News:
2019----><---- T Shirt



Advertise Here

  • August 22, 2019, 06:44:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?  (Read 2171 times)

Online Dennis Toth

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2303
I know this will likely get some people up set but looking at rule 2.6 in the PA section it specifically seem to limit a the use of "wireless" system (not those controlled through the lines or timers onboard) used for engine shutoff to a 2.4 MHz radio. Why is this? If you only allow the shutoff system to control only irreversible engine shutoff or retracts what difference does it make as to what type of system you use to execute this? 

To me this is like setting an 85dba sound limit and saying you must use a tube type muffler when the objective is to reach 85dba.

It seems that the objective of rule 2.6 is to limit the functions of what can be controlled independent of the control lines and autonomous  onboard controls. So why does it matter how this is achivied? If the contestant has the burden of proof that should allow demonstration of any system used if asked. If someone has a simpler, cheaper idea to do an engine cutoff that doesn't use 2.4MHz radio but still only irrevserably shuts off the engine or activates the gear what difference does it make how they did it?

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


Best,   DennisT

Offline Trostle

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2526
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2018, 08:16:07 AM »

(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

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2018, 08:19:08 AM »
I know this will likely get some people up set but looking at rule 2.6 in the PA section it specifically seem to limit a the use of "wireless" system (not those controlled through the lines or timers onboard) used for engine shutoff to a 2.4 MHz radio. Why is this? If you only allow the shutoff system to control only irreversible engine shutoff or retracts what difference does it make as to what type of system you use to execute this? 

To me this is like setting an 85dba sound limit and saying you must use a tube type muffler when the objective is to reach 85dba.

It seems that the objective of rule 2.6 is to limit the functions of what can be controlled independent of the control lines and autonomous  onboard controls. So why does it matter how this is achivied? If the contestant has the burden of proof that should allow demonstration of any system used if asked. If someone has a simpler, cheaper idea to do an engine cutoff that doesn't use 2.4MHz radio but still only irrevserably shuts off the engine or activates the gear what difference does it make how they did it?

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

  Well, you would be wrong on that one. The *only* permitted radio control function from the CL General rules is 2.4 GHz. :


2. General
A Control Line model is flown on one or more steel or GSUMP, commonly referred to as Spectra or Dyneema, lines steel wire line(s) or metal line(s) of equivalent strength, attached to the model in a manner providing aerodynamic control of the modelís elevation through manipulation of the control surfaces during flight. Movement of control surfaces, and any other of the modelís operational features, may be accomplished by mechanical means, by electrical impulses transmitted through the line(s), or by any other control system that does not interfere with the control of any other model or present a safety hazard to competitors or spectators. The use of radio control to accomplish any control functions on Control Line models is specifically prohibited except as follows. The use of 2.4 GHz (utilizing spread spectrum, 47 CFR Part 15) radio control to accomplish functions other than providing aerodynamic control of the modelís elevation on Control Line models is allowed, but only to the extent and in the manner specifically allowed by the rules of the individual event. All control functions must be under the direct control of the pilot and only the pilot.


This rule existed before the stunt rule. The stunt rule (which I wrote at the behest of someone else) limited the one available radio control method to the functions we discussed for purposes of stunt. The alternative was to make all radio control including 2.4GHz completely illegal for CL Aerobatics, which I might still propose.

    The general rule (which I more or less agree with) defines CL models as models controlled through the lines, with minimal/trivial use of radio. I could support (and did in the past for FAI) defining control line as using "control via the lines", which excludes radio or other parts of the EM spectrum as a transmission medium entirely. If people want to use radio control, there is a very large rule book for that.

   The intent when it was proposed for FAI was to remove the possibility of control external to the pilot in flight, like the "back rooms" used for Formula 1 races, where the car is continually monitored and adjusted during the race with the team at the site not even being aware of most of it. Of course we aren't going to have it on that scale, but lots of people would really like to have EGT telemetry and then adjust the compression screw on their TR model to keep it from burning down, and you could easily do live needle or throttle tweaks on a stunt plane (including ground-based  control loops) for any number of functions.

    You may consider that absurd, but think what people like Igor or Howard (or even worse, Brett) could do if they weren't limited to making their control algorithms fit in the teeny on-board processor. Given that the transport delay could be milliseconds, you could do almost anything.
 
   The permitted functions were intentionally chosen to be trivial with minimal impact on the performance (although you could argue that the retracts matter a little bit - but I am not sure whether it helps or hurts to clean up the parasitic drag) so that 2.4 GHz. does not become mandatory to remain competitive.

   Brett

p.s.     As an aside, note that this also refers to "GSUMP" which is not a defined term by anyone (it stands for Gel Spun (ultra-high) Molecular (weight) Polyethylene), and specific brand names, both of which should be removed, since they are undefined. I don't think we should be using "enthusiast" or proprietary terms for a what amounts to a specification document. Since no one seems very close to writing a sensible rule for Stunt use of plastic lines, I don't see a big rush to change the General rule.

On the topic of retracts, it would probably help on the electric and hurt on IC. On electric, cleaning up the drag would give you more margin on the power for a given weight, which would permit you to use the energy thus saved in a more useful way, like less pitch and more RPM, to get permit a less efficient prop.
   

Offline bob whitney

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2018, 08:28:42 AM »
 Z@@ZZZ 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???
rad racer

Online Dennis Toth

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2303
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2018, 09:08:40 AM »
The type other than 2.4MHz could be a simple car key-fob, might be a light beam, sound pulse,  or other similar devise. Just seems that we want to limit the operations it can control not the means of activation. 

I understand that if using radio, from an interference point the 2.4 is superior to any other radio frequency. But that is the pilots problem if they choose to use something else.

I still didn't read any specific reason why we allow only 2.4MHz type radio when a wireless system is employed. I agree with the limits on the "what" can be controlled this way just not the how.


Best,    DennisT

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11237
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2018, 02:27:55 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2018, 03:49:21 PM by Tim Wescott »
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2018, 03:41:41 PM »
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 require 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

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11237
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2018, 03:49:34 PM »
  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.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Online Dennis Toth

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2303
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2018, 04:24:31 PM »
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?

Best,    DennisT

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2018, 04:58:58 PM »
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

Online Dennis Toth

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2303
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2018, 05:30:37 PM »
Why not just change the stunt rule to allow wireless control of only the functions already in the stunt rule?

What was wrong with the use of the ZTron IR system, again, if it only controlled the functions defined in the rules?

Best,    DennisT

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2018, 05:52:51 PM »
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

   

Online Dennis Toth

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2303
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2018, 06:22:31 PM »
OK, I see were the 2.4MHz comes from in the General Rule, sec 2. Since this covers more than just CL stunt it might be a bit more complicated to get the wording to cover other events. Anyway now I understand and can think about it a little more.

Best,   DennisT

Offline Dan Berry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 596
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2018, 08:10:22 PM »
https://airtekee.wordpress.com/rdt/

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

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1737
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2018, 11:29:30 PM »
Timers have all but eliminated overruns in electric power.  I had two last season using IC, one cost me a "trophy".  I spent years learning how to measure fuel, change the nitro, tweak needle valves, change plugs and use the proper profanity all to get our little show to fit in the 8 minutes we are allotted to dazzle the judges.

That is one part of the sport I will actually miss moving to electric.  I can understand IC wanting to have the same edge that electric now has in this area BUT, the rules are the rules.  You can either build and fly under them or work to change them.

Every time we go out to get an edge it soon becomes difficult to win without it and those that need an edge start looking for a new one.  What this does is gradually increase the cost in $$$ and time just to be competitive. My recommendation if you can't get down under 8 min is to use less fuel and learn when you need to.

Ken
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Lauri Malila

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1221
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2018, 11:39:11 PM »
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

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2018, 11:54:17 PM »

Every time we go out to get an edge it soon becomes difficult to win without it and those that need an edge start looking for a new one.  What this does is gradually increase the cost in $$$ and time just to be competitive. My recommendation if you can't get down under 8 min is to use less fuel and learn when you need to.

   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

Offline Chuck_Smith

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 406
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2018, 04:40:49 AM »
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
AMA 76478

Offline pmackenzie

  • Pat MacKenzie
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2018, 04:50:34 AM »
https://airtekee.wordpress.com/rdt/

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

$300 is kind of steep.
You can do the same thing with 2.4 for way less than that.
Some of us in the Mi/Ont combat group have been using an electronic system for F2D for several years now.
Airborne unit is <$30. Transmitter (that fits in a pill bottle) <$60
MAAC 8177

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1737
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #19 on: November 26, 2018, 06:56:50 AM »
   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
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Paul Smith

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4866
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2018, 07:40:06 AM »
You could use a 27 or 52 or 72 to shut off your engine and nobody would know or care.

Since I'm not an old time RC'er, I just buy 2.4 three-channel car controllers for $30 and receivers for $4.
Paul Smith

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2018, 10:09:11 AM »
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.

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11237
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2018, 11:11:40 AM »
    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...

That would be me.  Or at least, I'm pretty good (Expert, but not top 20 day good), and I can feel profoundly ignorant sometimes.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1737
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2018, 01:22:27 PM »
    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

AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline phil c

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2019, 02:34:01 PM »
OK, I see were the 2.4MHz comes from in the General Rule, sec 2. Since this covers more than just CL stunt it might be a bit more complicated to get the wording to cover other events. Anyway now I understand and can think about it a little more.

Best,   DennisT

The bottom line Dennis is that spread spectrum 2.4GHz radio is pretty much immune to interference.  That means some cannot accidentally or on purpose shut off the engine or do something else to interrupt the flight.  There's also no need to impound transmitters for frequency control.  It's also unlikely the government will change the radio frequency it is only a tiny sliver of the radio spectrum.  It will never interfere with any other uses except possibly some esoteric science experiment.
phil Cartier

Offline Lauri Malila

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1221
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2019, 02:59:11 PM »
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

Offline Fredvon4

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1798
  • Central Texas
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2019, 12:38:55 PM »
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
"A good scare teaches more than good advice"

Fred von Gortler IV

Offline Lauri Malila

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1221
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2019, 03:42:32 PM »
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

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2019, 08:09:26 PM »
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.

   The CL General rule came about to eliminate the need to have frequency-control at control line contests, and to eliminate any issues with attempted or claimed jamming, which (rightly or not) 2.4 GHz. seems to preclude. The General rule removes all the other options.

   The CL Stunt rule came about after 2.4 GHz was already the only option. In that rule (which I wrote and proposed), the only options I seriously considered were:

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

    I was leaning heavily towards banning RC completely, given that there are a 100+ RC events already. I know a lot of people think the same. I did eventually propose only retracts and engine shut-off, because neither of those will make any significant difference in the performance.

     Banning it completely certainly solves the problem of choosing specific technology, it eliminates any form or wireless communication at all, which is pretty solidly defensible since "control line" actually literally means control through the lines.

    If anyone thinks otherwise, then, nothing is stopping them from proposing whatever they want, including changing the CL general rule. I predict that will fail due to lack of support, but, it sure won't happen if it is never proposed.

    Brett
   
 

   

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1737
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2019, 08:57:57 PM »
   
 
  • 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

AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline IdRatherBeBuilding

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2019, 12:06:51 AM »
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 wouldn't think banning wireless completely would be an answer for this debate. That wouldn't seem to serve a progressive movement in the hobby. Which is what we want right. I mean, that would be the whole reason for even allowing wireless in the first place.

As far as being able to cheat. Transmitters have wireless trainer systems now. So it would be possible to cheat with the way the rules are now. On 2.4ghz.

Accidental tx power ups happen on 72mhz. Like All the time. Impounding isn't too frustrating, but it is one more thing to deal with. That time and energy could be spent elsewhere to create a more pleasant experience for all. I get that Completely.. More than I'd like yo actually.
A simple answer is to ban 72, 75, 27 and 53 mhz systems from contests.

I actually was considering doing a plane up with wireless controls. I have about 30 plus RC systems from tubes to futaba 14mz. But my first choice for CL would be using my phone on bluetooth with an arduino rec. in place of a timer for my esc on electrics. I just figured it would be easier to touch my screen and go.

David
David Miller

A society grows great when old men plant trees the shade they know they will never sit in

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2019, 05:53:57 AM »
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

Offline IdRatherBeBuilding

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2019, 10:17:33 AM »
I'm probably completely wrong, but I assumed the OP was referring to other systems that fall into the same criteria the spread spectrum falls into. Adding these systems would be inclusive for others while still maintaining all the necessary requirements previously held with spread spectrum transmission.

I'm just adding my 2 cents. I have no prior experience in stunt, let alone compitions in stunt.
I do have experience in acting as a CD. And I know for a fact, you'll never fulfill everyones hopes.
Maybe if there was a amendment to the rule to allow the CD to honor these other systems, as long as these system follow in the spirit of spread spectrum, and done case by case.

David
David Miller

A society grows great when old men plant trees the shade they know they will never sit in

Offline Paul Smith

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4866
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2019, 01:35:28 PM »
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.

Paul Smith

Offline Paul Smith

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4866
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2019, 01:41:06 PM »
   The CL General rule came about to eliminate the need to have frequency-control at control line contests, and to eliminate any issues with attempted or claimed jamming, which (rightly or not) 2.4 GHz. seems to preclude. The General rule removes all the other options.

   The CL Stunt rule came about after 2.4 GHz was already the only option. In that rule (which I wrote and proposed), the only options I seriously considered were:

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

    I was leaning heavily towards banning RC completely, given that there are a 100+ RC events already. I know a lot of people think the same. I did eventually propose only retracts and engine shut-off, because neither of those will make any significant difference in the performance.

     Banning it completely certainly solves the problem of choosing specific technology, it eliminates any form or wireless communication at all, which is pretty solidly defensible since "control line" actually literally means control through the lines.

    If anyone thinks otherwise, then, nothing is stopping them from proposing whatever they want, including changing the CL general rule. I predict that will fail due to lack of support, but, it sure won't happen if it is never proposed.

    Brett
   
   

The upside of the RC shutoff on gas engine airplanes is that it helps to cut the gap between gas & electric.  Electrics already have the advantage of instant start and zero chance of an overrun.  RC shutoff for gas engines would simply allow gas engine flyers the same flight-ending technology that electrics currently enjoy.

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

Paul Smith

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1737
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2019, 02:37:51 PM »
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
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1737
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2019, 02:45:03 PM »
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.
You won't get beat up because he nailed you just after your first turn in the RWO!  Oh the humanity....

Ken
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1737
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2019, 02:56:43 PM »
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
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline IdRatherBeBuilding

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2019, 04:54:37 PM »
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.
David Miller

A society grows great when old men plant trees the shade they know they will never sit in

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2019, 05:55:36 PM »
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

Offline Howard Rush

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6619
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2019, 07:42:16 PM »
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.

I think you are correct.  So far electrickery is limited to propulsion.  For sure we need to keep it out of any aerodynamic surface. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #41 on: February 19, 2019, 07:50:23 PM »
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

Offline Paul Smith

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4866
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2019, 08:21:38 PM »
Sort of like the advantage Pipes gave over std. IC. 

ken

The difference being the mufflers and pipes were already legal.  Mixing electrics with engines required rules changes to open the door.

But, of course, you knew that when you wrote the post.
Paul Smith

Offline Paul Smith

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4866
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2019, 08:26:45 PM »
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.



Paul Smith

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1737
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #44 on: February 19, 2019, 08:35:18 PM »
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.
This is very true.  I think we have a grand total of 3 of us flying electric around here but it is growing.  We had a small contest last week and I was the only one flying electric.  With the temperature in the 30s the CD dropped the engine start rule and started the clock when the engine started.  My only problem was that my batteries used more capacity in the cold air.  Other than that there was no difference. 

I think separating them is silly.  Brett pretty much summed it up.  Improvement in IC has peaked but electric is just getting started and I agree that it has zero advantage over IC at the upper levels.  In fact, it is at a small disadvantage due to the added weight, that you can't see your exhaust and everybody can hear your comments when you miss an intersection.  But, it is a real plus for those of us who, for whatever reason, can't fly pipes.

Don't worry too much about the threads drifting off in to Na Na land.  Many times you get more from the side trip than the original intent.

Ken

AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 9949
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #45 on: February 19, 2019, 08:43:52 PM »
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

Online Ken Culbertson

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1737
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #46 on: February 19, 2019, 08:54:53 PM »
The difference being the mufflers and pipes were already legal.  Mixing electrics with engines required rules changes to open the door.

But, of course, you knew that when you wrote the post.
Actually I didn't.  I was in the stunt wilderness raising a family and running a business from 1984 to 2017.  From what I have heard, what I missed was really fun.   I went from what it was to what it is and missed all of the mess in between.

Ken
AMA 15382

If it is not broke, don't fix it.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline phil c

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #47 on: March 10, 2019, 08:41:53 PM »
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.
phil Cartier

Offline Chuck_Smith

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 406
Re: Why is "only" a 2.4 MHz wireless system allowed for engine shutoff?
« Reply #48 on: April 21, 2019, 06:41:42 AM »
I think electric will reshape the CLPA plane as we know it. You add in laser cutting and even more so.

Let me explain why I feel this way:

One of the constants in stunt from the 50's until 5 minutes ago has been the fuselage construction. The impetus has been to reduce vibration enough to get good engine run and provide adequate cooling with a single cylinder glow engine. This manifested itself as doublers, long maple engine bearers and formers. Advancements in the  ST60 era like the full crutch and "Big Jim" nose construction were refinements, but still variations on the theme. Moving to pipes put us back pretty much where we started. Whatever you do, you need to tame that frame-shaker at the pointy end.

Enter electric motors. With little effort, I can have a powerplant with a ISO 1940 G1.0 balance. Ok I have a rotating mass of neodymium with a little more precession, but the forces are relatively small, and the vibration is essentially so trivial I don't need to worry about it.

So -  I can rethink my nose construction. And since the power plant's weight and it's distribution is different, I can change my moments. 

And, with laser cutting or cnc routing, I can go with a stronger, lighter than balsa, plywood frame that's more air than wood. Or maybe a classic balsa "stick and tissue" construction.

The end result  - I believe I can build a modern CLPA electric powered ship that's lighter than a conventional glow of the same size.  And it can be a Lazer or an Edge semi-scale model.

The analog exists in RC today. Look at the construction of a modern 3D plane. It doesn't look anything like what an RC plane was built like for the past 50 years.

What I think will happen is that the traditional CLPA "eel" fuselage will give way to wider, more scale-like versions.  Which, upon consideration, might be a cool thing. Now, instead of every plane being a distant relative of the Nobler, (C'mon you know it's true. We can all look at a new Porsche RS Turbo and love those sexy hips, but you don't need to squint very hard to see the Bug it started from!) we can have some wider variation in designs.

Personally, I'm not a fan of electric. I LOVE engines. I get a lot of satisfaction from being known as my club's "Engine Whisperer".  I love the sound and smell of a good glow engine, the vapor trail etc, but I know a technological revolution when I see one.

Most of what I see so far is adapting existing designs to electric. It's been good and has helped the movement. What the next step needs to be is more designing for electric from the get-go.

In RC, electric has really become the preferred power option - up to a certain size where gas is more economical and efficient - but CLPA falls well below the gas crossover point. I'm pretty sure that with refinements in airframe design and the cost-curve for electric dropping in 10 years electric will be the rule and not the exception. 

We might as well embrace it. I always thought that flying the pattern is pretty easy with a light ship and a solid motor run. Unfortunately, learning the engine run part is often more challenging than the flying part. Anything that makes the hobby easier and more accessible to new participants is fine with me.

Keep the rules open and let the chips fall where they may.

All in MHO and I'll defend your right to disagree.

Chuck
AMA 76478


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here