(Clip)

It seems this rule should be revised to read "Wireless..." in place of "2.4 GHz spread spectrum radio".

Best,   DennisT

So, just what kind of "wireless" system do you have in mind?

The rule was written to prevent any other type of "wireless remote control" to be used for our CLPA models.  The rules specifically allows that the 2.4 GHz spread spectrum can only be used for the engine shutoff and/or operation of a retracting landing gear.  Rather than write the rule for what the 2.4 GHz system could not be used for, it was written to permit only these two functions.  The rule does not prevent either of these two functions to be actuated by some other on-board system or by some physical manipulation of the control lines themselves.

Keith

  this is a no Brain er,  before 2.4 they had 2 sets of frequency's, one for ground and water and the other for air . so they wouldn't interfear with each other .AMA clubs had a frequency board and when you got ready to fly u removed the clip with your frequency you were using on it .it was hard to control if two diff groups were flying close to each other  another problem was someone in the pits checking out there plane on the same frequency u were flying on, instant crash. 2.4 is almost mandatory in all sanctioned RC car and plane competitions . how would u feel if u were in the middle of a maneuver and some one turns on their transmitter and shuts off your engine???

2.4GHz spread spectrum because that's what's known to work without requiring a transmitter impound area at a CL meet.  Yes, there's a lot of other ways to skin this particular cat, but 2.4GHz spread spectrum systems are known to work, and don't require CDs to either be radio engineers or lawyers.

Give the number and variety of good cheap 2.4GHz RC systems out there, I don't think it's too onerous to allow only them.

  Well, to be entirely accurate, they aren't required at all. The stated allowable uses aren't worth doing for the most part and certainly not necessary, which was intentional.

     Brett

Post edited for clarity.

I understand that 2.4MHz is available and reliable and doesn't require impound. All well and good but since the allowable control functions are not life threatening. The rules should not be there to protect one from bad decision. The rules lays out what can and cannot be done, not how you chose to achieve that end. 

What is the specific concern with having other wireless types of actuation as long as they only activate an irreversible engine shutoff and/or operation of a retracting landing gear? It is just irrelevant as to what carries out the function as long as the function is what is prescribed in the rules. Why shouldn't be revised?

   So, you are debating the rule from CL General that defines CL models as only permitting 2.4 GHz and nothing else, rather than stunt? Because to change that, you have to make sure there are no conflicts with any other rules or any other events that permit it, not just stunt. Note that before the rule you mentioned in stunt, the CL General rule had the effect of *completely outlawing any form of remote control*, because, when it was added, stunt had not put in any rules at all about it. Adding this rule permitted it again, but only for the functions mentioned.

   Before the CL General rule was passed, it was a gray area, and everyone had erred on the side of permitting literally anything, including Antonio Zigras' ZTron IR system.

    To change it the way you want, you will have to change the CL General rule, along with the stunt rule, which I predict will prove extremely difficult. But it for sure won't happen if you don't try. That will give you two years, before someone removes the current stunt rule and outlaws all forms of remote control.

    Brett

Why not just change the stunt rule to allow wireless control of only the functions already in the stunt rule?

  Because then the stunt rule would be in conflict with the rule in CL General! This is not hard or tricky, we can't allow something that the general rule explicitly prohibits.

   The "2.4 GHz only" comes from the "General" section, not the stunt rules. I just wrote the rule to be compatible with the (already existing) CL General rule.

     I will make an anonymous "I Told You So!" to the person who requested I add the rule in question. My original inclination was to prohibit ALL forms of remote control for ANY function,  since it is not consistent with the definition of "control line". 

      Brett

   

https://airtekee.wordpress.com/rdt/

Why wouldn't this be allowed to move a servo and kill the engine?

https://airtekee.wordpress.com/rdt/

Why wouldn't this be allowed to move a servo and kill the engine?

I use it. Ken made me a special version of stand alone rdt that I use to squeeze fuel line. Works well. I don't care about it in contests but it's an excellent aid in testing and trimming.

This discussion is another example of how you should not base any rules to an existing technology. Same with Dyneema, copper wire wrapping, 2,4GHz.. L

As mentioned, no impound is required. I'd sure as heck not like having to wait for a frequency pin to fly, much less the logistics effects of a contest.

I can't speak for the rest of you, but if my engine shuts off unexpectedly it can be catastrophic. Given the cheap price of a receiver, a 2s and a servo these days I doubt I could build anything better myself for twice the price.

Chuck

   That's an interesting observation, but since we have had more advanced systems, the cost and time seem to have gone down. You could easily and safely get by with a single PA or RO-Jett engine (I only had 1 PA61 for the entire time I ran it). And the amount of time you have to spend practicing has gone down drastically, it's a tiny fraction of the time.

    What dominates my cost and time is travel, even a weekend trip costs upwards of $400-500, and getting back and forth to Muncie is 6 full days just for the driving, plus gas and hotels along the way.

      Brett

What you are referring to is improvements in existing technology for which I 100% agree and Amen to the travel.  That is probably the largest problem we face.  What I was referring to, and probably did not explain properly, is when a new technology or gizmo becomes the norm.

I was shocked at the cost of the "state of the art" piped engines when I came back from the wilderness but I was told I needed one to be competitive.  Probably true.  I could afford the LA46 size ship, which was a doubling of power compared to what I knew, but the performance of the piped ships in the hands of the better fliers is simply out of reach.  I am not a big fan of flying other peoples planes so I have not had the opportunity to fly one.  That is probably a mistake and I may relax that a bit if asked to try it but I will never be the one to ask.

I am still perplexed why we are constantly trying to eliminate the non-flying skills we use to have to acquire to win but it is not my turn any longer to define the sport.

Ken

What you are referring to is improvements in existing technology for which I 100% agree and Amen to the travel.  That is probably the largest problem we face.  What I was referring to, and probably did not explain properly, is when a new technology or gizmo becomes the norm.

I was shocked at the cost of the "state of the art" piped engines when I came back from the wilderness but I was told I needed one to be competitive.  Probably true.  I could afford the LA46 size ship, which was a doubling of power compared to what I knew, but the performance of the piped ships in the hands of the better fliers is simply out of reach.  I am not a big fan of flying other peoples planes so I have not had the opportunity to fly one.  That is probably a mistake and I may relax that a bit if asked to try it but I will never be the one to ask.

I am still perplexed why we are constantly trying to eliminate the non-flying skills we use to have to acquire to win but it is not my turn any longer to define the sport.

    I am not sure what the last bit is about, I don't see very many people trying to do that, if anything, we are continually fighting to keep it more-or-less the same way. The stunt rule in question was intentionally crafted to make the entire idea fall into the "neat, but more-or-less useless" category. I would probably support a proposal to eliminate ALL RC means in control line, and I have been surprised that no one has made any effort to eliminate on-board feedback control of the aerodynamic controls. I am OK with it on the engine/motor, because all Igor's system does is even up the odds between electric and IC, where such feedback control has long been part of the event, back to the 4-2 break.

     I know I have spent less in "constant" dollars on equipment like engines/pipes/props than I used to, and it has the added advantage of having some notion that it will work when you need it to. The biggest waste of time and money I can imagine is spending $500 going to a weekend two-day contest, and then having your engine not run properly, or only once in a while, and also having everyone else in the same boat, generating random results. If anything, current systems *save* money and time on wasted activity. Fuel was relatively expensive in the good old days, and you burned it like it came from a tap, with the competitive fliers taking a thousand or more flights a year- which at ST46 rates, it something like 50 gallons a year.

   I wouldn't deny, however, that modern equipment and techniques have changed the nature of the competition. Many more people are able to be competitive than they were before, because the former winning approach of the black art of making engines work and the extreme amount of effort and practice required to learn how to work around performance limitations made it so only a few people who adopt stunt as a way of life could possibly compete. Now, you can just buy a system, and if you follow the directions* you are going to have something with so much performance margin, all you have to do is stand there and fly it around. That only happened on rare special moments back in the "Good Old Days", and on those days, whoever managed it usually won. That makes it so almost anyone can do it, as long as they approach it logically and rationally.

     I might also suggest, gently, that you might be jumping to conclusions about the nature of current competition. I am not sure who you are flying with on a regular basis, and which big contests you have attended and been deeply engaged in, to be able to see what is really going on and what the likely winners are actually doing. If you haven't had those types of exepriences, I would ask you to reserve judgement.

    Precisely because of the widespread availability of "overkill" power and trim knowledge, many people can be *very good* stunt fliers without actually knowing much about what they are doing, whereas before, you had to master a huge array of things even to be reasonably good. These guys fly better than their equivalents from ancient times - but they have the same chance against David and Paul that their counterparts did against McFarland and Gialdini- that is, *no chance at all*.

     Brett


*note that a large number of people still fail to or refuse to follow the directions, and *still* shoot themselves in the foot, the "engine setup tips" forum being a case in point. Its' like going back in time to 1975.

    I am not sure what the last bit is about, I don't see very many people trying to do that, if anything, we are continually fighting to keep it more-or-less the same way. The stunt rule in question was intentionally crafted to make the entire idea fall into the "neat, but more-or-less useless" category. I would probably support a proposal to eliminate ALL RC means in control line, and I have been surprised that no one has made any effort to eliminate on-board feedback control of the aerodynamic controls. I am OK with it on the engine/motor, because all Igor's system does is even up the odds between electric and IC, where such feedback control has long been part of the event, back to the 4-2 break.

     I know I have spent less in "constant" dollars on equipment like engines/pipes/props than I used to, and it has the added advantage of having some notion that it will work when you need it to. The biggest waste of time and money I can imagine is spending $500 going to a weekend two-day contest, and then having your engine not run properly, or only once in a while, and also having everyone else in the same boat, generating random results. If anything, current systems *save* money and time on wasted activity. Fuel was relatively expensive in the good old days, and you burned it like it came from a tap, with the competitive fliers taking a thousand or more flights a year- which at ST46 rates, it something like 50 gallons a year.

   I wouldn't deny, however, that modern equipment and techniques have changed the nature of the competition. Many more people are able to be competitive than they were before, because the former winning approach of the black art of making engines work and the extreme amount of effort and practice required to learn how to work around performance limitations made it so only a few people who adopt stunt as a way of life could possibly compete. Now, you can just buy a system, and if you follow the directions* you are going to have something with so much performance margin, all you have to do is stand there and fly it around. That only happened on rare special moments back in the "Good Old Days", and on those days, whoever managed it usually won. That makes it so almost anyone can do it, as long as they approach it logically and rationally.

     I might also suggest, gently, that you might be jumping to conclusions about the nature of current competition. I am not sure who you are flying with on a regular basis, and which big contests you have attended and been deeply engaged in, to be able to see what is really going on and what the likely winners are actually doing. If you haven't had those types of exepriences, I would ask you to reserve judgement.

    Precisely because of the widespread availability of "overkill" power and trim knowledge, many people can be *very good* stunt fliers without actually knowing much about what they are doing, whereas before, you had to master a huge array of things even to be reasonably good. These guys fly better than their equivalents from ancient times - but they have the same chance against David and Paul that their counterparts did against McFarland and Gialdini- that is, *no chance at all*.

     Brett


*note that a large number of people still fail to or refuse to follow the directions, and *still* shoot themselves in the foot, the "engine setup tips" forum being a case in point. Its' like going back in time to 1975.

Brett:
I think we are talking past each other.  I do not disagree with anything in your last post which means I was not clear in mine.  The 2.4 rules are perfectly fine as is.  If you want an engine cutoff or retracts for an IC plane you have a way to do it.  If you want to go electric, both are built in.  I do not have the luxury of going to any of the larger meets anymore mainly for the travel $$$ that you have clearly identified as the biggest problem we have. I do follow who wins and what they were flying.   Names you would recognize that I fly locally with now include Mike Scott, Phillip Nichols and on occasion one or both of the Moon brothers.  My best years were 1975-81.  I don't remember us having all of those engine problems but then the crowd I flew with then knew what they were doing.  I see just as many bad runs with the new engines as I did back then but my experience may not be typical.  All I had for competition were two 35's; a Fox that I got from Duke at the '64 NATS and an OS that came from "Big Art" around '76.  I still run the OS.

One thing that is clear from following all of this is that a lot of people don't bother reading the General Rules.

Ken

So is the beforementioned Airtek RDT-unit pretty much immune to interference.
As I said before, the rule should simply allow or not the use of wireless shut-off, without going to details.
If it fails to work well, it's pilots problem and lines take care of safety of others. L

ASKED>>>>>>>Airtek RDT-unit pretty much immune to interference??

yes and no....but moot as it is NOT spread spectrum 2.4Ghz   thus illegal to use in competition....fine for sport use

That said, the Airtek RDT 800~990 Mhz frequencies and low power ----make it basically immune to interference at a typical flying site

Unless deployed in a neighbor hood with a lot of Baby monitors or other consumer electronics in those  frequency ranges...Senheiser Wireless head phones as another example

As noted above; the Airtek RDT is way over priced for that function...

I have a very good similar system custom built for $100

As noted above any cheap RC car Trans ($18~$35) and very very cheap $4~$6 orange receiver...one or two 5 or 9 gram servos are under $10....and low density adaquat bats can also be had under $10....I can easily build a fuel cut system from on hand items in my shop for under $45

Well, I have propably used the Airtek unit more than anyone in this forum. I have about a dozen of them and they have a flawless track record over last 15 years I've had them, that is over 10000 flights, easily.
I've only had 2 or 3 unwanted DT's or cases when DT failed to work but that was long ago and all of them in extreme cold/wet weather, then we quickly learned to protect the electronics from weather elements.
Of course, that's in free flight but during the couple of years I've had the shut-off system based on it in stunt, it has also worked flawlessly. Reliability of these systems depends more on the mechanical parts.
I'm sorry that I stick my nose to this, it's not my business. I'm just curious to know why the wording in your rule is what it is.
And I repeat (maybe 3rd time) again, this kind of rules should never be based on some spesific technology. 2,4ghz is handy now, some time ago it was PCM, before that FM or AM. What comes next?
While not absolutely necessary in contest use, remote shut-off also improves safety and partially also levels the playground when flying against electrics. And in case of a bad engine run, it's a nice gesture to others to eliminate unwanted noise and waiting. L

   
 

• Secondary functions that do not affect performance enough to make them a de facto requirement

 

Thank You - I was concerned where we were headed when the "Ultra Scale" planes started becoming popular.  Fortunately they did not dominate and you can still win with classical designs and if you have the time and resources to go that route, good for you but you don't have to go that route to win.  Of all the things RC could do for us, I only think that a fuel shutoff is a good thing.  Even retracts don't do as much as you would expect for performance and they really complicate things.  Nothing wrong with that rule

ken