Why Control Line is in VERY BIG TROUBLE!!!

[Kim Doherty]

"Why Control Line is in VERY BIG TROUBLE!!"


Recently, improvements in basic technology have enabled us to boldly go where no one has gone before (at least successfully)by utilizing electronic sensing devices and microprocessors all connected to sevo motors to take the place of the classic pushrod driven flight control surfaces on our models. While some forecast doom and gloom from such progress and worry that it is only a small step to the Orwellian world where the model flys the pattern without the aid of a pilot, nothing could be further from the truth.

Quite simply, there is nothing that we have created through electronic means that cannot be implemented through mechanical means. If you were to posses a model with this type of control system and plan on winning the U.S. Nat's or the W/C/s your last name had better be something like: Fitzgerald, Walker, Burger, Berringer, etc. There is no magic on board the model to steer it through perfect manoeuvres or to pick the downwind point to start a manoeuvre from. If you can not already trim a model to a very high standard I am afraid that our "system" will not help you. In fact to derive ANY benefit from it you will need to know a good bit about physics, aerodynamics and math and not just what you may have picked up on boards such as this. Even if you do know all of the above you will still have to know how to design, build, trim, fly and compete at least as well as anyone else to stand a chance at winning.

Control Line and its "Technology" do not belong to anyone in particular. We are each the beneficiary of research and development extending back to the 1930's. Were it not for those with "curious minds" and the ability to resolve some of the questions of the day, we would still all be flying FireBalls with O&R .23 iginition engines in them. We have come a fair distance and some would strive to put a "cap" or "muzzle" on any further development so that they personally may enjoy the sport the way "THEY" want to enjoy it. It should be clear to most that such has never been the case and if you want to induce younger people into the family you will need to keep moving the bar forward such that the technology is relevant to the lives of those just being born today.

Did the world come to an end when Jim Walker filed his patent to improve the control system that Victor Stanzel had first developed? No, we took the best of what was presented and thankfully moved forward. When tuned pipes came along was it necessary to put a note beside the name of the person whom first won a U.S. Nat's with one indicating that this person was not really playing by the book? Of course not.

No sooner did word of this new technology come to light did a person who has benefited greatly from the already accepted use of electric motors scurry off to file a missive with Peter Germann. Peter is the head of the FAI F2B Working group. This group is charged with presenting to the greater FAI F2 Steering committee the direction that should be followed for the entire world of control line F2B Aerobatics(with the exception of the U.S.)

You might think that a person so charged with a responsibility as guiding the future of control line might wait to see what develops through friendly discourse and polite interchange. You are not able to to see the posts sent to the F2 subcommittee members however as I am a member of that committee (and the developer of the technology in question) I thought you might be interested in seeing Mr. Germann's remarks.

Here is Mr. Germann's first post to the F2 subcommittee on the matter. Remember this is the person running the ship. (Or if you will, the man behind the curtain) If you do not agree with him let your voices be heard here and on other forums as this is too important a fight to let go by the wayside.

Kim Doherty
Canada
Member FAI F2 Subcommittee


Peter's post:


From: Peter Germann <mailto:peterdgermann@bluewin.ch>
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:14 AM
To: 'CIAM F2 List'
Cc: 'Ingemar Larsson'; 'Jensen, Narve'
Subject: AW: Future definition of control line flying

Dear members of the F2 Subcommittee, dear Narve

While the legalising of electric (or turbine-) power created the necessity to regulate and control the basic function of the engine and its output of power, no such need exists when it comes to control the flight path. The availability of suitable technology to assist or control the flight path is not nearly reason enough to leave the principle of flying by hand. Flying by hand can in fact be quite difficult and I believe that this is why we love it so much. Why should we let a couple of algorithms buried in black boxes take the real fun out of flying a control line airplane? So far, many have searched for technical shortcuts on the way to success, particularly in stunt flying. Some have more or less succeeded, but at the end it always came down to actually fly the aircraft.

Today, we must understand that this may change. The potential of robotic sciences is such that it might really help winning contests. What this means for me is that I would prefer to beat my fellow flyer, not his software supplier.

Therefore, I am definitely of the opinion that the organisations governing our sport owe it to the community to keep software driven technologies out of flight control. Here is a draft rule serving this purpose. While it may certainly need a bit of language polishing, its spirit preserves the principle of control line flying and thus contributes to the ongoing success story of control line stunt flying.

--
DRAFT ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
Tthis is a flight during which the model aircraft is permanently attached to two or more wires or cables during the flight. The wires or cables must be attached to a handle being manipulated by the pilot on the ground at the centre of the flight circle.

Primary Flight Control for All Control Line Classes
No automatic flight path control, whether done on board of the model airplane or on ground at the handle, is permitted. The model aircraft’s flight path may only be controlled by the pilot manipulating the handle and by mechanical signals transferred through the wires or cables. On board of the model aircraft the mechanical signals arriving through the wires or cables must be, directly and mechanically, transferred to flight path controlling elements such as aerodynamic control surfaces/brakes and/or thrust vector control devices.

Secondary Flight Control
Permitted methods to control and/or operate secondary flight control systems such as, for example, power sources, landing gears and such shall be defined in the specific rules for the individual control line classes. Where such definitions are not given, no control of secondary flight control is permitted.
--

Thank you for considering my point, I look forward to your comments.

Peter Germann

 

[Larry Fulwider]

The rule proposal misses the mark by a mile -- both ways! Anyone who wants to outlaw "robotic control" can do so with one SIMPLE rule, which would keep your system legal.

The control surfaces on the model will respond to, and only to, movements of the pilot's hand via the control cables / wires

This would disallow any pre-programming, ground sensing devices, timing devices or whatever anyone might be afraid of. This rule would not disallow non-linear or custom response systems.

      Larry Fulwider

[Balsa Butcher]

It seems to me that if Mr. Germann's proposal is not passed then control line MAY be in VERY BIG TROUBLE!   PS: Don't feel particularly sad for me...I'm having a blast! BELLCRANKS FOREVER! 

[billbyles]

So, Kim...is this some nefarious plot on your part to implement & sneak in a thought control system in your stunters for CLPA???

Bill

[Bradley Walker]

 

[Clancy Arnold]

WHAT!!!

Outlaw U/Tronics? 

Clancy

[phil c]

According to Kim's fly-by-wire post, the lines control a bellcrank, so the basic premise of control line flight is retained.  Sadly, Peter's proposed rule eliminates any further development of CL flying.  Kind of like Walker's patent in the 40's, anyone who wanted to get in on the "new" way to fly planes had to pay royalties or come up with something else.  Whoopee.

I can't see any reason to limit the controls to strictly mechanical. Using a servo is an easy, accurate way to do something like an exponential elevator that may be very useful, but is very hard to do reliably with mechanical control.

The biggest thing that needs to be limited is using computer-mediated sensors to change flight charateristics automatically- stepwise throttle control, electronic governors, gyro sensors, accelerometers, etc.  These are automatic flight controls not directly controlled by the pilot.  If you allow those, there is absolutely NO reason to restrict the method of controlling the elevator.  And anyone who says the throttle isn't a flight control knows nothing about flying.  Any pilot will tell you, the throttle controls altitude, the elevator controls attitude.  We in control line, with our overpowerd contraptions have lost sight of this.

The funniest thing about this is that with the new 2.4 Ghz radios we are turning our backs on the cheapest, safest, easiest way to do multiple functions in our planes.

[sleepy gomez]

As one who developed and published an advance (FF towline) that the FAI outlawed within two weeks of publication I am all for the software and technology being discussed.  I think all forms of control should be legal.  The only thing that needs to be added to the present rules is that the plane maintain a circular path within a 140' diameter circle!  Then the RC fliers could fly with us!

[ChrisSarnowski]

Back in 1946, Berkeley Models had a speed job (to use lingo appropriate to the time) named the Bug.

The Bug featured a mechanical control system named Autotrol. It has a pendulum-like device that
could be linked to the airplane's controls. The Autotrol system could be configured several ways.

One way was to have Autotrol completely control the movement of the elevator. As the airplane
pitched up and down, Autotrol would move the elevator to restore a level flying attitude.

Another way was to have Autotrol assist the movement of the elevator, but you could still move
the elevator by means of the handle. I think Autotrol would assist in small deviations from neutral.

A third setup was to have Autotrol adust the rudder deflection. The kit instructions suggest this is
useful for maintaining line tension overhead.

Perhaps R/C was invented due to the fear that Berkeley's Autotrol would destroy control line?

[Shultzie]

 
Hummmm?
At least for this old koot-toot---------------------at my age and dementia' I just can't get my noggin around why we should really frett not or veeelly-vurry'.....especially if CLPA models are still attached safely to some kind of line or lines...and connected to a model at the end of those lines. 

[ChrisSarnowski]

Err, well, umm...63 years ago there was a mechanical autopilot which neither killed C/L speed nor seems to have been banned from competition.

[NED-088]

The biggest thing that needs to be limited is using computer-mediated sensors to change flight charateristics automatically- stepwise throttle control, electronic governors, gyro sensors, accelerometers, etc.  These are automatic flight controls not directly controlled by the pilot.  If you allow those, there is absolutely NO reason to restrict the method of controlling the elevator.

In that case, I'd rather see tuned pipes, 4 stroke engines and any 2 stroke that displays a hint of 'intelligent power delivery' > 2-4 stroke banned as well, because IC pilots using these would have an unfair advantage over those who don't master those technologies.
O yes, I'd almost forgot flaps. Another item that gives those who use them an advantage over those who can't afford them.
Why don't we limit ourselves to mono line kites?
I think the fly by wire misses one thing yet: the force feedback from elevator/flaps to the handle. One of the main reasons I fly CL.
But anything else is an improvement to me.
Hats off to Kim and Pat!

P.S. Kim, I still feel really bad about those batteries I sent that never made it across....

[John Stiles]

There is probably a time and place for all things under heaven............if they want to fly that way....give them their own bracket. TJMHO

[Larry Cunningham]

And I am completely convinced these fears of "autonomous controls" for CL stunters are ludicrous - laughable to anyone with any practical experience with modern control systems. Sorry, I see it as a classic Chicken Little response to wild assumptions about modern technology, akin to computers becoming "self aware".

A major value of fly by wire systems  could be provision for easy trim and tunability of a stunt model. It would be so very nice to simply adjust gains and offsets, select linear or exponential responses, kick in more or less flaps, or simply turn them off. And to acquire some decent data about what works and what doesn't - what the engine RPM is during maneuvers, what the G forces actually are, what the line tension actually is! (I know how to do this sort of control and monitoring.)

And guess what? The PILOT remains the prime mover in the control system, and has to FLY the ship through the pattern, do the dance to be in position to fly the maneuvers!

I'm really curious - what do you think a microprocessor can actually do? And who programs the bleeding thing? What happens during the flight when a bit ends up getting crunched when it shouldn't, say a stray alpha particle pings a RAM bit cell? Those of us who actually work with them know well how these little wonders of digital control get tripped up an go "chasing rabbits". Just like your desktop computer does! Reboot!  

Look at the current "state of the art" in timer/controllers for electric ships. Are any of these, which are running counter timers and setting pulse width lengths (typically some little PIC assembler program of a few dozen bytes) remotely capable of any powerful control function, monitoring multiple sensors and autonomously flying the ship through maneuvers? Catch my eyes!

If anyone is accomplished enough to implement any of the sophisticated controls being imagined and feared, more power to him! You'll not hold such a person back; he'll simply build it and not tell you about it. And then go off and start destroying the competition at contests! Heheheh. Don't make me smirk.

I've actually thought about what is possible and reasonable, in some detail, and looked at some prototype generic designs for appropriate controllers/data acquisition systems. And I have a practical idea of what might be done with some "single chip" solutions, say using field programmable gate arrays. (I made my living designing control and data acquisition system design for 37 years.)  I can show you many block diagrams describing required hardware, but any sophisticated control function would require SOFTWARE to drive it. And that would need to be DEFINED first - just what are the control rules? You think perhaps we'll incorporate some killer imbedded DSP system, which will be performing FFTs to dissect all the raw data input and drive servo controls?

Remember, ANYTHING is possible to someone who doesn't have to do it. And EVERYTHING is theoretically possible, except perhaps a trapezoidal waveform generator, or a Joseph Newman energy machine.  

Stop. Stop being silly.

L.

"There are only two ways by which to rise in this world, either by one's own industry or by the stupidity of others." -Jean de LaBruyere

[John Witt]

Everyone seems to worry about a totally automatic stunter. However there are incremental steps between where we are now ( no electronic assist) and the brave new world of autonomous flight.

A few near term useful possibilities:

A model which can have roll/pitch stabilization that will eliminate or reduce the disturbance caused by crossing its own wake in calm conditions would be useful and contribute toward a better score by a smoother flight path,and perhaps save some crashes as well.

A model which will fly perfectly level through wind is certainly possible, probably pretty easily done.

Some aerodynamic and control enhancements that keep the model at a specific line tension regardless of the direction of gravity.

Look at the usefulness of tail-rotor gyro stabilization which has made the flying of RC helicopters possible, if you don't think that some secondary control functions like the above can't have a major influence. These things are all possible with control throughput from the flyer and the handle.

Personally there are some enhancements I'd like, but I would not like to lose the direct tactile control and feeback from the handle. It's one of the main reasons I'm back flying UC instead of RC. We can pick and choose at what level we'd like to keep PA, but don't make the mistake of thinking electronic assist can't happen. It's already here.

John W

[Howard Rush]

You'll not hold such a person back; he'll simply build it and not tell you about it. And then go off and start destroying the competition at contests!

That's my plan.

[Bradley Walker]

Off with their heads...

[Larry Fulwider]

. . .  Personally there are some enhancements I'd like, but I would not like to lose the direct tactile control and feeback from the handle.  . . .
. . .

John W

John --

Good point! Getting rid of the N wall comes with a price. I just lost interest in this whole idea 

       Larry Fulwider

[John Stiles]

.......................................I'm really curious - what do you think a microprocessor can actually do?

How about take a crap right in the downward leg of an outside loop?

[Larry Cunningham]

How about take a crap right in the downward leg of an outside loop?

Adding new meaning to the term "Blue Screen Of Death"!

Hahahah.

L.

"Never assume the obvious is true." -William Safire

[John Stiles]

Adding new meaning to the term "Blue Screen Of Death"!

Hahahah.

L.

"Never assume the obvious is true." -William Safire

[GGeezer]

In full size aircraft, fly-by-wire systems were developed to allow computers and sensors to micro-manage the control surfaces of impossible-to-fly, unstable airplanes like the stealth fighter etc. Commercial airliners use the system to take the load off the pilot by allowing totally automatic flight from take-off to landing.
Why would we not expect a model based system to go the same route? To try an limit the model system to just replicating the mechanical system is pointless, as it just introduces a bunch of things to go wrong.
As soon as you start messing with the system to introduce features like shaped response etc., you may as well continue and add, for example, a force sensor on the bellcrank pivot and use it to control the rudder to maintain constant line tension; then an airspeed sensor to control the engine's throttle for constant velocity at all attitudes. The list goes on.
Will all this not just take all of the fun and challenge out of the hobby?
I used to fly R/C but now enjoy the elegant simplicity and low cost of the traditional C/L set-up with no worries about batteries going dead, servos failing, wire connections vibrating loose etc etc. The cartoon illustrates what I mean (I couldn't resist, the devil made me do it!).

C/L convert

[John Stiles]

In full size aircraft, fly-by-wire systems were developed to allow computers and sensors to micro-manage the control surfaces of impossible-to-fly, unstable airplanes like the stealth fighter etc. Commercial airliners use the system to take the load off the pilot by allowing totally automatic flight from take-off to landing.
Why would we not expect a model based system to go the same route? To try an limit the model system to just replicating the mechanical system is pointless, as it just introduces a bunch of things to go wrong.
As soon as you start messing with the system to introduce features like shaped response etc., you may as well continue and add, for example, a force sensor on the bellcrank pivot and use it to control the rudder to maintain constant line tension; then an airspeed sensor to control the engine's throttle for constant velocity at all attitudes. The list goes on..................

C/L convert

You mean like an RC Helocopter 

[Richard Grogan]

Thanks Kim, The way I remember it, JW tried to rip off Oba St Claire also...and lost in court.

[Clancy Arnold]

Here is a little item that is being offered on eBay.

O.S. Engines Inflight Needle Valve NIB
 
Item condition: New In Box

# 1204 9601 7041   $26.99

Tie that to a microprocessor/timer and a servo.  Then when the extra power is needed, late in the flight, the timer tells the servo to lean out the engine and you have the extra power just when you need it most. 

Electronics at work!!!

Clancy

[Wayne Collier]

         
                  If I wanted to fly tethered RC I'd fly tethered RC and not try to tell anyone it was control line.  If I replace the radio signal with a couple of wires that conect to some onboard switches, it's still mostly tethered electric controlled flight.  In my mind, way closer to tethered RC than control line.  An F-16 will never be a Super Cub.  When you fundamentally change the method of control, you shouldn't try to pass it of as the same thing.  I have no problem with the development of the electronic control systems in question.  I do have a problem with ignoring the fact that it is a fundamentally different way of controlling the airplane, and refusing to admit it.  Since it is different, I would think that rules discussions would be in order.
                   

[John Stiles]

I have no problem with a seperate bracket........just don't expect me to rally behind integrating it in with what we now have. CL has it's limitations.....know your limitations, and you won't need to have the servos to do your job.

[SteveMoon]

Peter G's rules proposal is the typical 'the sky is falling....blah, blah, blah...' overreaction
by the so-called 'stunt elite' to any new development. Personally, I like it when people
try out new ideas. Maybe they work, maybe they don't. But, it's fun to try. Of course,
until some hotshot comes along and poopoos on your parade.

Keep up the good work Kim. Later, Steve

[Bradley Walker]

Peter G's rules proposal is the typical 'the sky is falling....blah, blah, blah...' overreaction
by the so-called 'stunt elite' to any new development. Personally, I like it when people
try out new ideas. Maybe they work, maybe they don't. But, it's fun to try. Of course,
until some hotshot comes along and poopoos on your parade.

Keep up the good work Kim. Later, Steve

...  agree times infinity. 

It is really getting old too.

[Kim Doherty]

I have no problem with a seperate bracket........just don't expect me to rally behind integrating it in with what we now have. CL has it's limitations.....know your limitations, and you won't need to have the servos to do your job.

John,

I think you are quite right! I see no problem in the future with having a separate class so that you and those still holding onto the Civil War can have a spot in this hobby. There is room for all of us.

You are again quite right when you say that control line has it's limitations. Kindly proceed to the bathroom and look into that big mirror. (nothing personal)

I know my limitations pretty well. I do not "need" servos to be very competitive. I do however see a limitation on just how well I can trim a plane. Why should we use wing "warts" that have an effect in both directions when we really only want them to have an effect in one? That is the nature of the problem I an solving.

Change happens. You have no personal control over it and life is too short to worry about it. Your only choice in life is to determine how to respond to it.

I am quite sure that one day long ago one big dinosaur said to another on a particularily nippy fall morning: "Cold out, isn't it?"

Kim.   

[Wayne Collier]

I am quite sure that one day long ago one big dinosaur said to another on a particularily nippy fall morning: "Cold out, isn't it?"

Kim.   

Of course the one who embraced the cold still died of it.

[frank williams]

Stability augmentation is the issue.  A micro processor in the control loop might turn competition aerobatics into a video game. 

I can take an unstable plane and make it stable ….. I can take a stable airplane and tune to any level of stability I desire.  No overshoot at all on any corner …. Ever … if I can measure some rates, process them along with the control inputs, and then over-ride the control surfaces to do the right thing, I can fly a perfect corner.

I don’t know if heli competition is allowed with gyros active, but some of the things they can do now is un-real.  Do R/C pattern planes use gyro’s now?  I don’t know, but with a little work a tiny onboard computer could make pattern flying a lot easier.  Is that pilot flying competition? 

I’m not opposed to innovation.  I think the fly-by-wire electric that has been built is great.  As long as the connection between control input and surface deflection is direct and has no feedback logic, you have a control-line airplane.  But, anything other than visual, audio, or tactile feedback between pilot and plane’s motion is something else.  If a micro-processor makes a decision on control surface position, well, at the present time,  I don’t think that so good. 

Of course we’ve taken the first step with a microprocessor replacing the needle valve in the electric  power system.  Maybe should have sold my buggy whip stock when they told me the ic engine was coming!

The last Shuttle landing had some higher than normal winds.  The guidance was telling the commander to bank more than he did.  “High at the 180”  “High at the 90”  He could have reached up and hit the auto buttons and the plane would have flown exactly on the HAC (heading alignment cone).  As it was done, he flew a kind of ellipse, it came out ok in the end and he landed safetly, but in the post flight reviews he only got a 29 instead of a 35 or 36 for approach and landing.

I’ve sometimes said that if AMA were in charge of golf rules, the USGA would have rocket powered drivers and laser guided golf balls.

BOM? ….. do we need “flyer of the model”?

[John Stiles]

Wait till I've completely lost my eyesight and ask me again. I might change my mind.....if I'm still breathing.

[Wayne Collier]

Stability augmentation is the issue.

I’m not opposed to innovation.  I think the fly-by-wire electric that has been built is great.  As long as the connection between control input and surface deflection is direct and has no feedback logic, you have a control-line airplane.  But, anything other than visual, audio, or tactile feedback between pilot and plane’s motion is something else.  If a micro-processor makes a decision on control surface position, well, at the present time,  I don’t think that so good. 

Thankyou Frank for saying some things that needed to be said.

[Bradley Walker]

I don’t know if heli competition is allowed with gyros active, but some of the things they can do now is un-real.

Oh, that sucks!!!  Doing unreal stuff???  Somebody stop them!!!

We need to keep it real...



Just funnin' Frank...   

[Jim Kraft]

Well guys; I am not one of the elite, but I did fly R/C pattern for 25 years. When I first started flying, the radios did one thing, and that was to move the control suface. There were no rate switches, no end point adjustments, no servo reversing, no roll buttons, no exponential control and no control mixing. Bottom line was, you had to fly the plane. We built planes that in knife edge would not pull toward the canopy or to the belly, because there were no puters to program in mixing controls. As the radios got more complex with all the mixing funtions, you could program in stuff to make a really bad plane fly reasonably well. No, it still would not make up for a really bad plane, but it sure would make it a whole lot better. It then became a different ball game. I personally like to fly the plane, and not the radio. I came back to C/L 18 years ago for several reasons, but one for sure was that every one was flying the radio, not the plane. I still fly a little R/C for fun, but no competion. I am really enjoying flying C/L at local meets, and one thing has not changed since the beginning of C/L, and that is the link between the pilot, and the plane.

Disclamer; I have become somewhat of a trailing edge kind of guy.

[dave shirley jr]

I'm with you JIM
i flew pattern way bach when also. if you needed to reverse the servo out came the soldering iron!
i dont think i want to get rid of the reversing switches on the back of my transmitter. but i never liked the snap buttons ,roll switches,and mixing either.
i was doing a slow rolling circle and straight slow rolls and regular rolls one day years ago and a guy afterward asked me how i had sut up my transmitter because it appeared to have three roll rate settings and his only had two. I told him i held the switch halfway on for the circle. then I laughed and pointed out that the only switch on my old  FM transmitter was a retract switch.
I dont think anyone would allow me to fly my old stuff (20 years or so) any more.
I really dont mind the electronics Idea, I even contemplated doing just what Kim did about two years ago, I was thinking exponential controls and a fuel shut off might be a nice functions maybe dial out the flaps unless you give quick control inputs,I had a shopping list of ideas but i then thought, hey its supposed to be control line right?
electronics are fine but check out FAI freeflight and see where it is heading, altimeters etc. its pretty hard to tell if they are there for info later or feedback info during flight which would be illegal by the rules.

Dave jr.

[john e. holliday]

I beleive some one has for gotten about Mother Nature when it comes to aerobatics.  At one time there was a little electric free flight that had different cams that could be put in to make the plane do different maneuvers.  It worked great in dead calm air or indoors.  I don't beleive any one will be able to program the pattern that will get 40 points for each and every maneuver.  But, the thought just hit me,  Clancy Arnold has a systen now that will control functions on a CL plane.  It still uses a pushrod to connect the elevator and bell crank. 

[RC Storick]

This is a run what you brung event however its turning into a fly what you buy event. I am a traditionalist and will continue doing what has worked for years in staying with the program to try to improve. If someone has thought up a better mouse trap lets use it. But that has not happened yet and probably wont for a long time.

When the pipe came out everyone thought it was the end as we know it. It was not. When electric power came out everyone thought it was the end. I hasn't changed a thing and wont! So neither will assisted flight control. You will still need to program it. Or ever how it works.

Instead of flight control we need to focus on electronic judging. Beat the machine so to speak. No extra points for who you are or what color pants your wearing. (don't tell me it does not exist)

All in all My thoughts are go for it and let the chips fall where they may.

[phil c]

Kim, I appreciate you and Pat's innovation and intentions.  A few trimming tweak with the receiver is a lot slicker than grabbing the flaps and twisting!

What PA really needs is some help with judging.  Anyone who has run a contest knows how hard it is to get good judges.  Developing a camera/computer system to track the flight path and score it for deviations from the ideal would be a huge improvement.  Hopefully it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg anymore.  The whole pattern only takes up some 10,000 frames(5.5 min x 60 x 30) of video, about 3.5 gb of data, most of which is the static baackground.  Three cameras and a computer, maybe a second computer to do the actual analysis.  Might even get a computer science department involved in image analysis to do the software for for relatively little money.

[Phil Coopy]

Maybe they'll hafta do like in OTS and give bonus points for no electronics.

Phil

[Jim Kraft]

I dunno; I kind of like the human element in judging. It is kind of like figure skating, or other events where there are those that are very precise, and those that put on a real performance. Both can be very accurate, but one will be outstanding. I know, I know, most think that angles and circles are all that is important. Besides, you cannot complain to a camera.

[Victor Jeffreys]

Well hell as John Wayne would say; let 'em drive a stake in the ground, put a full house programmable R/C set up in a carrier plane and fly it on a "Monoline" from outside the circle.

[Dennis Moritz]

Well, I said this over there, let me say it over here:

"What's the point of adding the black box to competition CL events? We have an event with fairly clear parameters and a 50 plus year history. Satisfying the way it is. Build a straight(er) plane, put in more handle time, reach your level or just enjoy the sport. If I wanted gizmos and whatzits and up to date technology I'd fly R.C. Go fly R.C., if so inclined. Leave us who enjoy the simplicity of a handle, lines, crank, pushrod and horn, alone, to our own devices. At least in competition. Sport flying. I will ooohhh and ahhh and be very impressed. (I'm rehearsing my ooohhh and aaahhhh right now.) OOOOOO AAAAHHHHH."

And,

"Much of this discussion is abstract. Nevertheless, it seems to me a viable electronic servo operated system for trimming and flying a UKie stunt ship is not far fetched or expensive. Which is what Kim says and demonstrates, right. Why sanction going down that route? We have a simple mechanical operating system, not optimum by any means, but it works and can be tuned well enough so that the brain on the end of the handle can do the pattern of tricks.

There are less and less things we do via physical feel and physical connection. Activities like that, I find, very satisfying. Why junk our direct physical connection to flying our toy planes round and round. I think this would diminish the pleasure of our sport."

 

[Ted Fancher]

Well, I said this over there, let me say it over here:

"What's the point of adding the black box to competition CL events? We have an event with fairly clear parameters and a 50 plus year history. Satisfying the way it is. Build a straight(er) plane, put in more handle time, reach your level or just enjoy the sport. If I wanted gizmos and whatzits and up to date technology I'd fly R.C. Go fly R.C., if so inclined. Leave us who enjoy the simplicity of a handle, lines, crank, pushrod and horn, alone, to our own devices. At least in competition. Sport flying. I will ooohhh and ahhh and be very impressed. (I'm rehearsing my ooohhh and aaahhhh right now.) OOOOOO AAAAHHHHH."

And,

"Much of this discussion is abstract. Nevertheless, it seems to me a viable electronic servo operated system for trimming and flying a UKie stunt ship is not far fetched or expensive. Which is what Kim says and demonstrates, right. Why sanction going down that route? We have a simple mechanical operating system, not optimum by any means, but it works and can be tuned well enough so that the brain on the end of the handle can do the pattern of tricks.

There are less and less things we do via physical feel and physical connection. Activities like that, I find, very satisfying. Why junk our direct physical connection to flying our toy planes round and round. I think this would diminish the pleasure of our sport."

 

Dennis,

Once again I'm reminded that despite our occasional differences we're more alike than we are at odds.  Well said; and with no references to "sucking", "Civil Wars", "dinosaurs", "elites", "blah, blah, blahs", "pooping" or curmudgeonly references to a valued stunt compatriot who not only has the temerity to have a different point of view but has also worked his tail off to improve the state of the event (which tasks have once again proven that no good deed goes unpunished).  I think it is important to note that the last sentence in Peter's supposedly nefarious letter on the subject was: "Thank you for considering my point, I look forward to your comments."

How dare he!

One thing I can always say about the work product of Peter is that it is always civil, always well thought out and stated with never a hint of disdain for the point of view of others whether he agrees with their point of view or not.  And, most important, he doesn't engage in name calling and personal smears.  He has always been what we used to call a gentleman--an appellation apparently without merit in today's "in your face" world. 

Hope you had a Merry Christmas/Holiday season, Dennis (how's that for cutting the baby in half).  Here's wishing you a very Happy New Year.

Ted Fancher

[Dennis Moritz]

Ahhh Ted, where's the musical? Best to you and yours and rest of us. HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

[PerttiMe]

Just an opinion:
I'd like to see C/L planes' aerodynamic controls to remain mechanically controlled only. Isn't the physical connection to the plane really "the thing" in C/L?

In power systems, I'd be open to suggestions, as long they are not aimed to make one or another kind of power system inferior, i.e. if IC engines can be adjusted to maintain or increase power at certain attitudes, let electrics do the same.

[Peter Germann]

In power systems, I'd be open to suggestions, as long they are not aimed to make one or another kind of power system inferior, i.e. if IC engines can be adjusted to maintain or increase power at certain attitudes, let electrics do the same.

Dear Friends,
When FAI decided, not too long ago, to legalize electric power, one of the reasons to do so was noise. We have too  many sites where noise is a real problem and electric F2B will definitely help prevent loosing those. At the same time, operating quiet airplanes allows us to fly near populated areas, thus keeping our activity visible and attractive for newcomers.

Of course the FAI rulemakers have been aware of the fact that electric motors (and turbines) must not only be governed by controllers to function, but that devices to modulate their power output are indispensable, too. Consequently and in an attempt to allow electrics to become popular by being not only competitive but perhaps even superior, we have legalized the use of on-board intelligent, adaptive power control for other than piston engines.

Meanwhile a number of such adaptive controllers have been, and still are, developed. However, none of them has so far reached a stage perhaps best to be described as "Industry-Standard". What this means is, at least when looking at top flyer level, that electric power for F2B has is not (yet) superior to IC and that the breakthrough hoped for by the rulemakers has yet to happen.

What the above means, too, is that users of today's electric power systems for F2B models do not benefit from an advantage by being allowed to carry autonomous power regulators. I can tell you that FAI will carefully watch future developments and will definitely become active when needed. Please rest assured that the F2 Subcommittee will not allow one technology  gaining unfair advantage over another. As you can see when looking at the intrinsic subject of this thread, the question whether to allow autonomous flight path control, we are trying to do our job in the interest our common cause.

Kind regards and very best wishes for 2010

Peter



 

[50+AirYears]

Seems to me I've seen ths discussion in another site.  Almost feel like going there and doing a copy-paste of my post.  But, it's getting late, and I have a busy day tomorrow (actually, later today).

Not being in PA competition, although I do fly most of the manuvers, I do like the idea of progress.  MAybe the electronics challenge could get more people interested in CL?

Frankly, I'd think that if enough people start trying to use these systems in PA, just do what has been done in some of the FF events to handle the surge in electric power - - just have a separate classification for electronic control systems.

I'd also think the extra weight of batteries, servos, wiring, ECU would exact a penalty.

After looking at the flying capability of an indoor CL electric in a  video attached to the other discussion, I have been thinking of trying it out by building a sport type CL ship and attach the pushrod to an inexpensive servo test driver, using an inexpesive servo to drive the elevator, and maybe flaps.

My opinion, progress and grow, stagnate and die.

[john e. holliday]

To me it is not what we use for power or how we control the plane.  What is killing control line is where to get the stuff.  Those of us that have been around long enough know how to find what we need thru the inter net and mail order.  My recent experience, a local hobby I used to deal with.  I used to get Ambroid there, but they quit carrying it.  For controls they have nothing for control line, even when I have asked them to order for me, they refuse.  Dope is non existent in the shop except for the little 4 ounce bottles that cost a fortune.  I needed some balsa wood for the plane I am working on.  The shelf was almost bare and I asked when the next shipment will be in.  They responded that there will be no next shipment.  I lucked out in that there was some 4 foot sheets in the thickness I needed.  I looked at the prop selection and they had nothing in the ranges I use.  So I guess it will be MBS Model Supply,  CLC, Tower Hobbies, SIG, RSM Mfg. and Brodaks.  Need to make up an order to go to Lonestar or Balsa USA.  For get the fuel also as all they carry is for the remote control cars.