(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

I'm new to CL but I do see the argument about 2.4 exclusively. 2.4 is good, especially for CL which always has a line of sight and is only 60' max distance. But there are lots of other systems just as good, and more keep popping up.

   I can only answer for the stunt rule (since I wrote it, at the prompting of notable personages)  - systems other than 2.4 GHz were already prohibited by the CL General rules. Allowing something else for stunt *was not an option* unless we wanted to change the CL General rule already in place for several cycles.

    There is nothing stopping anyone from proposing other systems by changing the CL General rule. But expect the following questions:

• how do you avoid having to have frequency control/transmitter impound?
• how do you address jamming or intentional interference?
• how does having another RC event serve the ends of Control Line?
• how does this capability affect competition?
• does this capability obsolete other airplanes that don't have this?

   I have no more input to the process than anyone else, I write the proposals I think we need and I have a pretty good record of getting them passed, but I predict that item 1 will be sufficient to kill any RF system aside from the 2.4 GHz. spread spectrum system we currently have.

   As far as "progress" goes, I am not sure that adding RC features constitutes progress, and we have held on pretty well compared to the events that "progressed" themselves to destruction (like slow rat, that progressed itself to the point that it's no longer held). Stunt has *very few* technical rules, which gives you unlimited freedom within the constraints of "control through the lines". The more technical rules you have (particularly to "limit performance"), the more you need to be an expert to get around them and the more the experts will dominate.

    Brett

If you want to use 27, 52 or 72 systems or a reed or crystal set that's OK with me.  I'm sure you won't interfere with anybody because everybody else is on 2.4 gig. 

I am not an x-RC'er.  I bought my whole 2.4 transmitter & receiver set for under $40 and extra receivers sell for $4 each in bulk. 

If you want to utilize an old RC system, have right at it.  The only (theoretical) downside is shooting down somebody who is also flying RC with 20-year-old equipment and getting beaten up.  But the odds of that happening are less than a lightning strike.

My concern is that we innovate ourselves into extinction.  Building a competitive PA ship is already nearly a year long project unless that is all you do then it is still several months.  If we start adding features that are necessary to win both the cost and the time to prepare just keep going up.  Personally I *like* the idea of an engine cutoff.  Nothing is worse than the sound they make when they overheat and you can't stop them.  I have moved to electric so overruns are a thing of the past and those short test flights are easy.  That only leaves shutting it off because I don't want it flying anymore.  IMHO having RC for just that is not worth the effort or weight.

I know you can't stop progress but to me it is the skill of the pilot that makes me want to watch and the challenge of putting up a pattern that is at least in the same class as the big boys that keeps me in the sport.  When I can no longer afford the "gadgets" that you need to do that, I am out.

We are already looking at active timers and perhaps soon counter rotating props being needed to win at the highest levels.  How soon till it is just to win at any level.  Those toys coat more than most of us can sneak past our wives already.  Throw in retracts and you have a plane that is really expensive and all of that just to come in second to Joe Gilbert's Ringmaster.

Maybe I am seeing this from the perspective of a flier/builder instead of a builder/flier.  I love both but every hour I spend building is an hour "dreaming" about how it will fly..and when!  I would rather keep the Camel's nose out of the tent.  First it is cut-off, next it will be throttle and why not trim.  Before long is is full blown servo actuated controls.  Punch "8" for a vertical 8.  Over dramatic......probably.

Ken

A fairer "Plan B" would be to simply go back to separate gas & electric events.

Sort of like the advantage Pipes gave over std. IC. 

ken

Sort of like the advantage Pipes gave over std. IC. 

   Kind of, that really was a quantum leap.  And that argument was pretty accurately described by Windy Urtnowski's 1993 NATs report that suggested splitting off 4-2 break engine and wood props, since they weren't competitive any more. But that argument was neatly bypassed by having people most affected by it (ST60 salesmen) spendingthe next 20 years claiming that 4-2 break engines were actually better than piped engines, to the point of threatening violence to those who didn't agree.

   There are a few people on an anti-electric jihad, for whatever reason, and keep throwing up one tangential objection after another to try to get rid of electric without actually having a straight argument or vote on it. Some people, very predictably, have the opposite take on it and really are trying to favor them, mostly in the FAI. The mainstream sees it as another interesting option, and doesn't care one way or the other.

     It's not a viable argument either way,  because no one is about to split them, and, there's no competitive reason to do it. The best electrics are not much of an improvement over the best IC. The advantage I would admit to is that IC is not likely to ever get a lot better than it is today, that is, nearly perfect. Electric has all the future growth potential, Igor has shown the way (for *most of a decade*, so it's not exactly new).

    What does seem to be true is that an average electric is A LOT better than an average IC. That's because huge numbers of people never got a good IC system-  largely because there is so much bullshit circulating about how to set them up, 70 years worth.  That can easily be solved but almost no one wants to take the effort, apparently, to unlearn it.

   I think there is nearly no variant on RC control that offers a legitimate improvement in the airplane performance, but, it does offer endless possibilities for replacing piloting skills with computer trickery, and removing individual achievement and replacing it with team effort. One of the hallmark characteristics is that when you go out to out to fly, like in a Walker Flyoff, you are 80 feet from *anyone else*, completely separated, and entirely dependent on your own effort in preparing for that moment, and executing it.

     Brett

I think you are correct.  So far electrickery is limited to propulsion.  For sure we need to keep it out of any aerodynamic surface.

  I am rather surprised that no one has proposed a rule to prevent that.
    Brett

It would make sense to categorize them into separate classes. But then you end up thinning out the herd. They'll be less competitors per class. This would be fine if you had a decent number of contestants. But for the smaller local contests, it makes it unfair if you fly an electric, and everyone else is IC. You end up taking home 1st, but thats in a field of one.

I think the OP's topic wasn't about whether or not R/C belongs in C/L, but the confusion of why limiting the transmission to 2.4 to control the planes systems that are already approved.

Thinning the herd? 
Take a look at the Brodak stunt menu:
Profile, Old Time, Old Time with flaps, Classic, N-30, 1/2A, Firecat and PAMPA - times three or four ability classes per event.
Eight different stunt events.
Surely a separate electric class wouldn't spread it any thinner.

Thinning the herd? 
Take a look at the Brodak stunt menu:
Profile, Old Time, Old Time with flaps, Classic, N-30, 1/2A, Firecat and PAMPA - times three or four ability classes per event.
Eight different stunt events.
Surely a separate electric class wouldn't spread it any thinner.

    Let's just cut to the chase - *there is not going to be a separate electric event* and we are not *splitting the important stunt contests along those lines*. It's not going to happen, because no one has made any remotely plausible argument why it should be. "I don't like it!" is not a plausible argument, it's an appeal to emotion.

   If someone thinks they are in someway being disadvantaged by electric, please do what is says in this post (from *13 years ago*):

http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=232053&mesg_id=232053&listing_type=search


 do what it says in every detail, and you will not be at a disadvantaged any more. Same thing here:

http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=22231&mesg_id=22231&listing_type=search#22243

     Brett

Thinning the herd? 
Take a look at the Brodak stunt menu:
Profile, Old Time, Old Time with flaps, Classic, N-30, 1/2A, Firecat and PAMPA - times three or four ability classes per event.
Eight different stunt events.
Surely a separate electric class wouldn't spread it any thinner.

Mostly what all the classes do is allow avid flyers to fly more.  The serious PA flyers mostly limit themselves to PA and maybe one nostalgia plane, or an old timer.
But some people who are just out for fun could easily build and fly a plane in every event, just to have fun for a week.

The NATS for sure doesn't need a separate electric only class.  Electric add a couple more steps of reliability, but nobody wins at PA without being a very good flier.  The most concerning issue is PA is that the scoring system doesn't have enough precision to reliably separate the best flights in the top 10 or so.  Image tracing of each maneuver and automatic scoring for precision is very close to reality.  In fact it probably could be done by next year if someone was willing to underwrite the software development.  But even the current free lance efforts are getting close.  I would not be surprised to see it tested at a big contest in Europe within the next 3-4 years.   Everyone could look at every flight and see exactly where and why it lost points.