stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Ken Culbertson on September 12, 2018, 11:55:38 AM
-
With Spectra back in the news again I thought I would try some to see what the flap was all about. I have the lines, selected the plane to sacrifice, figured out how to tie the AMA knot (i there a better one) with only two hands but I still don't know what to tie that knot to. Directly on the line clip doesn't work unless I use 2 clips on each end (I hate the old slider type so that is out). Using an eyelet exposes the line to a metal edge - not good. Can we use fishing swivels or does someone make a really small metal "O" ring or double "O" (looks like an "8") which would be perfect.
If anybody uses them, let me know how you do it. Also, is there a trick to getting the lines the same length? Should you wipe them, if so with what (I would think just a clean cloth). I would assume that water is not an issue, after all it is fishing line.
I understand that they use this stuff for stunt kites. Does that mean that my view that we should be able to fly on kite string if it will pass the pull test is now a serious comment?
I tried searching all of this but all I found were arguments for and against and not much on the how.
Thanks - Ken
-
I tie it right to a line clip like this one
(http://brodak.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/105x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/bh-706.jpg)
-
I use the clip Dave shows as well. I fly with button style bellcranks but when I want to fly something with conventionally terminated leadouts, I use the clip. My buttons require about a 1/4" loop on the end so I open the clip and insert the line. When I hook it to the plane though, I take the clip and do a 180 so that the solid end is on the Spectra and the split end is in the eyelet. Reason being is that I have had the line try to find it's way out of the clip via the split end.
-
There is a better and more accurate way to tie spectra type line. I use a thimble just like using cables. Spectra type line cuts itself by rubbing against itself. To eliminate rubbing you need to thread the spectra through a foot long piece of 30# fly line backing. Just pass the spectra through the eye of a needle, open the tubular fly line backing and run the needle through it backwards. It's easy after the first one. Then I use a granny knot on the thimble. Or a surgeons knot with a locking knot if you prefer. This way you can get the lines pretty close to the same length.
-
I tie it right to a line clip like this one
(http://brodak.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/105x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/bh-706.jpg)
I use the same clips. Problem is that the "fat" end will not fit my leadout eyelets or the holes in my handle.
Thanks!
Ken
-
Here's a photo montage sent to me by Ara Dedekian illustrating his method for spectra line ends.
Here are some photos of how I tie the rings onto Spectra line. It’s not etched in stone. Don’t know if the double wrap accomplishes anything, and the square knot can be backed up with a knot of your choice. Sorry to say I can’t remember how many pounds I pulled with this system but it exceeded what the rules call for. The 100# Spectra shown below passed the pull test at Brodaks in Speed Limit Combat. The double wrap shown is for the demo, I usually do four wraps, it gets tricky after that. You have to work the knot tight as it’s against the fixed end. I use a little Armour-All as a lubricant to help.
He also referenced it in another post. https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/little-legends/msg511725/#msg511725
I sport fly Phil C's Lil Hacker 1/2A combat planes with 30# Spectra. There's no discernable difference compared to flying with .008 steel lines.
I can get matching sets of lines by tying fishing rings on the ends. I've tried various knots to attach the rings but I've settled on tying the first ring with a square knot and backing it up with a surgeons knot. I'll finish it off by CAREFULLY burnishing the end with a flame. The first end is free. It's then attached to a fixture. The other end of the line is set out to the desired length and tied to a ring held in a fixture. It's secured again with a square knot and backed up with a surgeons knot.
I fly sport, stunt and combat with Spectra using these rings and knots and haven't had any failures. Pull testing is the 'feels about right' method. The largest model flown with this setup is a throttled 56" biplane with with a 70 Surpass four stroke.
Tying the rings with the square knots first gives you the accurate lengths. Using the surgeons knot only varies the length when drawn tight.
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/spectra-connectors/?action=dlattach;attach=289888;image)
-
There are oblong (they call them "oval", but they're oblong) split rings now, so I'd suggest emphatically to use them, and avoid the round ones, which are dangerous IMO. There are also "egg" shaped ones, and solid ones. You decide.
I haven't used Spectra lines yet, but have purchased some line to use (it's red...you can also get a bright blue...look at various brands at TackleWarehouse.com. Yellow and green line will be hard to see on dry grass and green grass, respectively. I'm hoping red or blue will be more universally visible. Be careful not to get Spectra lines wrapped around your fingers, hands, wrists, feet or neck. That stuff WILL cut the heck out of you, so be careful with it!
I have not decided how I will fasten the ends, but probably will take two or three wraps around an oblong split ring and bind/glue the thing more or less like AMA dictates for solids and cables...but not copper wire. From there, i'll use the common paperclip type clips from Brodak, Sullivan or SIG...three stock ones all the same size and one custom made one that's longer, made on my Jim Lee/Derek Moran clip bender. Below are good brands of "oval" and "egg" shaped "split rings"...not all of which are split! y1 Steve
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Decoy_GP_Ring_12pk/descpage-DGPR.html
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Decoy_Egg_Ring_12pk/descpage-DEGG.html
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Owner_Oval_Split_Ring_20pk/descpage-OVR.html
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Owner_Tear_Drop_Split_Ring/descpage-TDS.html
-
No need for split rings, crimps or thimbles. I copied this from one of Phil's posts about knots. The modified surgeons knot leaves you with a loop so you can use any type of common CL connector. From Phil:
Using a crimp tube on Spectra is a lot of un-necessary work. Knots are much more reliable. There is no need for an eyelet or thimble. Spectra is about 5 times as abrasion resistant as stainless line.
Using the line sizes specified in the combat rules simply folding the line back on itself and tying a simple overhand know will get you 50% of the rated breaking strength everytime. This matches the strength you get from similar sized stainless steel line. Making two wraps through the loop(surgeon's knot) gets the break up to 60%, significantly stronger than stainless. Folding the line over and tying a figure eight knot or a modified surgeon's knot(make an overhand knot in the folded line and then bend the fold around and through the other side of the loop) gets the breaking strength up to 70-80% of the rated strength. Make sure that both strands of the fold(the standing and the free end) are pulled up evenly to get a smooth knot with both strands laid evenly next to each other. That makes the knot stronger. But if it doesn't work that way for you, the worst that can happen is that the knot will break at 50% and still be as strong as steel.
If you use the knot shown in the AMA general rule(5 turn uni knot) be sure and tie a blocking knot in the free end. Spectra can be very slippering, and there is nothing to prevent the line from simply sliding through the knot and coming apart. After tying the knot for an overhand knot in the free end and work it up close to the main knot before pulling it tight.
John's idea of using a palomar knot right on the line clip works well too. The palomar won't let the line slide through and untie the knot.
I managed to break a set of .018 stainless lines in flight the other day. The plane was a 14 ounce F2D ship with a Magnum 15 flying about 70 mph. The wind was gusty, the plane had a warp, and it did a snap, went across the circle, hit the end of the lines and bounced back to the other side and popped both lines. Nothing is failure proof.
Report to moderator Logged
phil Cartier
-
As an avid fisherman on the Chesapeake Bay I highly recommend a double Palomar knot. It's easy to tie and I've never lost a fish because of the knot.
-
Thanks for all the advice. I found this online and it might be of use.
https://www.google.com/search?q=double+palomar+knot+illustration&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=A_E90gIwz2nyeM%253A%252Ca3dGq3XBru738M%252C_&usg=AFrqEzeRsIHyMnQB-odazalFnGNw1954DQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-wKOPh7jdAhUCRqwKHb9iCL0Q9QEwC3oECAMQBg#imgrc=A_E90gIwz2nyeM:
Ken
One more thing - I am planning to use fishing barrel connectors to terminate the lines and give me some way of attaching to the plane and handle. The ones I picked up are 230lb rated. Is there any problem with these? I would just tie to the line connectors but the "fat" ends will not fit the eyelets or the handle.
-
As an avid fisherman on the Chesapeake Bay I highly recommend a double Palomar knot. It's easy to tie and I've never lost a fish because of the knot.
Bill - I'm an old school fisher. Is there an issue with the normal Palomar knot in Spectra line? The regular Palomar works great in mono. I use it whenever possible in mono.
Thanks,
Target
-
Hello
Here's a link to some videos of tying knots and a comparison test :
https://www.saltstrong.com/articles/best-fishing-knot-for-braided-line-swivel-hook-lure/
Have used modified Uni-Knot (double loop at start and 10 turns) too good effect so far but would be keen to try some of the other recommendations here to see how they compare.
I have also used cheap Maxistrike Braid from China too but it has a larger drag factor (thicker section per LB rating and fewer strands then Spectra) but otherwise works well with no failures or slipping problems.
Regards Gerald
-
Also, is there a trick to getting the lines the same length?
Do two ends . One End on EACH LINE .
Run em out together .
Heave & twist till you confident theyre even .
At this stage you bend in the pliers even , both lines , simultaeneous .
You migh have to use masking tape on the thread there . Doing One at a Time is how to get uneven lengths .
-
One more thing - I am planning to use fishing barrel connectors to terminate the lines and give me some way of attaching to the plane and handle. The ones I picked up are 230lb rated. Is there any problem with these? I would just tie to the line connectors but the "fat" ends will not fit the eyelets or the handle.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fishing barrel connectors", but be aware that AMA rules specifically ban the use of any sort of swivel. There are "barrel", "crane" and "ball bearing" swivels (at least) and I use the later two for various uses in my fishing. Barrel-type are roughly half the pull rating of crane-type, for some reason. If you want to look in the "Terminal Tackle" section at Tackle Warehouse, there are some clips that are interesting, but I don't see that they are as useful with our typical NW Style hard point handles. Also, those clips shown above (McMahon, I believe they are called)...beware...some are brass with a black finish of some sort. You don't want those. S?P Steve
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "fishing barrel connectors", but be aware that AMA rules specifically ban the use of any sort of swivel. There are "barrel", "crane" and "ball bearing" swivels (at least) and I use the later two for various uses in my fishing. Barrel-type are roughly half the pull rating of crane-type, for some reason. If you want to look in the "Terminal Tackle" section at Tackle Warehouse, there are some clips that are interesting, but I don't see that they are as useful with our typical NW Style hard point handles. Also, those clips shown above (McMahon, I believe they are called)...beware...some are brass with a black finish of some sort. You don't want those. S?P Steve
Well if they are banned then they must work so I won't use them. Guess I just have to use double clips till I can find some 1/4" steel rings.
Ken
-
Here is a modified surgeons knot with a loop on 3 types of connectors. Scissor, slide, and buttons.
-
Here is a modified surgeons knot with a loop on 3 types of connectors. Scissor, slide, and buttons.
Mike:
Is having the loop better than not having it with something like the AMA knot?
I can't use the 1st (Eyelet openings too small on plane and handle) or 3rd one and my only line failure ever came from the clips in #2. I may be forced to use them again though.
Thanks - Ken
-
The loop makes it easy to use any connector. Never had one break there. If you are attaching lines directly to the bellcrank you have to inspect the line at the lead out guide for wear. I have broken them there after losing line tension and upon the jerk when it’s regained. As a matter of fact that’s the only place I had a set break, never at the loop or the knot. As for the slide connector they are prone to opening with a hard jerk so I solder the slide, haven’t had a soldered one open up. Phil Cartier showed me how to tie this knot and I’ve been using it ever since. He’s been using the stuff longer than anyone else and was involved in getting them approved for Combat.
-
And here is an excellent video by Mike Stinson on how to tie the knot with a double loop at the termination instead of a single loop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jXAKUWn2CI
-
Sure makes it look easy. D>K
-
The loop makes it easy to use any connector. Never had one break there. If you are attaching lines directly to the bellcrank you have to inspect the line at the lead out guide for wear. I have broken them there after losing line tension and upon the jerk when it’s regained. As a matter of fact that’s the only place I had a set break, never at the loop or the knot. As for the slide connector they are prone to opening with a hard jerk so I solder the slide, haven’t had a soldered one open up. Phil Cartier showed me how to tie this knot and I’ve been using it ever since. He’s been using the stuff longer than anyone else and was involved in getting them approved for Combat.
Good Idea. I will feel more comfortable that way. All of the references seem to point towards the 100lb line. Is there a problem with the 65lb? It is still stronger than .015 steel and it is the largest I can find at any of the local stores. My 42oz OS35s powered Nobler ARF has volunteered to be the test plane for Spectra tomorrow AM and I promised her that the lines would hold. You really don't want to break a promise to a Nobler ARF. The word will get out and you won't find a plane that will let you do a triangle after that. ~^
Those soldered clips will work and the video on the knot closes the loop. :)
Thanks - Ken
Ken
-
The 100lb reference is because that is what is required for Combat. For other models refer to the AMA chart. 5.3.5.1 Spectra Lines
Lines made of Spectra fiber, made of gel spun ultra-high
molecular weight polyethylene are permitted for sport
flying and demonstration purposes. Spectra lines are not
permitted in competition unless the specific rules for the
event flown expressly permit such use. The use of high
visibility yellow lines is recommended, but not required.
For sport and demonstration flying with two lines, Spectra
lines shall have the following strengths:
Aircraft Engine Watts Rated
Weight Displacement Spectra St.
24 oz. .09 300 20 lbs. .010”
40 oz. .25 450 40 lbs. .013”
64 oz. .40 600 60 lbs. .016”
75 oz. .75 750 100 lbs. .018”
-
The 100lb reference is because that is what is required for Combat. For other models refer to the AMA chart.
Weight Displacement Spectra St.
64 oz. .40 600 60 lbs. .016”
Looks like I am good to go then. All I need to do is dig up 4 of those old clips and apologize to my brass lines. Let you know how it goes, thanks for the solution.
Ken
-
Just an FYI. I’ve been trying the new PowerPro Maxcuatro Line on Stunt planes. It is %25 thinner than their “normal” line. You can use a stronger line than AMA recommends and get the benefit of it being thinner. Less drag.
-
Just an FYI. I’ve been trying the new PowerPro Maxcuatro Line on Stunt planes. It is %25 thinner than their “normal” line. You can use a stronger line than AMA recommends get the benefit of it being thinner. Less drag.
Where did you get it? None of our sporting goods stores have it.
Ken
-
Where did you get it? None of our sporting goods stores have it.
Ken
As with everything - eBay. However looks like the stuff ain't cheep!!! #^
-
Where did you get it? None of our sporting goods stores have it.
Ken
My BassPro right here in Nashville stocks it.
-
My BassPro right here in Nashville stocks it.
Ours doesn't show it on their website *BUT* that doesn't mean they don't have it. We have 2 of them one 20mi East or me and one 20mi West of me. If the test flights tomorrow are productive, I will make the drive. I am hoping that I will love them and they pass the rule change allowing them or hate them and still hope they pass the rule change!
Ken
-
As with everything - eBay. However looks like the stuff ain't cheep!!! #^
$55 for 300 yards. Enough to make 5 sets of lines= $11 a set. Pretty cheap to me. #^ #^
-
Why not just choke a thimble onto the loop in the end of the line?
So long as the edges of the thimble groove are to the inside of the groove, there is nothing to chafe then.....
R,
Target
-
$55 for 300 yards. Enough to make 5 sets of lines= $11 a set. Pretty cheap to me. #^ #^
And they will never "kink".... Just need to watch out for tying knots accidentally, and abrasion/chafe.
I am especially interested for 1/2A (OK, really 1cc) lines. The .008 stuff seems like it is pretty easy to weaken, and the weight for a small plane to pull would be seemingly a much higher percentage of the weight of the plane. More tip weight needed.
R,
Target
-
Why not just choke a thimble onto the loop in the end of the line?
So long as the edges of the thimble groove are to the inside of the groove, there is nothing to chafe then.....
R,
Target
The single or double loop is more than adequate the line is strong enough it doesn't need a thimble. Why make it more complicated?
-
Why make it more complicated?
Isn't that what we do here? LL~
On the serious side, what can I expect from the 1st flight? Anything to watch our for? Anything to look for? ???
(Sorry, I was a Boy Scout)
Ken
-
Do a pull test and fly.
-
Do a pull test and fly.
You do understand that for quite a while I have been arguing that we should be able to fly on kite string if it will take the pull test. I never meant that literally! LL~ LL~
Ken
-
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Power_Pro_Maxcuatro_Spectra_Braided_Line_Moss_Green/descpage-PMXC.html
Personally, I see the dark green color as a disadvantage for use on green grass. Ours might be green or tan during flying season, depending on where we're flying, so I selected the "Vermillion" shade of standard Power Pro.
I'd also be tempted by these:
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Sufix_Performance_Braided_Line_Fluorescent_Neon_Fire/descpage-SPBFNF.html
(https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Sufix_Performance_Braided_Line_Fluorescent_Neon_Fire/descpage-SPBFNF.html)
or
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Sufix_832_Braided_Line_Coastal_Camo/descpage-S83CC.html
You won't find Spectra lines to be impervious to damage from being trampled, so being visible can count for a lot. If you get a knot in the middle of a length of line, you probably should scrap it, because that WILL be a weak spot.
I have also read on fishing forums that there have been some instances where "Spectra" purchased on eBay was NOT Spectra, and was actually counterfeit junk from China, so IF you buy it from eBay, buy from a trusted vendor. H^^ Steve
-
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Power_Pro_Maxcuatro_Spectra_Braided_Line_Moss_Green/descpage-PMXC.html
Personally, I see the dark green color as a disadvantage for use on green grass. Ours might be green or tan during flying season, depending on where we're flying, so I selected the "Vermillion" shade of standard Power Pro.
I'd also be tempted by these:
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Sufix_Performance_Braided_Line_Fluorescent_Neon_Fire/descpage-SPBFNF.html
(https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Sufix_Performance_Braided_Line_Fluorescent_Neon_Fire/descpage-SPBFNF.html)
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Sufix_832_Braided_Line_Coastal_Camo/descpage-S83CC.html
You won't find Spectra lines to be impervious to damage from being trampled, so being visible can count for a lot. If you get a knot in the middle of a length of line, you probably should scrap it, because that WILL be a weak spot.
I have also read on fishing forums that there have been some instances where "Spectra" purchased on eBay was NOT Spectra, and was actually counterfeit junk from China, so IF you buy it from eBay, buy from a trusted vendor. H^^ Steve
I would note that none of the lines mentioned here would be legal under the proposed rule, not being the correct brand (counterfeit or not).
Brett
-
Brett, what brand of non-metallic line is specified in the proposed rule, and why is a specific brand to be required? What is the brand name, and where do we get it? The brands I posted links to are very highly respected and widely used among my fellow fishermen. No such requirement is applied to solid or stranded cables, after all. ??? Steve
-
Well if they are banned then they must work so I won't use them. Guess I just have to use double clips till I can find some 1/4" steel rings.
Ken
Ken, did you look at these, from Decoy?
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Decoy_GP_Ring_12pk/descpage-DGPR.html
They are solid stainless steel, and sort of an egg shape. I think these would be my starting point. What I'm not sure of, is which size is bigger than the other, or how large they are. What I would do is buy both sizes and return the ones I didn't want to use, in exchange for the size I did want to use. Next time I order some fishing tackle, I'll put them on the list...both sizes.
I am still against tying knots, because I know I can get much closer to equal lengths if I bind them to some sort of clip or ring. For STUNT, or even sport, I would not do it the way the combat guys suggest. They have a much higher line scrap rate, their planes are much more resistant to crash damage, they typically use cable handles, while I'm never going to use one ever again...etc. I am going to study up on what sort of glue to use on the line bindings. A rubberized CA or perhaps Urethane glue seem most suitable to me. D>K Steve
-
Thanks to all of you for your advice. I cut a set of 65' Spectra lines and flew on them this morning. Had to use the old "slider" clips which I hate. I was impressed with the results and I will probably continue using them if the proposal passes. It would be pointless to practice on them if they could not be used in competition. To Brett's point, it doesn't matter if there is something better if it is not legal. Personally I think the part of the rule specifying a particular manufacturer is unnecessary, unenforceable and burdensome to the ED but, if that is the rule, then that is what I use.
I experienced most of what was predicted by those that have used them. They had less stretch than the Brass lines I am using but not that much less. They do produce more bow and I moved the leadouts back a tad to allow for it. What sold me were two things. First, the tension overhead was the best I can remember. Second, the lack of inertia induced yaw in the corners is reason enough to use them.
Now the negatives. Trying to tie the AMA knot is going to take some practice, no, lots of practice and mood enhancing drugs. I am going to have to get used to the humm when the lines are wrapped. Got to be careful not to set them down in the Pipe exhaust puddles and remembering to buy yellow next time.
Overall, if they become legal, I will probably use them but until they are contest legal I will practice with what I have to compete with.
Ken
-
Brett, what brand of non-metallic line is specified in the proposed rule, and why is a specific brand to be required? What is the brand name, and where do we get it? The brands I posted links to are very highly respected and widely used among my fellow fishermen. No such requirement is applied to solid or stranded cables, after all. ??? Steve
https://modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/CLA19-01.pdf
I am not defending it (I had the same sort of argument), and I have nothing per se against Spectra lines, but the proposal requires specific brands.
Brett
-
I thought that "Spectra" was a material, not a brand, per se.
I could be wrong, but I think there are several brands that use spectra material to make lines?
-
I thought that "Spectra" was a material, not a brand, per se.
I could be wrong, but I think there are several brands that use spectra material to make lines?
Yes, and no. The issue is trusting the sourcing of the material. Hence the specific brand requirement.
-
Isn't "Spectra" just a branded name for Dyneema? Like Kevlar is a branded name for Aramid?
-
Thanks, Brett, for posting the pdf. I have seen that previously, but I'm still perplexed by the GSUMP "requirement" in the pull test chart since the text started out referring to "Spectra". We still don't know what brand to buy or where to obtain it. Boxes of fishing line just don't say "GSUMP". They may say "Spectra" or "Dyneema". Is there a difference between those two? Vague memory reminds me that "Spectra" is 'Murican and "Dyneema" is European? But is it the same stuff? IDK.
It looks to me like the user is responsible for knowing what the line material is, and since none of the braided line boxes are going to say "GSUMP" on them, I'll just go ahead and call BS on the proposal as written, until somebody can 'splain why, what & where. If it was written as "Spectra" or "Spectra or Dyneema", ok fine. Since Chris and Brent posted before I got this done, there are no brands specified in the proposal. Seems to me, that makes all of them illegal, unless you find a brand called "GSUMP", and there isn't one.
I just went down in the garage and pawed through about 20 spools and boxes of braided line (maybe half of what's in stock!). Some said "Dyneema" and some said "Spectra", while others didn't say either. Power Pro said "Spectra" on all the boxes. I have a spool of "Tuf-Line" and some spools of Stren braid that didn't say anything. A partial spool of (very old) Cabela's "Evolution" line said "100% Dyneema" on the spool. Braids stand up well to the test of time. Some say braids are easy to fray and break on sharp rocks...I guess we don't have sharp rocks around here. H^^ Steve
-
Thanks, Brett, for posting the pdf. I have seen that previously, but I'm still perplexed by the GSUMP "requirement" in the pull test chart since the text started out referring to "Spectra". We still don't know what brand to buy or where to obtain it. Boxes of fishing line just don't say "GSUMP". They may say "Spectra" or "Dyneema". Is there a difference between those two? Vague memory reminds me that "Spectra" is 'Murican and "Dyneema" is European? But is it the same stuff? IDK.
It looks to me like the user is responsible for knowing what the line material is, and since none of the braided line boxes are going to say "GSUMP" on them, I'll just go ahead and call BS on the proposal as written, until somebody can 'splain why, what & where. If it was written as "Spectra" or "Spectra or Dyneema", ok fine. Since Chris and Brent posted before I got this done, there are no brands specified in the proposal. Seems to me, that makes all of them illegal, unless you find a brand called "GSUMP", and there isn't one.
I just went down in the garage and pawed through about 20 spools and boxes of braided line (maybe half of what's in stock!). Some said "Dyneema" and some said "Spectra", while others didn't say either. Power Pro said "Spectra" on all the boxes. I have a spool of "Tuf-Line" and some spools of Stren braid that didn't say anything. A partial spool of (very old) Cabela's "Evolution" line said "100% Dyneema" on the spool. Braids stand up well to the test of time. Some say braids are easy to fray and break on sharp rocks...I guess we don't have sharp rocks around here. H^^ Steve
You may not have read down far enough, it talks about labels or brand names.
Brett
-
Nope, I read all the way to the bottom and it didn't say anything about either labels or brand names. Just "Spectra" and then ends with the sentence about the AMA's Claims Dept. Is there another page? H^^ Steve
-
I'm pretty certain that Dyneema is the material name, not a brand. I'm also pretty certain that "Spectra" is the Dyneema that is produced by Honeywell.
I understand that phonies are to be avoided, due to being of dubious quality, but how is anyone but the purchaser to know what they have?
It seems that the pilot will be "on their honor" there. Just as they are with regards to the test strength of the lines, since it flattens out when you measure it.
The whole thing is interesting because as someone pointed out, ANY brand of steel line is allowed, and that could be of dubious quality as well.
The pull test should weed out the problems, but, we don't pull test before EVERY flight at a contest, do we? Then there is no way of knowing if lines get damaged between the flights at a contest, after the pull test has been done prior...
I don't see the logic of specifying a brand of material.
What happens when better brand and use of that material comes out? You can't use it, because of the specification I guess, right?
I'd like to hear an explanation by the gents that submitted the proposal.
I'm sure they could shed some light on what their thought process was at the time.
No angst intended to anyone....
Thanks,
Target
-
Nope, I read all the way to the bottom and it didn't say anything about either labels or brand names. Just "Spectra" and then ends with the sentence about the AMA's Claims Dept. Is there another page? H^^ Steve
Only lines sold under the Spectra or Dyneema brand names shall be used, and lines sold as an equivalent product shall be prohibited. Lines sold under the Fusion name shall also be prohibited.
I would note that the example pictures *do not* comply with the wording of the rule - none are Spectra or Dyneema brand names, the example is a "Power Pro" brand. I have a reel that only says Spectra on it - with some Chinese lettereing at the bottom. Real or counterfeit? I don't know.
Brett
-
Normally you recognize the counterfeit product from stretch; they are totally unusable for our use (well, I don't understand why even the good stuff should be used but thats another thing..) and no one with common sense will use them.
But if you accept only a certain brand, like Power Pro, in your rules, it's totally silly because because there will allready be better products available that use the same fibre.
Especially Power Pro is not the best anymore becauseit has a braided sleeve type structure, it has a flat cross section that stretches more and is not aerodynamically good. If you look fir example at the Rapala line instead, it has clearly less stretch and cross section is round straight from the reel. L
-
Normally you recognize the counterfeit product from stretch; they are totally unusable for our use (well, I don't understand why even the good stuff should be used but thats another thing..) and no one with common sense will use them.
But if you accept only a certain brand, like Power Pro, in your rules, it's totally silly because because there will allready be better products available that use the same fibre.
Especially Power Pro is not the best anymore becauseit has a braided sleeve type structure, it has a flat cross section that stretches more and is not aerodynamically good. If you look fir example at the Rapala line instead, it has clearly less stretch and cross section is round straight from the reel. L
I agree with this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Writing a rule that is brand specific in a time of high development doesn't make much sense to me, unless you want to keep re-writing it to use the best thing each year.
But, again, the guys that filed the proposal must have had their reasons for it. I would like know what they were.
R,
Target
-
Only lines sold under the Spectra or Dyneema brand names shall be used, and lines sold as an equivalent product shall be prohibited. Lines sold under the Fusion name shall also be prohibited.
I would note that the example pictures *do not* comply with the wording of the rule - none are Spectra or Dyneema brand names, the example is a "Power Pro" brand. I have a reel that only says Spectra on it - with some Chinese lettereing at the bottom. Real or counterfeit? I don't know.
Brett
Is it too late to fix this poorly written rule or are we stuck with it as written. You are right, as written nothing will qualify. I want to use these lines but I can see all kinds of problems with this rule. Even the size table is confusing. Engine displacement doesn't mean much anymore and I wonder why they even include it. 100lb test is really hard to find (except online) and keeping the box as documentation?
-
Is it too late to fix this poorly written rule or are we stuck with it as written. You are right, as written nothing will qualify. I want to use these lines but I can see all kinds of problems with this rule. Even the size table is confusing. Engine displacement doesn't mean much anymore and I wonder why they even include it. 100lb test is really hard to find (except online) and keeping the box as documentation?
It has passed the initial vote but the final vote is in progress.
I am not trying to throw stones at the idea of using Spectra lines and the guys behind it are generally up-to-speed. So I presume that I am missing something important or obvious.
Brett
-
Rapala owns Suffix. We don't have any fishing line under the brand name of Rapala, but Rapala owns a bunch of fishing brands: https://www.rapala.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-rapala-Site/default/Search-ShowInLocale?cgid=sufix-braid
H^^ Steve
PS: Most brands come out with one or two new types of braid every season...it's a rapidly evolving technology, even if it is mainly for catching fish species that haven't changed in centuries. The techniques used in fishing do evolve quickly, and probably a lot quicker than CL Stunt.
-
The Sufix stuff is pretty nice. I have flown many hundreds of flights on 30lb (.011) Sufix Performance Braid by Rapala with 1/2a planes. I know 1/2a is hardly asking anything of the material, but it has been trouble free for me. 30lb is overkill for this application, but it was on the shelf locally. I haven't ever regretted using it.
-
It has passed the initial vote but the final vote is in progress.
I am not trying to throw stones at the idea of using Spectra lines and the guys behind it are generally up-to-speed. So I presume that I am missing something important or obvious.
Brett
You are not missing anything. Their intent is good, the lines are good, the rule is going to be a mess. I still hope it passes because I want to use the lines and locally we understand what it MEANS in spite of what it says.
Ken
-
One of the "things" about braid that may confuse non-fishers..."equiv. dia." is referring to nylon monofilament fishing line of the same diameter. It's a pretty useless bit of info, because it is only really useful for very roughly estimating how much line your shiny new fishing reel will hold. Ignore it! D>K Steve
-
I’m confused Brett. Could you post a pic of the brand that is in the proposal please? For years I’ve been using PowerPro %100 Spectra line because it was the only line I found that met the combat rule.The rule specifically called for Spectra and PowerPro met the requirement. Dyneema was not listed therefore in my opinion not legal for combat as they are 2 different types of line. One being US (Honeywell) and the other being a Dutch Co. (DSM Dyneema). In a recent search I’ve found another US company that touts its line as being Spectra fiber. The name is Jerry Brown Line but I’ve not tried it and other than what I read on the internet, know nothing of the company. From Brett: Only lines sold under the Spectra or Dyneema brand names shall be used, and lines sold as an equivalent product shall be prohibited. Lines sold under the Fusion name shall also be prohibited.
I would note that the example pictures *do not* comply with the wording of the rule - none are Spectra or Dyneema brand names, the example is a "Power Pro" brand. I have a reel that only says Spectra on it - with some Chinese lettereing at the bottom. Real or counterfeit? I don't know.
Please tell me what I'm missing? The labels clearly say %100 Spectra-registered trademark of Honeywell. Why does this not meet the requirement? Thanks
-
I’m confused Brett. Could you post a pic of the brand that is in the proposal please? For years I’ve been using PowerPro %100 Spectra line because it was the only line I found that met the combat rule.The rule specifically called for Spectra and PowerPro met the requirement. Dyneema was not listed therefore in my opinion not legal for combat as they are 2 different types of line. One being US (Honeywell) and the other being a Dutch Co. (DSM Dyneema). In a recent search I’ve found another US company that touts its line as being Spectra fiber. The name is Jerry Brown Line but I’ve not tried it and other than what I read on the internet, know nothing of the company. From Brett: Only lines sold under the Spectra or Dyneema brand names shall be used, and lines sold as an equivalent product shall be prohibited. Lines sold under the Fusion name shall also be prohibited.
I would note that the example pictures *do not* comply with the wording of the rule - none are Spectra or Dyneema brand names, the example is a "Power Pro" brand. I have a reel that only says Spectra on it - with some Chinese lettereing at the bottom. Real or counterfeit? I don't know.
Please tell me what I'm missing? The labels clearly say %100 Spectra-registered trademark of Honeywell. Why does this not meet the requirement? Thanks
It is the definition of a "Brand" name and "trademark". The rule calls for a brand name. Spectra is a "trademark". There are no US lines sold under the Spectra BRAND.
Ken
-
Isn't "Spectra" just a branded name for Dyneema? Like Kevlar is a branded name for Aramid?
No they are two different types of lines one US the other Dutch.
-
https://modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/CLA19-01.pdf
I am not defending it (I had the same sort of argument), and I have nothing per se against Spectra lines, but the proposal requires specific brands.
Brett
There's been some confusion and I think I know why. The link you posted does not show the name brands, the amended version does. Now I understand. https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/CLA19-02.pdf
-
Well now this is helpful, and I see that the proposal is to also pull test before each flight...
Might it be good to do that with steel lines as well?
I have only been to one contest but I do remember only one pull test per plane.
-
There's been some confusion and I think I know why. The link you posted does not show the name brands, the amended version does. Now I understand. https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/CLA19-02.pdf
Well, that is another oddity - if the proposal was amended (which it can be), there shouldn't be two of them, or at least I don't see why there would be. I think they only voted on the second one.
Note that this rule does not in any way seem open to "interpretation", either. It says something that is quite explicit and clear, if it is explicit and clear, you can't "interpret" it to mean something else ex post facto. "Interpretation" (in the sense that "well it says one thing but we meant something else" {we said "brand" but we really meant meant trademark or service mark}) is prohibited in the General rules.
So, by the rule, the PowerPro brand is not legal (either yours, or the examples), because it is not Spectra brand. However, this one probably IS legal:
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=51385.0;attach=290053;image)
because it says Spectra and nothing else, so one might presume it is the brand, although I don't know and the CDs don't know of this is a licensed brand name. Note also that this is the SOLE packaging, it came with clear shrink-wrap and this. There are no other markings of any type. I also strongly suggest it is either counterfeit, or at least, not licensed by Honeywell (maybe run off the same production line as legitimate line, but "off the books", which is very common in Chinese counterfeiting/IP fraud).
So in this one example (the first one I came across that meets the letter of the rules as near as I can tell) both proves that calling for specific brands like Spectra (which is probably not the registered brand name but is the sole identifier on the packaging) doesn't accomplish the presumed goal of limiting legal lines to known-good manufacturers, and that saving the packaging also accomplishes nothing at all, since for all intents and purposes, there isn't any.
Any CD looking at my reel says "yep, says spectra on it and that looks like a brand" and "nope, that says Power Pro brand, that is not permitted, because it's not Spectra or Dyneema". You surely aren't going to be able to dismiss a protest to that effect out hand, and the wording of the rule is perfectly clear.
I actually have no problem with this from a materials, standards, or safety standpoint, since I don't think we should care about the brand or the material of lines at all. But, I think it *does* mean that the rule, as written, *does not allow any synthetic lines of any type*, since I don't think that the brand requirements can be met. You could say "leave it to the CD" but in that case, you don't need any rule at all, just leave it to the CD judgment.
Again, I will test whatever I get, legal by the current rule, or not and determine for myself whether I want to risk my airplane on it.
I think the actual change should say "there is no restriction on the diameter, construction, or on terminations of any construction or material. Safety is assured by passing the preflight pull test", meaning, if it passes the pull test, it's OK, and then it's up to the pilot to decide whether or not to use 8 lb test monofilament or 1/32 music wire.
I don't think we should pass the existing proposal because it ends up being "null" because no lines are compliant.
Brett
p.s. I did a bit of research and Spectra is indeed a trademark (not a service mark) and there is a registration program from Honeywell for it. Spectra is a brand name for a large variety of companies, none of which appears to be anything to do with fishing line, in brief research.
I expect that the first "fix" the proposal will be to change the word "brand" to "certified by the Spectra trademark". Then the problem will be eliminating anyone who owns or has access to a color printer, because anyone download the logo and print it on a package.
-
Well now this is helpful, and I see that the proposal is to also pull test before each flight...
Might it be good to do that with steel lines as well?
I have only been to one contest but I do remember only one pull test per plane.
You pull test before every flight no matter what kind of lines you have.
Brett
-
(Clip)
The pull test should weed out the problems, but, we don't pull test before EVERY flight at a contest, do we? Then there is no way of knowing if lines get damaged between the flights at a contest, after the pull test has been done prior...
(Clip)
Target
This and at least one other comment in this thread shows that there is a serious misunderstanding or lack of knowledge regarding our CLPA rules.
In the current 2017-2018, Paragraph 5 regarding the pull test: "Pull tests shall be performed before each flight." This has been in the rule book for a number of years. If a pull test is not performed prior to each flight, the Contest Director and the organizers of the contest may become liable for legal action if an incident occurs from a line failure that results in damage or injury.
Keith
-
Brett Thanks for clearing up the rule interpretation I was having trouble with. I too had a roll of the brand you posted long ago. We found it was “stretchier” than PowerPro. Also had one failure with it. It broke at the knot. I suspect you are correct that is a Chinese knock off and not the real deal. I haven’t used anything off that roll since trying them and having a knot break. I recommend not using it.
-
Brett Thanks for clearing up the rule interpretation I was having trouble with. I too had a roll of the brand you posted long ago. We found it was “stretchier” than PowerPro. Also had one failure with it. It broke at the knot. I suspect you are correct that is a Chinese knock off and not the real deal. I haven’t used anything off that roll since trying them and having a knot break. I recommend not using it.
Well, at least mine is legal under the proposed rule!
Another minor nit-pick is that the material is not actually GSUMP, but UHMWPE (Ultra-High Molecular Weight PolyEthylene) spun using a proprietary process.
Brett
-
This and at least one other comment in this thread shows that there is a serious misunderstanding or lack of knowledge regarding our CLPA rules.
In the current 2017-2018, Paragraph 5 regarding the pull test: "Pull tests shall be performed before each flight." This has been in the rule book for a number of years. If a pull test is not performed prior to each flight, the Contest Director and the organizers of the contest may become liable for legal action if an incident occurs from a line failure that results in damage or injury.
I don't think so -it's a violation of the event rules, not the safety code.
The safety code is very ambiguously worded to say you have to perform a pull test "before flight" - not "before every flight". For an insurance claim or liability, that is all that is required - any ambiguity is usually found in favor of the guy who *didn't* draft it.
I wouldn't want to test that theory in court, however, and the event rules definitely say "before every flight", so at contests, you pull test before every flight.
Brett
-
Well now this is helpful, and I see that the proposal is to also pull test before each flight...
Might it be good to do that with steel lines as well?
I have only been to one contest but I do remember only one pull test per plane.
OK, so, based on the experience I had at my (1) contest, I know what happened....
I had @ 4 hours of sleep the night prior, because I had been scheduled to work the day of the contest. I drove the 90 minutes to work, and the operation cancelled about 0530. I drove back home, and grabbed my planes, headed to Whittier.
I pull tested the Banshee, and managed an inverted pancake on the first outside loop (inverted figure 9?). So that was my first flight.
Only 3/4 daunted, I pulled the E-Oriental from the car. I asked the CD if I could fly again. He muttered something about having some cajones or something, and said, "Sure, but you will have to weigh and pull test the second plane".
Somehow, my pea brain assumed the pull test was done once per the two flights on a single plane. I never got in the two flights on the same plane.....so didn't get two pull tests on one plane, just two on two planes, one each. Which is ALSO a pull test before each flight.
Of course this makes more sense to do it every (contest) flight. Lines get stepped on, slack lines cause a jerk on the system, etc. etc.
But, the utmost safety would be to do the pull test IMMEDIATELY BEFORE each flight to minimize possible damage between the pull test and the flight.
I don't think that is what is done, nor is it practical?
I get it now.... ::)
-
You pull test before every flight no matter what kind of lines you have.
Brett
That is way too logical, it will never pass.
I would assume that at least one of the committee members voting to "Pass" on the 2nd rule follows this forum. If they pass this "as is" then we can only assume they intended to allow Spectra lines, just not any that are actually sold. Are we truly so bureaucratic that this cannot be fixed? I am not against specifying the manufacturer. It is easier to add a name to a list than it is to figure this out but if they put that name into the rule then you have to amend it every time a new product comes out. "..from a list of manufactures approved by the committee" does that. Better yet, bump up the pull test and fly woven grapevines if you can pass.
Ken
-
That is way too logical, it will never pass.
Keith's point was that it *is that way already* - you have to pull test before each flight even if you are using metal lines. That would not be a change.
Brett
-
I'm glad it is that way, it makes the most sense for safety, within reason. Only pull testing in the circle directly before flight would be better, and I don't see that as practical.
-
Keith's point was that it *is that way already* - you have to pull test before each flight even if you are using metal lines. That would not be a change.
Brett
Sorry, I thought you were commenting to the effect that line type definition is unnecessary if you have an adequate and timely pull test requirement. We pull everything before every flight at our contests. Sposed to. y1
Ken
-
I'm glad it is that way, it makes the most sense for safety, within reason. Only pull testing in the circle directly before flight would be better, and I don't see that as practical.
Probably not but most smoothly run contests have one plane moving onto the circle as the last one is moving off (We say it is to not give the judges any rest but in Texas it is really to beat the heat!) If you have a proper staging area, the pull test could be the last step before moving onto the circle. That would cut down on two things. Forgetting the pull test and finding volunteers to run the pull tests but it would be better and is probably already done that way somewhere.
Ken
-
I actually have no problem with this from a materials, standards, or safety standpoint, since I don't think we should care about the brand or the material of lines at all. But, I think it *does* mean that the rule, as written, *does not allow any synthetic lines of any type*, since I don't think that the brand requirements can be met. You could say "leave it to the CD" but in that case, you don't need any rule at all, just leave it to the CD judgment.
Again, I will test whatever I get, legal by the current rule, or not and determine for myself whether I want to risk my airplane on it.
I think the actual change should say "there is no restriction on the diameter, construction, or on terminations of any construction or material. Safety is assured by passing the preflight pull test", meaning, if it passes the pull test, it's OK, and then it's up to the pilot to decide whether or not to use 8 lb test monofilament or 1/32 music wire.
I don't think we should pass the existing proposal because it ends up being "null" because no lines are compliant.
Brett
I have been asked to post a submission to our control line technical committee her in New Zealand on usage of non 'metal' lines and Brett's statement sound a good start and logical answer to the brand problem and knot choice. Having used a lot of different alternative line materials over the years including Terrilene , Dracon, Dailcord and Kevlar and now braided modern fishing line the only failures I have had have been on my steel and stainless lines.
Recently had a set of 18 thou lines break on a 35 size combat model after a my son had a wind blown wing-over then loss of line tension followed by a sudden recovery pull out and just after we had completed a pull test using a digital meter. It was the sudden shock with a fast heavy model that resulted in that all too frequent failure under those common conditions.
It is hard to get genuine brand 'anything' here in NZ with a lot of goods imported straight from China now so we can only test and see how each performs to a pull test and find out how durable each are in in practice.
Regards Gerald
-
Maybe the CL combat people who have more experience with these lines could help enlighten us. From the 2017-2018 Control Line Combat rule book:
"All lines used to control flights shall be steel music wire or metal of equivalent
strength, or braided cables made from braided gel spun ultrahigh molecular
weight polyethylene (GSUMP) of the same nominal diameter specified in the pull
test table. Spectra lines that have been formed into a single solid strand (called
Fusion or similar names) are not allowed because they are much more likely to
break when the lines are stressed suddenly. Gel spun braided lines (Spectra (tm) must be
terminated as per the knot diagrams shown in the Control Line General section paragraph 5.3.5.1."
(This is direct lift/copy/quote from the combat rule book.)
If this works for the CL combat people, maybe it could work for CLPA. It would be interesting to know how this rule works in the CL combat world and how the type of lines that are permitted for that event is being enforced within the requirements of their rules. In my opinion, the revised proposal that was presented to the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board would be impossible to enforce
The results of the final vote of the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board of the proposal for GSUMP lines should be known within the next several days if not tomorrow.
Keith
-
The results of the final vote of the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board of the proposal for GSUMP lines should be known within the next several days if not tomorrow.
Keith
If it passes can we fix it before next year's season? That combat rule looks good. maybe we CAN simply adopt it.
Ken
-
Maybe the CL combat people who have more experience with these lines could help enlighten us. From the 2017-2018 Control Line Combat rule book:
"All lines used to control flights shall be steel music wire or metal of equivalent
strength, or braided cables made from braided gel spun ultrahigh molecular
weight polyethylene (GSUMP) of the same nominal diameter specified in the pull
test table. Spectra lines that have been formed into a single solid strand (called
Fusion or similar names) are not allowed because they are much more likely to
break when the lines are stressed suddenly. Gel spun braided lines (Spectra (tm) must be
terminated as per the knot diagrams shown in the Control Line General section paragraph 5.3.5.1."
(This is direct lift/copy/quote from the combat rule book.)
If this works for the CL combat people, maybe it could work for CLPA. It would be interesting to know how this rule works in the CL combat world and how the type of lines that are permitted for that event is being enforced within the requirements of their rules. In my opinion, the revised proposal that was presented to the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board would be impossible to enforce
The results of the final vote of the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board of the proposal for GSUMP lines should be known within the next several days if not tomorrow.
Keith
I can tell you how I found out about them. Phil Cartier turned me on to them at the Huntersville Combat Contest some years ago. He had some input into getting them approved for Combat use so I pretty much took his word as Gospel. He showed me which brand to use, told me which ones to steer clear of, then showed me how to tie the knot until I could do it myself. As far as I know most guys are using PowerPro brand. However no CD has ever asked or wanted to see proof of what my lines are. We pull test and fly. I think, at least in the Combat community, everyone knows what to use and is doing so. No one wants to have a fly away because of fake(chinese) stuff or using a brand that is not Spectra fiber. I can't say anything else other than I have used them, a bunch, in Combat and love them. I hope a rule change will pass that is clear and gives accurate information on their use for Stunt. Make it crystal clear what is legal and what is not and I'll be the first guy buying it and using it on my stunt planes at contests. I'm already sport flying with it. Peace.
-
Well it went down in flames. Probably a good thing because of the way it was worded. So how long do we have to wait before it can be fixed and voted on again?
Thanks to all that helped me get a test run in but alas, I am not going to practice on something I can't use. I regret having tried them because now I know what I am missing. I would like to hear from the 5 that voted against them to know what we need to address to make them legal.
Ken
-
Well it went down in flames. Probably a good thing because of the way it was worded. So how long do we have to wait before it can be fixed and voted on again?
Thanks to all that helped me get a test run in but alas, I am not going to practice on something I can't use. I regret having tried them because now I know what I am missing. I would like to hear from the 5 that voted against them to know what we need to address to make them legal.
Ken
Hello
Sorry to hear it didn't pass, suppose it bods badly for me here in NZ trying to change the forces that be, upset the apple cart and alter the scared process CL flying.
Funny thing is since the late 1970's I have flown Cox models on the 'factory' lines and latter Kevlar and other materials but nobody worried about it till recently when they changed the rules to exclude anything other then metal lines! :-\
Hopefully reason triumphs in the end
Regards Gerald :)
-
Districts VII, VIII, IX, X and XI voted deny. Some body needs to wake those members up as I know the board members vote the way the members want. Guess new technology will not get a chance unless we get people to using the lines and reporting results. I know I will be trying them as where I fly there shouldn't be much danger to people other then the mushroom hunters and the dog walkers.
-
Districts VII, VIII, IX, X and XI voted deny. Some body needs to wake those members up as I know the board members vote the way the members want. Guess new technology will not get a chance unless we get people to using the lines and reporting results. I know I will be trying them as where I fly there shouldn't be much danger to people other then the mushroom hunters and the dog walkers.
I have so little time for practice that I cannot afford to get used to them. I tried them just to see what all the fuss was about before the vote. Wish I had not even tried them now. After 2 flights I was flying at least 20 maybe 30 points better. Oh well, I guess there are politics in just about everything, even PA!
However, Brett was right, the rule sucked but the lines sure don't!
Ken
-
Districts VII, VIII, IX, X and XI voted deny. Some body needs to wake those members up as I know the board members vote the way the members want. Guess new technology will not get a chance unless we get people to using the lines and reporting results.
As noted at extraordinary length above - no one seems to be against "new technology" and this isn't "politics". It's about the way this particular proposal was written, which in fact led it to be impossible to comply with.
Everything isn't a cynical ploy.
Brett
-
Some body needs to wake those members up as I know the board members vote the way the members want.
Interesting comment. Except for the few voices heard on this forum (certainly not a vast multitude of interested/concerned enthusiasts), I doubt that any of the Contest Board Members received any input from anyone in their own district or any other district on this measure. I realize that there are terrible time constraints here. There has only been about 18 months for someone to contact anyone on the Board.
Keith
-
As noted at extraordinary length above - no one seems to be against "new technology" and this isn't "politics". It's about the way this particular proposal was written, which in fact led it to be impossible to comply with.
Everything isn't a cynical ploy.
Brett
Since you are closer to the Ivory Tower than I am I will take your word for it that politics are not involved. After reading Keith's comment I see the problem - communication. How do the contest board members get feedback if not from the forums. I was not active when this proposal was submitted and I did not hear anything about it until someone on this forum mentioned it then I stumbled across it last week on the AMA website (stumbling is about the only way to find anything there since the "upgrade"). Should we be contacting them? I am asking, not criticizing. If we are going to get what we want it has to be the right way.
Ken
[/quote]
-
Interesting comment. Except for the few voices heard on this forum (certainly not a vast multitude of interested/concerned enthusiasts), I doubt that any of the Contest Board Members received any input from anyone in their own district or any other district on this measure. I realize that there are terrible time constraints here. There has only been about 18 months for someone to contact anyone on the Board.
Keith
Had I been active when this was submitted I would have voiced my opinion. I believe that you have no right to complain if you don't participate in the process. I really want those lines but I would have voted against the rule as written. I am curious why you voted against it.
Ken
-
Since you are closer to the Ivory Tower than I am I will take your word for it that politics are not involved. After reading Keith's comment I see the problem - communication. How do the contest board members get feedback if not from the forums. I was not active when this proposal was submitted and I did not hear anything about it until someone on this forum mentioned it then I stumbled across it last week on the AMA website (stumbling is about the only way to find anything there since the "upgrade"). Should we be contacting them? I am asking, not criticizing. If we are going to get what we want it has to be the right way.
I don't know what you are talking about with regard to the "ivory tower", I have no more input to it than anyone else. I have some advantage in that I write, read, and evaluate aerospace requirements on a wide range of topics, so I can maybe see issues or ways to resolve issues better than most (after 35+ years of that in the most critical types of systems), but other than that, no particular "in" aside from knowing all the people involved.
The members get feedback by reading the proposals and contacting their representatives, or failing that, the chairman. Doc's comment above is incomprehensible and very unfortunate, this cycle is *2 years* and these have been posted for the better part of a year. I saw the proposal and discussed it with several people, my CLACB representative also had an issue and voted against it.
Every time I *do* talk to the CLACB members, they all say that the *never* get any feedback, and alway have to beg people for input.
I also expected this proposal to be obviated by a different proposal, specifically, to simply eliminate any materials requirements and just have a pull test, but the person who was all spun up to do it, did not, so here we are. I think that makes a lot more sense than trying to make requirement that seem to offer "traceability, but don't in reality. That's the area that I think probably sunk this change - nothing to do with Spectra lines or "not wanting progress". Passing the proposal as written *would not have let you fly with Spectra lines* because of the flaws noted previously.
I have actually flown with Spectra lines (Power Pro 50 lb test) and I wasn't too impressed, but not on by big airplane and only on sport flights (since they are illegal for stunt competition).
It takes a few minutes to write a proposal, I have done about 15-20 of them in recent years, so if someone has a better idea, the cycle is starting again soon.
Brett
-
The fact that both of the Power Pro photos say 100% Spectra on them still isn't adequate? Call me "BEWILDERED". I've never seen a spool of the "SPECTRA" shown in the latest version of the pdf. If you specify something that nobody can buy, then what's the point of writing the proposal? D>K Steve
-
It takes a few minutes to write a proposal, I have done about 15-20 of them in recent years, so if someone has a better idea, the cycle is starting again soon.
Brett
What is the cycle? If this proposal is 18 months old and nobody noticed the obvious problems with it until it had already been voted on then we have a serious problem with the process. I would venture a guess that most of the active fliers out there had no clue that this was even under consideration. You mentioned a competing proposal to eliminate all line requirements other than length if they could pass the pull test. (That may be an over simplification). Where do I go to read that proposal. I will do my part to be educated on what changes are proposed and voice my opinion on them but isn't there an equal responsibility on the part of the committee to keep us informed as to what they are being asked to vote on? Perhaps there is already a way of doing this but I sure don't now what it is.
Ken
-
yest another reason I will just sport fly and combat fly.
so the rule passes on the first go around, sits for over a year then get killed off?
Spectra lines are solid technology, and they are so easy to use and user friendly they make flying control line more fun (for me).
You ought to try some. then figure out how to allow them rather than kill the rule.
-
What is the cycle? If this proposal is 18 months old and nobody noticed the obvious problems with it until it had already been voted on then we have a serious problem with the process. I would venture a guess that most of the active fliers out there had no clue that this was even under consideration. You mentioned a competing proposal to eliminate all line requirements other than length if they could pass the pull test. (That may be an over simplification). Where do I go to read that proposal?
It was never submitted - I just expected such a proposal would be, because several people talked to me about it, and it came up in these threads, too:
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=399363&mesg_id=399363
and here:
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=399521&mesg_id=399521
The Spectra proposal also sat there on the AMA Competition Rules page for a long time, both the new one and the older version, along with the screening vote results. It;s harder to find after the AMA website was fudged up, but it was pretty darned easy before.
I will do my part to be educated on what changes are proposed and voice my opinion on them but isn't there an equal responsibility on the part of the committee to keep us informed as to what they are being asked to vote on? Perhaps there is already a way of doing this but I sure don't now what it is.
They have a web site, they publish every step of the process on it, it has come up tangentially here and directly on SSW.
I have no stake in this one either way, I don't really care too much whether people can use Spectra lines or not (and as noted, even if you passed this rule as written, you weren't going to be able to use Spectra, anyway - so pass or fail, would have changed nothing) and I am not on the CLACB, so no skin off my nose. But I can see why people don't want to be involved with it - everybody sits around for months or years, then literally the day after the vote, we have people wanting to quit stunt because a proposal that they didn't even know about a week ago failed?
Brett
-
As computer illiterate as I am, I had no trouble finding the proposals on the new site. Just need to know what to look for and if not known just browse around a bit. D>K
-
The fact that both of the Power Pro photos say 100% Spectra on them still isn't adequate? Call me "BEWILDERED". I've never seen a spool of the "SPECTRA" shown in the latest version of the pdf. If you specify something that nobody can buy, then what's the point of writing the proposal? D>K Steve
OK, I am not a voting member, but to summarize:
- they said "brand" when they probably meant "trademarked and registered with the Honeywell licensing program". But you have to go with what was *written*, not what they meant
- there is some apparent attempt to create what we would call "traceability" to a standard, by keeping the box, but that doesn't really create a documented track back to legitimate manufacturer.
- it specifies test ratings and diameters, which is great if you have actual traceable tests to point to - but you don't have any such tests, and the suggested diameter measurements are absurd (soak it with Hot Stuff? I can build it up to 1/4" that way given the motivation). In fact, there have been no tests (except the only important one, see below)
- this is apparently based on the premise that you wanted to limit the use to specific "approved" manufacturing processes, but given that there is really absolutely no way to guarantee that by showing someone a box with a Spectra trademark that you printed in your living room.
Plus some other nitpicks like the erroneous/misleading description of the material itself. Yes, a CD out in a field somewhere could make a real-time judgement, but if we are just going to have people eyeball it no matter what the rules say, why write a rule about it at all? Are we going to put in rules where you have to ignore what it literally says and immediately start interpreting it? The words are perfectly clear and unambiguous, they go to great length to specify a bunch of stuff in detail - and you want the CD to just ignore it? When a lot of people think (probably incorrectly) that this creates a legal liability when something goes wrong?
The likely correct solution is to simply remove any material requirements at all, termination requirements at all, and call the pull test good enough. It's the only test that matters and the only one you could point to as a genuine test of the material or workmanship, the rest of the "traceability requirements" being obviously defective.
All of this could have and probably should have been worked out. I talked with Paul Walker about it at the Regionals this year, and he and I had *exactly the same* evaluation of the proposal. That was 6 months ago +-. This business about brand VS trademark could have been fixed by changing a few words. The desire for tracing the material standards for authenticity, however, is almost certainly impossible to fix, the proposal as written would get you laughed out of a failure review board, requirement verification review, etc - so the "brand vs trademark" issue is about moot. If you think there is legal issues associated with this, then that would be even less likely to fly in a court of law.
If a million people called their CLACB rep and said "we want to use Spectra lines!" then someone is *still* on the hook to write a proposal that can be passed. The CLACB job is not to write new rules themselves - they vote on what is submitted. Given that passing this rule as written would not still have allowed you to use Spectra lines, but added a bunch of holes, I wouldn't have voted for it either.
Brett
p.s. And now that I am on a roll - everybody knows how everybody voted. After the screening vote, it would have been trivial to simply call, say, Paul Walker, and ask what the issue was, and how they should fix it/cross-propose it to make it acceptable. I have known Paul a *long time*, he is not in any way hesitant to tell you what he thinks if asked. That simple step could have resolved it a year ago or so, or gotten general agreement on why it couldn't work as written. I have no idea what really happened, but the notion that this CLACB is like selecting a pope, white smoke comes out the chimney, is just nonsense. The CLACB members are just other guys flying model airplanes just like anyone else - maybe they are better at it, or have been doing it longer, but it's not like they are some unapproachable God-like figures operating in a mysterious secret society. Just let them know what you think and how to proceed, they are generally quite happy to get any feedback at all.
-
yest another reason I will just sport fly and combat fly.
so the rule passes on the first go around, sits for over a year then get killed off?
Spectra lines are solid technology, and they are so easy to use and user friendly they make flying control line more fun (for me).
You ought to try some. then figure out how to allow them rather than kill the rule.
Amen Dave #^
-
Here is what you need to know about it:
https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/ContestBoardProceduresrev2.pdf
This has been more-or-less the same process forever.
Brett
-
Sport pilot...NOT a competitor but do have a strong opinion
RULES only have 2(two) reasons to exist
Safety
Level the playing field
In this case for all Control Line aero flights...speed, racing, combat, stunt....The product, termination, Sizes per aircraft weight or engine displacement, best practices, storage, all should be AMA RECOMMENDATIONS
For competition...each type of contest should have pull test, or other test, that is scientific, physics, and positively passes the Reasonable use in some civil liability court.....WE are not in the game to preserve some competitors air craft...we are ALL in the game to ensure we do NOT damage property or Kill other humans
I personally think the current pull test spec is NOT rational.... very very few fly away events from just Hi Gee round round flight
The disaster is usually: a blown across the circle, loose, uncontrolled, craft...that suddenly reaches the end of the tether...many many Gees higher than the pull test....
Most I have seen (combat) only broke one line so the craft was still controlled in a ever tightening loop spin, ultimately into the ground
In fact, in my resurgence in to aero modeling I have seen way more AMA insurance disaster in the RC community that the CL community
Combat on fishing line has more pluses than minuses
Competition Stunt PAMPA should have open enough rules to make the sport more competitive...Control line engineering has been evolving ever since the C/L flight invention....
The rules should mandate a safety standard and be open to---or well written enough that
Fred's new fangled, anti gravity, anti static, .03 dia, .05 Gram per meter, 150Lb breaking stress test with 201% redundant fiber over load rating, and only .003" stretch per 100 yards are usable as long as the SAFETY standard for the EVENT is proved BY test at the EVENT
-
Here is what you need to know about it:
https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/ContestBoardProceduresrev2.pdf
This has been more-or-less the same process forever.
Brett
Thanks - If what I found is correct, this was the ONLY CLPA proposed change and it will be about 2 years before it can be voted on again. Even the Federal Government can mess things up faster than that!
Looks like the only solution is to see if there is enough support locally to publish a rules exception for our sanctions and hope others do the same. If I read the procedures correctly, we could have gotten an "emergency" clarification over the "Brand" issue if it had just passed.
Ken
-
Here's my question-
What are the requirements for the stranded or solid metal lines we use at contests?
Are there ANY, besides diameter, length, and terminating techniques?
If not, why should there be with non metallic lines?
It seems to me that there are about as many downsides with each form of line, safety wise.
I'm not sure why the dyneema based lines need so much more regulating than metal. Has there been historically a higher percentage of line breaks?
I get why the preposal was turned down. It was unsupportable by the CD as written.
As Brett suggested, why not just have guidelines and a pull test, and call it good?
-
Sport pilot...NOT a competitor but do have a strong opinion
RULES only have 2(two) reasons to exist
Safety
Level the playing field
You make a good point. Safety should be the province of the AMA. They pay the insurance bill, they should set the standard.
FYI - I tried Fred's lines #^. Serious inboard yaw when they float up on squares. LL~
Ken
-
If I read the procedures correctly, we could have gotten an "emergency" clarification over the "Brand" issue if it had just passed.
Ken
Probably not. In my limited experience, there is an exceptionally high standard for any kind of "emergency" change to be made.
Keith
-
Thanks - If what I found is correct, this was the ONLY CLPA proposed change and it will be about 2 years before it can be voted on again. Even the Federal Government can mess things up faster than that!
Looks like the only solution is to see if there is enough support locally to publish a rules exception for our sanctions and hope others do the same. If I read the procedures correctly, we could have gotten an "emergency" clarification over the "Brand" issue if it had just passed.
I don't think that constitutes an emergency in any sense of the word. The effect would have been "no change" to the existing legal equipment, it's not a safety crisis (since we all think the existing lines are fine) and not using Spectra does not cause a safety issue. There is not crisis that requires us to switch to Spectra lines, the rule, even if passed, would have been a "no=op" (non-operation, no effect).
Brett
-
Sport pilot...NOT a competitor but do have a strong opinion
RULES only have 2(two) reasons to exist
Safety
Level the playing field
In this case for all Control Line aero flights...speed, racing, combat, stunt....The product, termination, Sizes per aircraft weight or engine displacement, best practices, storage, all should be AMA RECOMMENDATIONS
For competition...each type of contest should have pull test, or other test, that is scientific, physics, and positively passes the Reasonable use in some civil liability court.....WE are not in the game to preserve some competitors air craft...we are ALL in the game to ensure we do NOT damage property or Kill other humans
I personally think the current pull test spec is NOT rational.... very very few fly away events from just Hi Gee round round flight
The disaster is usually: a blown across the circle, loose, uncontrolled, craft...that suddenly reaches the end of the tether...many many Gees higher than the pull test....
Most I have seen (combat) only broke one line so the craft was still controlled in a ever tightening loop spin, ultimately into the ground
In fact, in my resurgence in to aero modeling I have seen way more AMA insurance disaster in the RC community that the CL community
Combat on fishing line has more pluses than minuses
Competition Stunt PAMPA should have open enough rules to make the sport more competitive...Control line engineering has been evolving ever since the C/L flight invention....
The rules should mandate a safety standard and be open to---or well written enough that
Fred's new fangled, anti gravity, anti static, .03 dia, .05 Gram per meter, 150Lb breaking stress test with 201% redundant fiber over load rating, and only .003" stretch per 100 yards are usable as long as the SAFETY standard for the EVENT is proved BY test at the EVENT
OK, you say that you are a sport pilot. From a sport pilot's perspective, you bring up some points that need a response. My discussion below pertains primarily to CLPA, NOT Combat or Racing or Speed or Carrier.
Line sizes and type used in any event should be governed by RULES, not "REDCOMDATIONS". Maybe I am missing the point you are trying to make there.
For competition, indeed we have standards for our lines based on some logic. These standards are based on the notion that safety is paramount to reduce the chance of damage to property or physical injury. Basically, the standard for our two line systems commonly used in CLPA is to provide a safety factor of 2 if one line is broken for whatever reason. (The issue of combat fly aways is not a factor in CLPA.) One line failures, though rare, do occur in CLPA. A cables in a control handle can fail. A a single leadout can fail. A single line can have a flawfrom any number of reasons than can cause it to fail under flight loads. I have seen many instances of these failures, both in flight or such a failure occurs in the pull test. At least if the failure is during a pull test, the model is not totally destroyed and might be able to still fly. Maybe that simple safety factor does not sound very "scientific" but it has served the event well for many years.
You state that you have seen "way more insurance disaster in the RC community that [sic] the CL community". Interesting comment. Evidently, this is based only on your personal experience. Have you asked the AMA where the most insurance claims come from and what the most expensive claims are? I have not seen any recent statistics, but over the years, I have seen AMA material that shows the most expensive insurance claims have come from the control line community.
You state that fishing line for Combat has more pluses than minuses. That is fine for Combat, and they have rules that allow such lines that evidently is enforceable and that works for them. The proposal that failed the Final Vote by the CLACB was not enforceable, even after it was modified in an effort to make it so. Maybe we can learn something from the Combat community on this.
You state the "Competition Stunt PAMPA should have open enough rules to make the sport more competitive..." Are you suggesting that there is "something" in our rules that keep the event from being more competitive. If so, what is that "something" or what are those "somethings" if there is more than one "something". Design, construction techniques, materials, propulsion technology, propellers, trimming techniques, finishing, and structures have all been evolving over the years where the modern competitive CLPA represents a fair amount of sophistication (as in "more competitive") compared to what was being flown in the not too distant past. I am not aware of anything in our rules that has hindered such evolution to be "more competitive." At least you make a correct observation that "Control line engineering has been evolving ever since the C/L flight invention...." But I do not think our rules have hindered that evolution as it seems you are suggesting.
Keith
-
I'm not sure why the dyneema based lines need so much more regulating than metal. Has there been historically a higher percentage of line breaks?
As far as I know, there is zero statistical history either way. We have been using stainless steel stranded lines for 70 years, we have good information on that. I am not aware of any more than brief tests of Spectra on actual full stunt planes.
Lack of any useful statistics causes people to get nervous, and a lot of people grossly overestimate the value of statistics. 70 years and tens of millions of flights probably tells you something, a few hundred in controlled conditions by only experts in the field don't.
I get why the preposal was turned down. It was unsupportable by the CD as written.
As Brett suggested, why not just have guidelines and a pull test, and call it good?
I would hasten to add - I am far from the first person to have that idea. The last time I was involved with a discussion about it, it was stated that some mysterious AMA group wouldn't permit it (particularly, wouldn't permit removing the diameter requirements) but that was a long time ago.
What I wouldn't want to see is someone permitting the pull test to be the sole requirement - but then turning around and increasing the test "to be safer". We ended up with that for the synthetic handle "ropes", based on nothing aside from someone being scared about it, and no real engineering analysis (and more-or-less with a gun to our heads, and some, frankly, absurd theories over what they were attempting to accomplish).
I could probably tolerate a 15G pull test for Spectra but a 10G pull test for metal, but there's nothing to justify that, either, it would just make someone feel better.
I contend that increasing the pull test could easily "decrease" the overall safety, testing the lines in a static sense and checking for slipping knots - but also over-stressing or fatiguing the other parts to create a failure that would not otherwise have happened.
This may be one of those "be careful what you wish for" or "too clever by half" deals if we aren't careful about it.
Brett
-
Sport pilot...NOT a competitor but do have a strong opinion
If you are a sport flier, the only rule is the Safety Code, and it says nothing about line material or diameter, it only specifies a pull-test (defaulting to the 10G stunt pull test if it is not obviously in some other competition category). So you can do whatever you want. That's the basis on which I have been testing Spectra lines.
Brett
-
I don't think that constitutes an emergency in any sense of the word. The effect would have been "no change" to the existing legal equipment, it's not a safety crisis (since we all think the existing lines are fine) and not using Spectra does not cause a safety issue. There is not crisis that requires us to switch to Spectra lines, the rule, even if passed, would have been a "no=op" (non-operation, no effect).
Brett
I used emergency but I really meant Interpretation. My bad.
I still do not have an answer to the basic question, why did the rule fail? Was it because it was poorly worded (which it was) or because 5 members did not want us using Spectra in competition? If even one of the 5 did not like the wording then we can get the rule properly worded and resubmitted, the second means we need to address issues but without knowing exactly why each of the 5 voted against it we have nothing to fix.
Ken
-
I never said anything about an increase in the pull test. Nor would i ask for it.
If fact, I'm wondering where exactly the 10g figure was arrived at, specifically because i also wonder if 100's of 10g tests don't decrease the life of the plane/control system at some point. I guess the idea is that the failure happens on the ground, but it's still a failure. What if a plane could take 9g's forever, but 10g's dislodges the bellcrank slightly? Now you've just caused a problem and not prevented it.
So, my point is, nothing is 100% safe, and who decided on 10g's and how was that arrived at?
Thanks Brett.
R,
Target
-
I never said anything about an increase in the pull test. Nor would i ask for it.
If fact, I'm wondering where exactly the 10g figure was arrived at, specifically because i also wonder if 100's of 10g tests don't decrease the life of the plane/control system at some point. I guess the idea is that the failure happens on the ground, but it's still a failure. What if a plane could take 9g's forever, but 10g's dislodges the bellcrank slightly? Now you've just caused a problem and not prevented it.
So, my point is, nothing is 100% safe, and who decided on 10g's and how was that arrived at?
Thanks Brett.
R,
Target
You are asking some real intelligent questions? "I also wonder if...." and "What if..." Why not try something constructive and come up with a logical, technically sound approach to revise the pull test requirements to accomplish whatever you are trying to accomplish. The current system has worked fairly well for the past 50+ years. There is not much on the record, if any, that control systems have been compromised after repetitive pull tests. There are plenty of incidents where pull tests have isolated/prevented inflight accidents. So what is it that you are trying to change/improve? As was mentioned before, our line sizes/line lengths are based on providing a safety factor of two where one line has failed. The airplane may be destroyed, but it will remain tethered. The 10G pull test has been shown over time to adequately test the system.
So what if a bellcrank is "dislodged" somewhat during a pull test? The damage may be unnoticed but the controls fail somehow in flight. The model will probably remain tethered and the plane crashes. Shame on the pilot for building a weak spot in his model. The 10G requirement is a known entity and the control system should be designed and built around that factor.
Now, if you really want to get particular, why not question the methods used at most contests to administer the pull test. In many cases, fish scales of some kind are use and the procedure probably only gives something in the neighborhood of +/- 10% anyway. Even the graduated lever arms/pulley systems used at some contests are prone to inaccuracies. Maybe your concerns should be channeled in that direction, but you as a sport flier probably have little or no interest or concern there.
It is OK to question, but why not come up with something constructive in the process?
Keith
-
I never said anything about an increase in the pull test. Nor would i ask for it.
If fact, I'm wondering where exactly the 10g figure was arrived at, specifically because i also wonder if 100's of 10g tests don't decrease the life of the plane/control system at some point. I guess the idea is that the failure happens on the ground, but it's still a failure. What if a plane could take 9g's forever, but 10g's dislodges the bellcrank slightly? Now you've just caused a problem and not prevented it.
So, my point is, nothing is 100% safe, and who decided on 10g's and how was that arrived at?
Thanks Brett.
It's intended to provide a ~2x safety margin over the pull test with one line failed. The line sizes are chosen the same way, using the industry-standard strength for the cables or wires .
A 4 lb (64 ounce) airplane pulls about 10-ish lbs, nominally, in level flight. The pull test is 10Gs, os 40 lbs. That means, during the pull test, the lines are tested to 20 lbs each - ~2x the normal load, even if a line fails. The accepted industry standard strength for .015 seven-strand wire rope is 40 lbs, so a single line could hypothetically pass the pull test, and even in a failure, it sees 1/4 of the normal test strength.
1.5x and 2X are common margins in the aerospace industry. It's a reasonable safety factor for cases where the performance is sensitive to weight, without being crippling to the function.
It also happens to be about what people have been using for 60-70 years with demonstrated acceptable safety. Not that it can never break, but the failure rate is so low in normal conditions and even most extreme conditions that material overstress failures are almost unheard of, and most failures due to all causes are caught during the pull test. I think I have seen only one failure in flight after passing a regular pull test in maybe 50 years of flying model airplanes, and while I am sure there are some, it's rare enough to be negligible.
I mention the extra pull issue because that's how we "solved" the last similar example of something like this - based on more-or-less no engineering reasoning at all, but just because it seemed to feel better to some people.
Brett
-
Well since I will not be using lines I can't compete with I guess my original question is moot but I sure would like to know why 5 committee members voted against it. Enough of this till January when we can try and draft something that will pass. I need to move on to more important things - should I use red or white Monokote on my winter practice plane.
Ken
-
Well since I will not be using lines I can't compete with I guess my original question is moot but I sure would like to know why 5 committee members voted against it. Enough of this till January when we can try and draft something that will pass. I need to move on to more important things - should I use red or white Monokote on my winter practice plane.
Ken
You also previously commented: "Was it because it was poorly worded (which it was) or because 5 members did not want us using Spectra in competition?"
I cannot speak for all members of the board or why they voted the way they did. I can speak for one member of the board. There is certainly no feeling that Spectra should not be used in competition. After all, it has been used for several years now in Combat.
As has been mentioned several times now, the proposed rule would have been unenforceable. It is not logical to approve a rule that cannot be enforced. There was an attempt to improve the wording of the proposal. That is when the revised proposal appeared. Even with the rewrite, the thing still would not have been enforceable. There are issues with using these GSUMP lines. One is that there are problems with tying the ends. Not done properly, the ends can slip or break. Yes, the Combat community is evidently making these things work. But what is the longevity of a set of lines used in Combat compared to how lines are used in CLPA where a set of lines is often used over countless flights (years)? Will those line terminations prove to be adequate after prolonged use? I am not aware of any positive answer to that question. In other words, there are several factors that need to be addressed before GSUMP lines should be allowed for CLPA competition. This certainly does not prevent enthusiasts working to find answers and advising the Contest Board of their findings. This would include drafting a proposal that can be enforced as well as showing life expectancy of a set of lines in terms of usage.
For your information, you do not have to wait until January to submit a change proposal for the 2019-2020 rules change cycle.
Keith
-
You also previously commented: "Was it because it was poorly worded (which it was) or because 5 members did not want us using Spectra in competition?"
I cannot speak for all members of the board or why they voted the way they did. I can speak for one member of the board. There is certainly no feeling that Spectra should not be used in competition. After all, it has been used for several years now in Combat.
As has been mentioned several times now, the proposed rule would have been unenforceable. It is not logical to approve a rule that cannot be enforced. There was an attempt to improve the wording of the proposal. That is when the revised proposal appeared. Even with the rewrite, the thing still would not have been enforceable. There are issues with using these GSUMP lines. One is that there are problems with tying the ends. Not done properly, the ends can slip or break. Yes, the Combat community is evidently making these things work. But what is the longevity of a set of lines used in Combat compared to how lines are used in CLPA where a set of lines is often used over countless flights (years)? Will those line terminations prove to be adequate after prolonged use? I am not aware of any positive answer to that question. In other words, there are several factors that need to be addressed before GSUMP lines should be allowed for CLPA competition. This certainly does not prevent enthusiasts working to find answers and advising the Contest Board of their findings. This would include drafting a proposal that can be enforced as well as showing life expectancy of a set of lines in terms of usage.
For your information, you do not have to wait until January to submit a change proposal for the 2019-2020 rules change cycle.
Keith
Thank you. This is the kind of thoughtful explanation I was looking for. The knot issue can be addressed but your point about aging is well taken. We do need research on that one. It is my guess, and it is only a guess, that they will actually outlast steel but that can only be proven by using them. Some may chose to use them enough to give us some real input and just not compete. I cannot fly enough to be one of them so I will stay with steel. They are different enough that practicing with them is not a good idea if you are going to compete with steel.
Again - Thanks
Ken
Ken
-
There are issues with using these GSUMP lines. One is that there are problems with tying the ends. Not done properly, the ends can slip or break. Yes, the Combat community is evidently making these things work. But what is the longevity of a set of lines used in Combat compared to how lines are used in CLPA where a set of lines is often used over countless flights (years)? Will those line terminations prove to be adequate after prolonged use?
We ought to think that out a bit - we don't explicitly specify the use of the "AMA Recommended" stainless line terminations. It says:
"Line construction shall be as per the methods described in Figures 1 through 4. The Contest Director may allow alternate line terminations if he can satisfy himself that they are at least as strong as those shown. "
In the case of UHMWPE fibers, it seems far more likely that alternate knots will be developed or known that are stronger and less prone to slipping than for new terminations are going to be found for stainless. I think the same sort of wording should be applied. Knots that are not acceptable will quickly get weeded out by the competitors.
I also think we are getting bogged down in the minutiae of the wording a bit. The failed proposal appears to attempt to specify particular materials that are not, near as a can tell, in any way defined by acknowledged engineering standards organizations, but by proprietary processes, and are in no way traceable as to provenance or authenticity. In any case, we don't do that for either music wire, whatever is sold as "music wire" that we get at a hobby shop, or for stainless steel stranded lines. I have had .018 stranded that failed at 65 lbs consistently (more than the "standard" 55 lbs) and I have had .018 stranded fail at 35 lbs. What was the difference? I have no idea, they looked and felt "funky" to me so I test them, and sure enough, they were weaker than normal. No one really examines the terminations at a contest, and what do you want to bet that if I go out to the field on Sunday and find almost every stranded line termination with a single wrap around the eyelet instead of the "specified" two?
In fact, we have gone out of our way to permit materials that do not meet the original definition of "single strand wire" from the general section to permit something that is accepted to be weaker or even much weaker in absolute modulus, because we figure it OK based on lengthy experience, it's strong enough - and much less prone to corrosion than the "specified material".
We count on catching this by both experience (modelers weeding out bad workmanship and bad practices - the hard way) and the pull test.
I see no reason why this shouldn't be applied to nonmetallic lines, too. We have the pull test as the last safety check, and for all intents and purposes, allow almost anything that looks like wire and it about the right size, and despite specifying a lot of stuff, make no real attempt to verify the materials standards. If we attempt to somehow become sticklers on the engineering properties and workmanship with respect to non-metallic lines, we will never get there. The failed proposal illustrates the difficulty - near impossibility, in fact - of going that route. Unless we want to test the materials ourselves, pay for a standards organization to test every single reel, and then sell it, or something like that, we will never get there, it's going to prove hopeless. And it's unnecessary, in my opinion.
The solution is quite simple and has no effect on safety at contests, or safety code - simply allow ANYTHING in terms of lines, no material, sizes, metal or not, and just count on the pull test to weed it out. That has no effect on safety (since all that is required is a pull test for safety code). We already allow that at the Team Trials, which are in compliance with the safety code (now) since we pull test to 10G just like always. It might have an effect on performance, but if someone is dumb enough to fly a 70-ounce piped airplane on .012 stranded, they deserve what happens (impossible precision) as long as it stays together through the pull test. That way, we don't pretend that we are holding some engineering standards that we in fact are not holding even now.
What prevents such an approach? If I was to propose that tomorrow, would it be rejected out of hand? Last time I suggest this, it was stated by some people that "the AMA wouldn't permit it" meaning perhaps that some super-committee that I don't know about has a veto.
Brett
-
As a former control line precision aerobatic competitor in the 1970s, who transitioned into dual line stunt kites in the 1990s and single line glider kites in the 2010s, I have been using high quality spectra line for many years with no issues. The following is provided as a point of reference for your consideration.
For the kiting industry, the spectra we use has a smoother weave to reduce friction for our dual line and quad line kites, such as what would be desired for control line. When I competed with dual line stunt kites in the 1990s, we would check the line ware and could feel the line resistance after many flights, which indicates it was time to change the lines. Please note that we use significant and aggressive arm movements to perform maneuvers with our multi-line kites that would never be experienced in control line. On a rare occasion I would have a line break, usually at the sleeve knot. Since spectra has a lower melting point when compared to Dacron, we have to be careful at Kite Festivals, when a single line kite using Dacron accidentally may drift into our area. The Dacron line can easily cut through Spectra line due to friction.
We usually have reasonable control with over 5 wraps in one direction. Following what is the standard in the kiting industry, I sleeve the ends with Dacron for my dual line kites. The fly line is connected to our kites and straps using a Larkshead knot. I have spectra flying line sets from the 1990s that I still use to this day, in weights of 50, 80, 120, 150, 200 and 300 lb., in length sets of 100, 120 and 140 feet. The weight and length are selected based on the wind conditions.
My stunt kite designs use a leach line that I introduced in 1991, which keeps the trailing edge of the sail totally silent. As a result, I also use the weight and length of the flying lines to assist in speed control for high wind conditions. As a point of reference, my dual line stunt kites I used in the in the 1990s had wing spans of 8 feet, around 1,200 sq.in of project sail area, but only weighed between 6 and 13 oz. based on the wrapped carbon frame that I used. For competition, I had three models of the same kite with different frame set, to cover the range of wind conditions. Since we fly our kites with the sail area facing the wind, the pull can be quite excessive during higher wind conditions and we vent our sails to reduce the project sail area.
For my ultra-light single line glider kites, I use PowerPro braided fishing line that was indicated in this discussion thread. The reason is this part of the kiting industry market is too small for spectra in weights of 5 and 10 lb. Since there are no line wraps with single line kites, the smoothness of the line is only of concern to achieve low profile draft during flight. My indoor ultra-light single line glider kites with wing spans of 18, 24 and 36 inches only weigh between 1.2 and 9.0 grams. For these ultra-light glider kites that have very little tension on the flying line during a climb or maneuver, we do not sleeve the ends of the flying lines. We use a 1/2 in. release loop and an overhand knot to create a 2 to 3 inch loop, where a Larkshead knot is used to connect the bridle on the kite.
The above is solely provide to indicate what other are doing with flying platforms using Spectra line for control and not to distract from the discussion in this thread.
Doug
-
When I competed with dual line stunt kites in the 1990s, we would check the line ware and could feel the line resistance after many flights, which indicates it was time to change the lines.
Same thing happens with Stainless Steel solids, they are good for about 50 flights, they get "frosted-looking" at the airplane end, and draggy, so you swap ends and run it another 50 flights. Then you give them to Derek and say, "these are good, they only have about 100 flights on them". The last part is optional, of course, but recommended.
The reason they look "frosted" is clear if you look at them under a microscope, they micro-weld themselves together which then results in the material of one line getting yanked out and being deposited on the other line. My dad told me to look for that (after years of managing stiff wire as a machine designer for Westinghouse and North American Philips) and sure enough, there were a bunch of mountains and craters.
Brett
-
The 100lb reference is because that is what is required for Combat. For other models refer to the AMA chart. 5.3.5.1 Spectra Lines
Lines made of Spectra fiber, made of gel spun ultra-high
molecular weight polyethylene are permitted for sport
flying and demonstration purposes. Spectra lines are not
permitted in competition unless the specific rules for the
event flown expressly permit such use. The use of high
visibility yellow lines is recommended, but not required.
For sport and demonstration flying with two lines, Spectra
lines shall have the following strengths:
Aircraft Engine Watts Rated
Weight Displacement Spectra St.
24 oz. .09 300 20 lbs. .010”
40 oz. .25 450 40 lbs. .013”
64 oz. .40 600 60 lbs. .016”
75 oz. .75 750 100 lbs. .018”
Hello
Trying to draft up a guide to allowing the use of Spectra style line in New Zealand and noticed that the AMA has used a differing pull factor which starts at 13G goes to 16G, 15G then 21.3G for sports flying. I suppose they have allowed an extra margin for loss of strength in the knot but why there is a difference in safety margins. Why not stick with 15G or 13G and use it to decide maximum model weights per line test strength? Also why top out at 75 oz ?
I have drawn up a chart to help uses decide maximum weights for commonly available lines (10, 15, 20, 40, 50, 65, 80 and 100lb) but the AMA has confused me!
Also are line terminations governed/set or recommended for Spectra (ie AMA Uni-Knot vs Palomar Knot and Modified Surgeons Knots)?
It is interesting to read of Doug Stout's use of Spectra since the 1990's and this helps answer durability questions.
Thanks
Regards Gerald #^
-
Thanks, Brett, for posting the pdf. I have seen that previously, but I'm still perplexed by the GSUMP "requirement" in the pull test chart since the text started out referring to "Spectra". We still don't know what brand to buy or where to obtain it. Boxes of fishing line just don't say "GSUMP". They may say "Spectra" or "Dyneema". Is there a difference between those two? Vague memory reminds me that "Spectra" is 'Murican and "Dyneema" is European? But is it the same stuff? IDK.
It looks to me like the user is responsible for knowing what the line material is, and since none of the braided line boxes are going to say "GSUMP" on them, I'll just go ahead and call BS on the proposal as written, until somebody can 'splain why, what & where. If it was written as "Spectra" or "Spectra or Dyneema", ok fine. Since Chris and Brent posted before I got this done, there are no brands specified in the proposal. Seems to me, that makes all of them illegal, unless you find a brand called "GSUMP", and there isn't one.
I just went down in the garage and pawed through about 20 spools and boxes of braided line (maybe half of what's in stock!). Some said "Dyneema" and some said "Spectra", while others didn't say either. Power Pro said "Spectra" on all the boxes. I have a spool of "Tuf-Line" and some spools of Stren braid that didn't say anything. A partial spool of (very old) Cabela's "Evolution" line said "100% Dyneema" on the spool. Braids stand up well to the test of time. Some say braids are easy to fray and break on sharp rocks...I guess we don't have sharp rocks around here. H^^ Steve
Gel-spun ultra high molecular weight polyethylene(GSUMP) is the chemical engineering name for how the product is made.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-molecular-weight_polyethylene#Fiber). The process is very finicky, and Spectra(Honeywell patent) and Dyneema(DSM patent)hold most of the patents and have been producing since 1969. The molecules are roughly 700,000 atoms long, up to 1cm long and are packed together in a near crystalline state like steel is. The strength is comparable to high strength steel and 50-100% stronger than stainless steel and just as stiff. The reason for the name brands is that in the past people have bought very cheap substitutes from China which were much weaker and much stretchier. Many of them looked identical to trademarked products but were fake.
So the simplest way to ensure that you have suitable material is to take a foot long piece, fold the ends over a few inches and tie an overhand knot with the bight, Pull test it. It should pull test at least 50% of the rated strength for the diameter with no apparent stretch. That's the reason for specifying trademarked products. It helps ensure that the lines will work. If it does break too easily you have someone you can complain to.
Mike Londke's little video above shows very clearly how to tie a double loop knot. I did hear that the AMA had a working group considering changing the rules and would recommend this knot because the double loop acts as a fail safe for wear, and makes the line stronger and more shock proof. When a plane gets loose and hits the end of the lines having more material in the knot provides a cushion and helps prevent the line from cutting itself inside the knot. You might want to get a small crochet hook to make it easier to tie. They're only a buck or so.
-
Gel-spun ultra high molecular weight polyethylene(GSUMP) is the chemical engineering name for how the product is made.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-molecular-weight_polyethylene#Fiber).
Phil - could you refer me to an engineering reference using the acronym GSUMP? I searched almost everywhere I and didn't see it, outside "enthusiast" sources. That acronym is not used on the Wikipedia page you reference, for instance.
One of the problems I have with the failed proposal is that there seems to be very poor to nearly no information readily available on the engineering properties, outside people trying to sell it. I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to attempt to specify something for which there is no engineering standards - and it's probably unnecessary, too.
Brett
-
Phil - could you refer me to an engineering reference using the acronym GSUMP? I searched almost everywhere I and didn't see it, outside "enthusiast" sources. That acronym is not used on the Wikipedia page you reference, for instance.
One of the problems I have with the failed proposal is that there seems to be very poor to nearly no information readily available on the engineering properties, outside people trying to sell it. I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to attempt to specify something for which there is no engineering standards - and it's probably unnecessary, too.
Brett
The engineering term being used now is "UHMWPE fiber". https://issuu.com/eurofibers/docs/name8f0d44 shows the kind of info available from manufacturers.
-
If anybody is interested in using the Decoy (brand) solid egg-shaped rings for each end of a pair of Spectra lines, I got a pack of each #3 & #4 rings from Tackle Warehouse today. The #3's package says "300 lb", and the #4's package says 400 lbs. So, either should be way more than strong enough! The #3's are TINY and the #4's are smaller than a glowplug gasket by a fair amount. I think they'd be the bee's knees. I believe it would be safer to fasten to these, rather than our normal eyelets, although those may also work just fine. Then add your normal clip of choice. D>K Steve
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Decoy_GP_Ring_12pk/descpage-DGPR.html (https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Decoy_GP_Ring_12pk/descpage-DGPR.html)
-
Hello Steve are the Decoy Egg Rings #4 (100lb) suitable as connectors? I've been using slide connectors but know they are only rated to 49lb in large size.
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Decoy_Egg_Ring_12pk/descpage-DEGG.html
Thanks
Regards Gerald
-
Hello Steve are the Decoy Egg Rings #4 (100lb) suitable as connectors? I've been using slide connectors but know they are only rated to 49lb in large size.
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/Decoy_Egg_Ring_12pk/descpage-DEGG.html
Thanks
Regards Gerald
Gerald, I would say NO, partly because dealing with split rings is ALWAYS a PITA, but also because you'd need to rotate the ring through the line, without a doubt creating wear & tear right where you don't want it.
I know some guys who use this style of fishing snaps, but I won't use them for two reasons. Some are black finished but are actually brass, and I'd rather have plated steel or stainless steel. The ones in the link below are stainless, and I'd use them, except that this style is prone to doing a "twist & lock" number on the eyelets in leadouts and lines...that can cost you a propeller, airplane, or heart attack.
https://www.terminaltackleco.com/prod_detail_list/601 (https://www.terminaltackleco.com/prod_detail_list/601)
Of the other fishing clips I've looked at online recently, the P-Line brand looks more user friendly and safe. See the link below. I believe they would work fine. Take a look, check the pound test ratings, and decide for yourself. I expect you can find P-Line stuff in NZ tackle shops near saltwater. I have never seen these in person, and don't know how large they are:
https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/P-Line_Technical_Snap/descpage-TPBB.html (https://www.tacklewarehouse.com/P-Line_Technical_Snap/descpage-TPBB.html)
As for myself, I'll stick with the Sullivan paper-clip style, homemade from .055" stainless wire on my Jim Lee/Derek Moran clip bender. I just looked for a picture on both Brodak and Sullivan's websites, but I can't find them on Brodak's site using their search function, and no picture on the Sullivan site. I found a picture on the RSM Distribution site...they are called the "squeeze-type" and are on the "handles and lines" page, in 80# and 100# sizes, while Sullivan lists 40# and 80#. The same picture RSM has is also on the SIG website. y1 Steve
http://sullivanproducts.com/product/line-connectors-110-test-122/ (http://sullivanproducts.com/product/line-connectors-110-test-122/)
https://www.rsmdistribution.com/ (https://www.rsmdistribution.com/)
-
Thanks Steve for your detailed response. Looks like the RSM 'squeeze type' are the best option and they look like the old Pylon scissor type from the past.
Regards Gerald
-
Those from Terminal tackle look like the ones I've used for years. May try a 10 pack some time. D>K
-
Brett
p.s. And now that I am on a roll - everybody knows how everybody voted. After the screening vote, it would have been trivial to simply call, say, Paul Walker, and ask what the issue was, and how they should fix it/cross-propose it to make it acceptable. I have known Paul a *long time*, he is not in any way hesitant to tell you what he thinks if asked. That simple step could have resolved it a year ago or so, or gotten general agreement on why it couldn't work as written. I have no idea what really happened, but the notion that this CLACB is like selecting a pope, white smoke comes out the chimney, is just nonsense. The CLACB members are just other guys flying model airplanes just like anyone else - maybe they are better at it, or have been doing it longer, but it's not like they are some unapproachable God-like figures operating in a mysterious secret society. Just let them know what you think and how to proceed, they are generally quite happy to get any feedback at all.
[/quote]
Well, this is almost exactly what happened. I explained the issue to one of the originators, and thought they understood. A modified proposal was created, but did NOT solve the problem.
So without the problem being addressed, there was no choice but to vote no.
If the rule had passed, and I was a CD for a competition where synthetic lines showed up I would not allow their use as they could never prove that they complied with the rule. The CD has to err on the side of safety.
Like Brett, I suggested a "unified" rule using only a pull test verification, similar to FAI, but again, the originators were hung up on what they originally submitted. No "unified" rule this cycle. Maybe next cycle.
-
Those from Terminal tackle look like the ones I've used for years. May try a 10 pack some time. D>K
Doc, since they don't have pictures on their website, and I know that you are familiar with their products, what sort of clips does MBS carry? And, what is your leadout binding system look like? I figure you'd use brass tubes instead of eyelets? That reduces the "twist & jam" tendency tremendously. H^^ Steve
-
If you look close this is how my line/lead out ends look like. I got up on your first link and the picture shows the same clips as the one on the reel. I just picked up some more from Melvin today at the combat meet. D>K
https://www.terminaltackleco.com/prod_detail_list/601