   Y   N   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   Y   N   Y   9   2   PASSCLA-09-10   Y   N   N   Y   N   N   Y   N   N   Y   NP   4   7   FAIL
CLA-09-11
WIthdrawn                                                       
 
 
 CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS
I: Dave Cook, 46 Maple St., Norfolk MA 02056
II: Tom Hampshire, 430 Greenwich St., Belvidere NJ 07823
III: Robin (Bob) Hunt, Box 368, Stockertown PA 18083
IV: Warren Tiahrt, 4020 Martins Point Rd., Kitty Hawk NC 27949
V: Bob Dixon, 1351 Tristram Circle, Macon GA 31220
VI: Allen Brickhaus, Box 206, Golconda IL 62938
VII: Bob McDonald, 28746 Westfield St., Livonia MI 48150
VIII:Gary McClellan, 7812 Bayshore Ct., Ft. Worth TX 76179
IX: John Holliday, 10421 W. 56th Ter., Shawnee Mission KS 66203
X: Keith Trostle, 971 N. Circulo Zagala, Tucson AZ 85745
XI: Paul Walker, 25900 127th Ave. SE, Kent WA 98031

[Wayne Foster]

Hi Guys,

Sorry the chart for the Voting Results didn't line up with the District.  You will just have to count over to see that District II and X voted no.  Sorry if this caused any confusion.

[Alan Hahn]

Well for what it's worth, my battery for my Nobler (a 4s2100mAHr Lipo) weighs 6.8oz fully charged. So if you are carrying a filled 4oz tank in the equivalent glow Nobler, that would be about 4oz of fuel at takeoff. So it isn't like my battery is that much more weight than a full tank.

I would agree that in the first year there could be issues, especially with slightly overweight glow planes running 25 sized engines that might put them a line size up--which the contestant might not have with them. However this illustrates the idiocy of the current rule where a Nobler running a 25 engine runs 0.012" lines as opposed to one with a Fox35 running 0.015 " lines. And as we all know, being told many times, that the 25 has as much or more power than the 35!  Or a Aerotiger 36 vs a LA46. I think weight is a more reasonable criterium than engine displacement, when we are comparing engines over 50 years of development.

[Crist Rigotti]

Vote NO on this cross proposal, Reason being does a battery weigh more with a full charge? If it does then we can add fuel to equal it out. But I know it does not.

Bob,
Remember that the pull test is a matter of safety.  If the method of determining the amount of pull to be applied is what the airplane weighs, doesn't it seem logical that amount should be the maximum that the airplane will weigh for that particular flight?  It has nothing to do with electric vs fuel power.  It's all about weight.  If a fuel powered airplane is weighed without fuel it would only represent the airplane while gliding.  Hardly a realistic scenario in determining a safety issue when the airplane is under power.

[phil c]

Kinda making a mountain out of a molehill here.  4-6 oz. of fuel in a 3-4 lb plane(less than ~10% of the overall weight) will not make a big difference in the overall result.  The lines should be spec'd to restrain something like 3 times the expected in flight loads(as when the plane free flights across the circle and the pilot catches it, or when flying in a 29 mph wind), either of which can easily approach 10 g's.  It appears the proposal specifies pull test and line size base on weight, so as long as the plane is under the max weight for a given line size it will be OK.  In the case of fuel-powered planes simply deduct a few ounces from the allowed weight, or add a few ounces to the pull test weight based on the tank size.  That would be easier to do than filling the tank and trying to verify that it was properly filled.

[Doug Moon]

Kinda making a mountain out of a molehill here.  4-6 oz. of fuel in a 3-4 lb plane(less than ~10% of the overall weight) will not make a big difference in the overall result.  The lines should be spec'd to restrain something like 3 times the expected in flight loads(as when the plane free flights across the circle and the pilot catches it, or when flying in a 29 mph wind), either of which can easily approach 10 g's.  It appears the proposal specifies pull test and line size base on weight, so as long as the plane is under the max weight for a given line size it will be OK.  In the case of fuel-powered planes simply deduct a few ounces from the allowed weight, or add a few ounces to the pull test weight based on the tank size.  That would be easier to do than filling the tank and trying to verify that it was properly filled.

Phil hits it on the head.  Mountain out of a molehill.  We also have a perfectly viable teacher on this very subject.  F2B!  They have had this type of pull testing for years and have it pretty much down pat.  We could always just follow their lead here and it should work just fine.  Of course their system is much more simplistic than ours.  If it passes pull test at 10 times the models weight then it flies.  Line size plays no role.  They don't usually have break aways and fly aways either.  If they did then I am sure line sizes would play a role.  I am sure we will make this a little more complicated somehow.  The best thing to do is just add the amount of capacity of the tank into the calculation.  I don't know how they plan to weigh my plane but if they have to hang nose up or down or even turn it over for more than a minute or two it will drain into the plane and most likely all that raw 20% nitro will ruin something, like drain out the vent hole in the nose and peel all the paint off.  Having a full tank during weigh in is a disaster waiting to happen.  I guess someone has to stand there and watch us fill our tanks too?  We could always just follow how the TT has been doing it for the past however many years.  It doesnt seem to difficult to me.  Plus we been on the honors system for years with line sizes anyway.  People can just write on the sign up sheet how much it weighs and pull off that.  They already sign up under having fully built it so why not write a weight down as well and go.  I have only seen lines miced ONCE in all my years of contest flying and that was at the nats on ONE plane because a rumor.  Mountain out of a molehill for sure.  I do like pull by the weight though.  That is really the fair way to do it. 

[Steve Helmick]

Looks to me like the fuel weight is around 10%, so why not pull Electrics 10G's with batteries and Fuelies 11G's, with a dry tank?  Steve

[Paul Smith]

In reality, the pull test charts have included an estimated fuel weioght since the beginning of time.

The problem here is a direct result solely of an attempt to mix well-established piston engine rules with a totally dissimilar type of motor.  One whose potential power nobody can measure. Risky bidness to say the least.  The answer is obvious.

[Wayne Foster]

What does an LA .46 powered TEOSAWKI, a Cox .049 Mouse Racer and a TD .049 1/2A Combat plane have in common?  They will all be flown on the same size lines if CLA-09-9 Proposed Rule passes the second vote and CLA-09-9C Cross Proposal does not.
 
The Stunt Plane and the Mouse Racer will be flown on either .010 Solid Lines or .012 Braided Lines  The Combat Plane will be flown on .012 Braided Lines.

Seems a little hard to believe since the TEOSAWKI with an LA .46 now requires .014 Solid or .018 Braded Lines to legally fly in a AMA contest.

The weights of the three airplanes without fuel are as follows:

TEOSAWKI         1084 grams or 38.24 ounces
Mouse Racer        143 grams or   5.04 ounces
1/2A Combat        180 grams or   6.35 ounces

If the fuel weight was counted in determining the line size for the stunt plane it would have to go to .012 Solid or .015 Braided lines.

Phil says:   Kinda making a mountain out of a molehill here.  4-6 oz. of fuel in a 3-4 lb plane(less than ~10% of the overall weight) will not make a big difference in the overall result.

Per AMA Rule Book, the Breaking Strength in pounds for our lines is:

.010    27.4 Min   30.3 Max
.012   39.2 Min   43.3 Max
.014   52.8 Min   58.4 Max

It seems like a big difference to me.  At least we let the judges stand on the upwind side of the circle.

If you have a vote on the Contest Board, please vote yes for Cross Proposal CLA-09-9C.
   

[john e. holliday]

In reality, the pull test charts have included an estimated fuel weioght since the beginning of time.

The problem here is a direct result solely of an attempt to mix well-established piston engine rules with a totally dissimilar type of motor.  One whose potential power nobody can measure. Risky bidness to say the least.  The answer is obvious.

??  DOC Holliday

[phil c]

6 oz. of fuel in a 60 oz. plane would make a difference of 60 oz(10g) in the pull  test.  The pull test would go from 37.5 lb to 41.25 lb.  Most readily available scales I've seen have half pound marks about 1/32 in. apart.  You can barely see 4 lb. on the scale.  That is what I meant by not being of major importance.

I've had more problems with the current rules where a judge forgets(or doesn't know) and pulls a 2 lb. plane with a 40 in it at 40 lb. instead of 30 lb.  40 lb can easily break .015 lines,and has.

[RC Storick]

Bob,
Remember that the pull test is a matter of safety.  If the method of determining the amount of pull to be applied is what the airplane weighs, doesn't it seem logical that amount should be the maximum that the airplane will weigh for that particular flight?  It has nothing to do with electric vs fuel power.  It's all about weight.  If a fuel powered airplane is weighed without fuel it would only represent the airplane while gliding.  Hardly a realistic scenario in determining a safety issue when the airplane is under power.

Is this how the FAI does this? With the fuel on board?

[Wayne Foster]

Is this how the FAI does this? With the fuel on board?

Hi Robert,

Maybe someone who has a current FAI Rules Book can answer your question.  If anyone looks this up please see what the Pull Test is for FAI Stunt.  The lastest FAI book I have is 1989 and I'm sure some things have changed since then.  My book shows the airplanes are pulled at 15g's not 10g's like that proposed by CLA-09-9.  This is probably how they get by with not specifying a line size.  Just pull it more. It also states in my "OLD" book that you have to pull it 3 times in a row by slowly pulling to the desired limit and then releasing quickly.

I don't think the intent of CLA-09-9 was to make us equal with FAI regulation, just to make Electrics and Piston Powered airplane equal.  Please correct me if this is wrong.

[MikeyPratt]

I have gotten only one response from my district on the cross proposal for aerobatics.  I think it will put too much of a burden on contest directors and event directors.  So I guess you can see how I am going to vote on it.  Now in the Control Line General there is a proposal that should be accepted.  It is CLG-09-2 and pertains to profile fuselages.  Anyway I hope the appropiate people get the word.  DOC Holliday

Hey Doc,

My opinon: Using weight is just fine for both glow & electric (no need for another event).  The pull test equipment for the Nat’s and VSC will not be obsolete.  The only change will be the amount of weight that is added or removed to the test fixture.  Both glow and electric should be pull tested according to the respective weight of each model.  With glow models add the weight of the fuel in ounces for example, 4 ounce fuel tank, add 4 ounces to the total weight of the model and so on.  This allows for a fast and easy way to figure the pull test requirement for each model (electric models are to include the flight battery pack).

This proposal will require that the modeler to have a close approximation on what the model weighs and have the proper size of control lines before pull testing the model.  If you are close to the max limit of a particular size of control line, then move up to the next size control line because of slight differences of pull test scales.
I’ve had the pleasure of attending many Nat’s (21) & Team Trails ( and have never seen a fly away with a C/L stunt model.  We are trying to make this much harder than it is.  Doc, you vote the way that you feel best suits the event.  You were appointed to this position for your knowledge of C/L and you are well respected.  It is OK to ask for opinions but the final decision is yours.  If the proposal does not reflect the proper wording or doesn’t fill the safety concerns in your opinion, then by all means it should be defeated.

Later,

Mikey       

[Trostle]

Is this how the FAI does this? With the fuel on board?

From the current FAI rulebook, the maximum weight for F2B model aircraft "excluding fuel" is 3.5 kg.  No statement is made if the batteries are to be included for electric powered F2B models.  As I recall, processing of the models at the World Championships to weigh electric powered F2B models included the batteries.  There are no line size requirements for F2B models.  A pull test is to be made "before every contest flight ... of 10 times the total weight of the model aircraft without fuel..." 

The pull test is based on the weight of the model determined during the official processing.  Fuel is not included in the weight.  Battery weight is included for the electric powered models.

The FAI rulebook can be found at

http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4

Keith Trostle

[Clayton Smith]

I’ve had the pleasure of attending many Nat’s (21) & Team Trails ( and have never seen a fly away with a C/L stunt model.

There was an unfortunate flyaway of a C/L Stunt Model at the 2003 NATS during the Advanced Finals.  The plane crashed onto the public walkway adjacent to the L-Pad Shelter and parking lot.

Clayton Smith
High Point NC

[Kim Doherty]

From the current FAI rulebook, the maximum weight for F2B model aircraft "excluding fuel" is 3.5 kg.  No statement is made if the batteries are to be included for electric powered F2B models.  As I recall, processing of the models at the World Championships to weigh electric powered F2B models included the batteries.  There are no line size requirements for F2B models.  A pull test is to be made "before every contest flight ... of 10 times the total weight of the model aircraft without fuel..." 

The pull test is based on the weight of the model determined during the official processing.  Fuel is not included in the weight.  Battery weight is included for the electric powered models.

The FAI rulebook can be found at

http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4

Keith Trostle

Just to clarify the issue here is the text from the FAI Sporting Code for F2B models concerning pull tests.


4.2.4. Line Tests (to be made before each contest flight)

a) The length of the control lines shall be checked before every contest flight.
b) Not less than 20 minutes and not more than 1 hour before every contest flight a test load of 10 times
the total weight of the model aircraft without fuel shall be evenly and smoothly applied to the
assembled control handle, lines, and model aircraft. The load used in this test shall be applied once
only to the control handle in such a way that the test load is equally distributed between both flight
lines/cables during the whole pull test.
c) If the control lines are disconnected from a competitor’s model aircraft after a the pull test has been
performed but before making the respective contest flight then that competitor’s control lines and
model aircraft shall again pass the above lines length check and pull test before making the respective
official flight.


It should be noted that models are not weighed with fuel OR BATTERIES in the model. This was the procedure in Spain during the 2006 WC's. No proposal or discussion is in the offing to change this. There were no fly-aways with electric models.

It may be prudent to question the motives of those who would attempt to strike fear into the hearts of the little boys and girls who fly IC powered control line model aircraft with respect to the other children who use electric motors.


Kim Doherty
Member FAI F2B Subcommittee

[RC Storick]

From the current FAI rulebook, the maximum weight for F2B model aircraft "excluding fuel" is 3.5 kg.  No statement is made if the batteries are to be included for electric powered F2B models.  As I recall, processing of the models at the World Championships to weigh electric powered F2B models included the batteries.  There are no line size requirements for F2B models.  A pull test is to be made "before every contest flight ... of 10 times the total weight of the model aircraft without fuel..." 

The pull test is based on the weight of the model determined during the official processing.  Fuel is not included in the weight.  Battery weight is included for the electric powered models.

The FAI rulebook can be found at

http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4

Keith Trostle

There you have it!

[SteveMoon]

Thanks for the clarification Kim. Seems pretty straightforward and
simple to me. I still think it's a shame that we can't get with the
program here in the US and use F2B rules like everyone else. Oh
well, gotta keep tryin'.

Later, Steve

[Wayne Foster]

There you have it!

Hi Robert,

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment.  What is it that we have? 

I do appreciate knowing where to go to look up the FAI Rules but I don't see how this affects the Cross Proposal CLA 09-9CP1 we are discussing.  Maybe I missed something.

[RC Storick]

Hi Robert,

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment.  What is it that we have? 

I do appreciate knowing where to go to look up the FAI Rules but I don't see how this affects the Cross Proposal CLA 09-9CP1 we are discussing.  Maybe I missed something.

The original question was for fuel in the models. If the FAI doen't weight them full why make it diffrent? So hence the there you have it comment. Stay in line with the FAI as much as possible. Its like this The battery is part of the drive train, I guess I could add the fuel and take out the guts of the engine. Does anyone else see where I am going? Or am I just in the dark?

a fully charged battery does not weigh more than a empty one. However a full tank of fuel weighs more than a empty one?? Everything is give and take.

[Clayton Smith]

I wonder why Keith Trostle didn't simply propose the FAI language instead of that found in his proposal CLA-09-9.  According to the AMA Record he voted NO to his own proposal in the initial vote.

Clayton Smith
High Point, NC

[John Miller]

All this hub bub over such a small thing. I have to agree.

The word is fuel, as in, with or with out fuel.

Electrons in a battery are not, by definition fuel. The electrical current flows from one side of the battery to the other when doing it's work. The electron movment occurs, but the electrons are not consumed, just moved to balance out the electrical potential.

The Dictionary definition of fuel is:

1. combustible matter used to maintain fire, as coal, wood, oil, or gas, in order to create heat or power.  
2. something that gives nourishment; food.  
3. an energy source for engines, power plants, or reactors: Kerosene is used as jet engine fuel.  
4. something that sustains or encourages; stimulant: Our discussion provided him with fuel for debate.  

An electric motor, is not an engine, also by definition.

An engine is a mechanical device that converts thermal energy into motion.

An engine is sometimes called a motor, but an electric motor is always a motor.

The proposal defining the process of weighing the plane, with the battery on board, is logical as the battery is not fuel.

 

[Wayne Foster]

The original question was for fuel in the models. If the FAI doen't weight them full why make it diffrent? So hence the there you have it comment. Stay in line with the FAI as much as possible. Its like this The battery is part of the drive train, I guess I could add the fuel and take out the guts of the engine. Does anyone else see where I am going? Or am I just in the dark?

a fully charged battery does not weigh more than a empty one. However a full tank of fuel weighs more than a empty one?? Everything is give and take.

Hi Robert,

I don't think you are in the dark, but it might help if you had a little more information about the subject.  The Cross Proposal CLA-09-9CP1 which we are discussing is intended to bring Keith's Original Proposal CLA-09-9 more in line with it's stated intention, which is to make Electric and Piston Powered airplane equal as far as Pull Test and Line Sizes are concerned.  Keith's Proposal CLA-09-9 is shown below in red.  Please notice that there is NO mention of anything to do with FAI.

CLA-09-9 – The line diameters for piston engine powered Control Line Precision Aerobatic models are currently based on engine displacement while line diameter requirements for electric powered models are based on model weight. This proposal deletes the current line size chart for piston engine powered CLPA models and changes the existing line diameter chart for electric powered CLPA models to include all models.

At the beginning of the CLPA section of the rulebook, delete the entire line diameter/pull test chart for Total Piston Engine Displacement. In the remaining CLPA rulebook charts for line diameters and pull tests, delete “Electric Powered” that appears in the two left hand blocks so that only the term “Model Weight” remains in these two blocks. Maintain the heading at the top of the chart that shows “CL Precision Aerobatics”.

Logic:
The current CLPA rulebook specifies minimum line diameters based on total engine displacement. Power available and total model weight can vary considerably for any given engine displacement. Establishing minimum line diameters based on model weight regardless of the type and size of the powerplant provides a more logical and consistent methodology.

Submitted by: Keith Trostle, AMA #3533

CLA-09-9 as written will lower the Pull Test and Line Size for most if not every stunt plane now flying.  In my opinion, this could lead to some Safety Issues especially with the smaller size lines. (.008 and .010)  I have had extensive experience with these small line flying Mouse Racers over the last 25 years or so.  As these lines get smaller, it become harder to alway get perfect line terminations and most of the line failures I have seen occur at the termination point.

CLA-09-9CP1 was submitted to at least make the Electric and Piston Powered airplane compete on a level playing field as much as possible.

There are a number of airplanes out there that are very close to the break points in the the weight chart that would put them in the next level and require them to at lease fly with a little larger lines.  I just weighted my Top Flite Flight Streak with an LA .25 on it.  It weights 672 grams or 23.70 ounces.  Without the fuel weight considered, this plane could be flown on .008 Solids or .008 Stranded.  This is really absurd. The present rules would at least require .010 Solid or .012 Braided Lines.

Please Note, I think it may be possible for the Top Expert flyer's to fly with some of these smaller lines and be safe most of the time.  Let's introduce a 15 or 20 mile per hour wind down on the Beginner or Intermediate circle with a very inexperienced modeler and you may have a totally different outcome.

Again, I would urge anyone who has a vote on this proposal to please vote for passage of CLA-09-9CP1.

[RC Storick]

I wonder just how many fly aways there has been due to broken lines on a Stunt Ship? Then how many of those resulted in property damage? The reason I state the is when  the line brakes its usually just one line and it augers into the ground. I guess we could prepare for ever possible situation but heck we would be flying in 1/8 solids in a cage.

Next time your diving maybe a HELMET AND SEAT BELTS is in order? (just being a smart a$$.)

[peabody]

Interestingly, I have seen several lines break. Most were a result of pi** poor maintenance...stepped on or kinked.....those generally resulted in separation of BOTH lines...usually very closely timed, not simultaneous, snap-snap deals.......paying attention to lines....wiping them between flights and rolling them properly helps a BUNCH.

As a CD, I am against having to weigh models EVER.....

[Wayne Foster]

I wonder just how many fly aways there has been due to broken lines on a Stunt Ship? Then how many of those resulted in property damage? The reason I state the is when  the line brakes its usually just one line and it augers into the ground. I guess we could prepare for ever possible situation but heck we would be flying in 1/8 solids in a cage.

Next time your diving maybe a HELMET AND SEAT BELTS is in order? (just being a smart a$$.)

Hi Robert,

You make a good point in this post.  I haven't seen but a few stunt ships fly away either and none at a contest.  I think this may be due to the rules we presently fly under.

I hope you will contact your representative on the Contest Board and ask them to vote FOR Cross Proposal CLA-09-9CP1.  This vote is due to AMA Hq on April 15, 2008.  This would add a little safety in case Keith's Proposal CLA-09-9 passes the second vote.  I would also urge you to ask your Representative to vote AGAINST CLA-09-9 when it come up for the second and final vote on June 15, 2008.

Peabody, if you don't want to start weighing airplanes at your contests, I urge you to do the same.

Thanks guys for listening to me on this matter.  I do think it is important.  I doubt any real testing or flying has taken place at the extremes of CLA-09-9.  If so, I would really like to know about it. 

I think I have said about all I can on this matter.  Which ever way you feel, contact your Contest Board representative and tell them how you feel.  Having had that job once for about 12 or so years, I know Doc was telling the truth when he said he sure doesn't get much feedback.

I would still like to know why Keith voted against his own Proposal CLA-09-9.

Stay informed and try to see the big picture.


CONTROL LINE AEROBATICS CONTEST BOARD

I: Dave Cook, 46 Maple St., Norfolk MA 02056
II: Tom Hampshire, 430 Greenwich St., Belvidere NJ 07823
III: Robin (Bob) Hunt, Box 368, Stockertown PA 18083
IV: Warren Tiahrt, 4020 Martins Point Rd., Kitty Hawk NC 27949
V: Bob Dixon, 1351 Tristram Circle, Macon GA 31220
VI: Allen Brickhaus, Box 206, Golconda IL 62938
VII: Bob McDonald, 28746 Westfield St., Livonia MI 48150
VIII:Gary McClellan, 7812 Bayshore Ct., Ft. Worth TX 76179
IX: John Holliday, 10421 W. 56th Ter., Shawnee Mission KS 66203
X: Keith Trostle, 971 N. Circulo Zagala, Tucson AZ 85745
XI: Paul Walker, 25900 127th Ave. SE, Kent WA 98031

[De Hill]

There doesn't appear to be a safety issue regarding the present pull test rules regarding internal combustion engines.

Weighing the airplane adds one more complexity in the i.c. pull test procedure at a contest.

There is no logical reason to do this.

Weigh the electrics, and leave the present pull test alone for the i.c. engines.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

De Hill

[Crist Rigotti]

Interestingly, I have seen several lines break. Most were a result of pi** poor maintenance...stepped on or kinked.....those generally resulted in separation of BOTH lines...usually very closely timed, not simultaneous, snap-snap deals.......paying attention to lines....wiping them between flights and rolling them properly helps a BUNCH.

As a CD, I am against having to weigh models EVER.....

I'm curious, what do you do if an electric enters the contest when you're the CD?

[Rudy Taube]

"I'm curious, what do you do if an electric enters the contest when you're the CD?"

Hi Crist,

I'm sure he would do what the CDs did in the 6 contests I flew my ECL plane in during the past 12 months. I flew in 4 different cities in 2 states with no problems on this.

The CDs asked my weight, I gave it to them, they pulled, I flew. .... KIS :-)

How many CDs ask to have a cowl removed so they can see the engine size for the pull test? Not many is my guess? ..... I never looked, I just asked, pulled, and they flew. .... KIS :-)

With the above said, I did carry a digital scale with me in the Van, just in case a CD needed a weight. So far it has not been needed. :-)

Regards, 

[L0U CRANE]

Crist, to your post #8 -

With all high regards, etc., etc. ...

Where an event spells out an exception to the General Section for the category (i.e., FF, CL, RC, Scale) the exception rules. Conversely, where an event does NOT spell out an exception to the General Rule, the General Rule applies.

CLPA rules do not need to say that the AMA General CL Profile Definition DOES apply. By NOT saying that is does not, we leave the CL General definition intact, and the governing rule for CLPA.

That make sense?

[Crist Rigotti]

Crist, to your post #8 -

With all high regards, etc., etc. ...

Where an event spells out an exception to the General Section for the category (i.e., FF, CL, RC, Scale) the exception rules. Conversely, where an event does NOT spell out an exception to the General Rule, the General Rule applies.

CLPA rules do not need to say that the AMA General CL Profile Definition DOES apply. By NOT saying that is does not, we leave the CL General definition intact, and the governing rule for CLPA.

That make sense?

Lou,
Understood.  My reply was aimed more toward the width of a profile fuselage.  Nowhere do the rules state a width for a CLPA.  Yes it does define what a profile airplane is.  In racing, combat, and carrier it does provide a maximum width in the chart on page CLG_6.

[Jim Thomerson]

E =MC*2.  Charged batteries weigh more than uncharged batteries because they contain more energy.  Electrons go out heavy and come back light.  Someone calculated the weight change in the electric column about a year back.  The actual weight gain/loss is, of course,  undetectable for our purposes. 

[Wayne Foster]

"I'm curious, what do you do if an electric enters the contest when you're the CD?"

Hi Crist,

I'm sure he would do what the CDs did in the 6 contests I flew my ECL plane in during the past 12 months. I flew in 4 different cities in 2 states with no problems on this.

The CDs asked my weight, I gave it to them, they pulled, I flew. .... KIS :-)

How many CDs ask to have a cowl removed so they can see the engine size for the pull test? Not many is my guess? ..... I never looked, I just asked, pulled, and they flew. .... KIS :-)

With the above said, I did carry a digital scale with me in the Van, just in case a CD needed a weight. So far it has not been needed. :-)

Regards, 

Hi Rudy,

I'm curious, since you actually fly Electrics, would you mind telling us what your weight is, what size lines you fly with (length and diameter) and what lap times do you normally get.

Thanks in advance.

[Rudy Taube]

Hi Wayne,

My ECL P-40 GTOW is 57 oz.

I fly with 0.15 multi-strand, 62' lines. I am 7 oz. below the point I would need to go to .018s.

I set my motor to give me 5.02 second lap times in normal conditions. I set it for 4.95 second lap times in the wind. ;-)

My ECL Extra 300L has a GTOW of 54 oz

Same size lines at 63'

Lap times can be dialed in to whatever we want, I like to fly around 5.02 seconds. At these 63' line lengths this keeps the planes speed up to where it seems very happy. :-)

If you want any more ECL info. we have many setups listed in the electric section here on Roberts excellent forum. :-)

In keeping with this thread, I think the 10G pull test using the planes weight is a much better/safer way to establish the safe strength level of our control systems than the old, outdated way we used to do it. I do like the idea of adding the fuel weight (as suggested in this thread, just adding the # of oz of tank size to the weight computation, not needing the fuel actually in the plane) to get a safe GTOW weight measurement to be used for the 10G pull. But for our CLPA event the FAI seems to have done just fine over the years with the way Keith wrote our new AMA pull test rule, as in leaving out the wet part of the wet systems. :-)