Author Topic: Radio Control of COntrol-line? (Read 5275 times)

john vlna · « **Reply #50 on:** March 29, 2011, 10:58:13 AM »

Paul,
Take a look sometime at the innovation and activity in the Park flyer area. I think you are right, many people have given up CL for RC. While we argue old versus new, the RC world is moving ahead embracing new technology and creating new concepts in model aviation.
How many parts do you use in your model that come from the RC world?
John

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #51 on:** March 29, 2011, 11:19:25 AM »

I'll raise the issue again: What is the point of using U-Control to tether a model and run everything else via an RF link?

This is not new technology. The R/C guys use this stuff all the time.

Is it just because some folks want to see their model fly in circles? Is it just because some folks want only to associate with others who call themselves control line fliers?

There is a great deal to be said for using the rule book to manage technology and keep C/L separate and distinct from R/C.

john vlna · « **Reply #52 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:31:12 PM »

Bob,
I don't understand your question. Is it
A. Why fly CL?
or
B. Why Fly CL with Electric Controls
or
C. None of the above.

Bill Little · « **Reply #53 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:57:20 PM »

Hi John,

I believe the John's point is coming from a traditionalist point of view. Nothing "we" can actually do is going to ever increase C/L to the popularity it once had. It will forever more be a niche hobby. There are just too many factors that have changed over the past 40-50 years, and I do believe that the majority of newcomers will be in the class of fairly mature men who find a bit of attraction in doing something different. I can honestly see no way to attract large numbers of young people, no matter what is done through "innovations". The Government might make certain aspects of R/C flying more and more difficult, and some C/L fliers might be picked up through that in the future, but "flight" is no longer the consuming curiosity it once was to people of my, and earlier, generations. Heck, a person can sit down on the computer and "FLY" an R/C airplane with no more expenditure than getting the simulator. That, in and of itself, would be much more attractive to the younger generations than actually having a model and going out and flying.

Control line is unique, always will be, and in an event like Scale, it is traditionally an event that relies on the lines to control the model, hence "control line". Not just in the matter of flight elevation changes, but total control. Removing the "total" part through the use of radio frequencies that do not rely on the lines for transference no doubt will enhance the "flyability" of a model airplane. But electronic control has been done through the lines for decades. Does anyone actually believe that this "new" technology will actually make the amount of new participants explode, or even greatly increase? I can see no real evidence of that. Simple technology changes in an ever shrinking hobby cannot cause the return of C/L as it once was, IMHO. Of course it will serve the needs of those who are competing in the event today, but will it increase the number of new contestants? There was once a sense of accomplishment through problem solving, and other innate qualities, which seems to be rapidly disappearing in our society. I observed this in a career spanning more than 30 years in higher education. Simply making the flying of a C/L Scale model easier is not the total answer to increasing participation in C/L Scale. But then increasing participation might not even factor into the equation of this proposal at all.

Bill

john vlna · « **Reply #54 on:** March 29, 2011, 01:16:57 PM »

Bill,
I understand and in fact agree with you. I love CL, but I don't think anything we do, even allowing radio control will add much to our ranks. However I see no reason to not do allow rf control in addition to the current up-the-line systems. I like scale, I fly mostly throttle controlable planes and electronics makes it easier and more fun to control different functions in the air. Yes I could and do fly a little RC and even FF, but as long as the legs hold out I'll continue to primarily fly CL.

However, I am still having trouble understanding Bob Heywood's question.

john

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #55 on:** March 29, 2011, 02:11:53 PM »

Quote from: john vlna on March 29, 2011, 12:31:12 PM

Bob,
I don't understand your question. Is it
A. Why fly CL?
or
B. Why Fly CL with Electric Controls
or
C. None of the above.

Not A. or C. Sort of B.

My issue is specifically with allowing an RF link for control functions on a C/L model. This also is uniquely germane to Scale competition. First, there was FF Scale. Some truely magnificant models were built but flying them was a real challange. Next came C/L, which provided a better means of making a successful flight. Although, as we have seen that might not always be the case.
Finally, we have R/C Scale. It started with rather basic planes but has evolved into some really fine examples of the Scale builders art.

At this point I see the boundary between C/L and R/C Scale as being pretty fuzzy. It is not uncommon to see the same kits flown in both facets. A lot of the support technology is the same. My point is, that, by allowing direct radio control of the model or some functions of the model there is no longer any difference between C/L Scale and R/C Scale. Some have commented that it hinges on using a control handle to fly the plane for 10 laps. So what. With the big planes being flown that is pretty much a no brainer these days.

From what I see, R/C has become the preeminent platform for Scale.

john vlna · « **Reply #56 on:** March 29, 2011, 07:05:37 PM »

Bob,

Clearly the difference between CL and RC is small. Rules are unified to a great extend and most would probably agree that the RC community is producing some amazing aircraft. Kits, when used are common to both, but of course there are only a couple of CL Scale kits available.

It seems your real objection is that CL should be kept different for the sake of differnecne. More different than just flying on lines, in a circle? It seems to me that makes it unique enough. And, what about the currently growing use of electric power, it naturally couples with electric and RC type control systems. Yes you can do it mechanically with all the electronics on board, which adds weight and complexity for no good reason in my view.

The fact that “R/C has become the preeminent platform for Scale” should not make us run from change. Perhaps with the future possibility of air space restrictions looming due to terrorism and airway congestion, a hybrid of CL and RC will be the future of modeling.

John

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #57 on:** March 30, 2011, 05:19:21 AM »

John,

Perhaps.

And, please, don't take any of my comments wrong. I mean no disrespect.

I've always held the opinion that FF, C/L, & R/C present unique challenges and have marveled at the skill and dedication of those that have figured out how to make things work. As an engineer and student of history, I am also keenly aware that technology will be served.

So, as far as the salient point of this discussion, the majority will of the stakeholders shall prevail. As is proper.

Bob

Paul Smith · « **Reply #58 on:** March 30, 2011, 06:03:31 AM »

Quote from: Bob Heywood on March 30, 2011, 05:19:21 AM

....So, as far as the salient point of this discussion, the majority will of the stakeholders shall prevail. As is proper.

Bob

Unfortunately, the "majority will of the stakeholders" has nothing to do with it.

Rules are changed by Contest Boards, appointed by AMA VP's long and ago, and serving for life with no accountability. Rules are changed by 6 out of 11 board members. Not good, but the way it is.

"The stakeholders" are people who have built to the current rules and manufacturers who have invested in products that meet the rules. Radical proposals like this tend to make people and companies reluctant to invest in anything that operates under AMA Rules.

Screwball changes like this have ALWAYS driven out current contestants and the pie-in-the-sky "new people" never materialize.

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #59 on:** March 30, 2011, 08:22:03 AM »

I am one who is not convinced that radio control of C/L Scale models is a good change, in that it obsoletes a lot of existing scale models which is not ever a good thing in itself. But since i have not flown Scale for years, I will leave most of that discussion to the Scale guys, or get into it when I start building my own scale model. However, any change to the C/L General rules should not immediately allow 2.4 gHz radios for all events. This means the C/L General rules proposal should include words something like, "Control by 2.4 gHz radio is permitted only in the manner and to the extent specifically identified in the rules for the event involved." Then Scale can decide what it wants, and the other events can decide if they want to include radios and to what extent.
For Speed, for example, if R/C is permitted, I would have the needle valve controlled by radio by the pitman, so no more bad runs due to a faulty needle setting. Same with Carrier and Racing? And for Carrier, it might be nice to have flaps controlled by radio giving me a different flap setting upwind and downwind. (Are flaps "elevation control? Any rule that restricts the radio from providing elevation control has to fine that.) I could do this with a U-tronics unit and insulated lines, but the added work and hassle of the insulated lines have prevented me from doing that. Make it too easy, and maybe I would do it. And if I am really successful, then everything else will be obsolete, and more competitors will quit rather than make the change in all their stuff to remain fully competitive.
So my point here is not to stop 2.4 gHz use in control line, particularly in Scale, but rather to encourage serious consideration of what it means for each event. And to make sure that that consideration is done by those with an interest in the event. A C/L General proposal that imposes allowing 2.4 gHz radios on all events is a real problem and should be avoided. Otherwise, all the C/L event contest boards would be well advised to vote against the proposal.

Pete

john vlna · « **Reply #60 on:** March 30, 2011, 01:54:51 PM »

Bob,
No offense taken.

My view is simply that there is little difference (in scale anyway) between having a transmitter at the handle and a receiver in the plane and transmitting through wires or through space.

Pete makes a good point though, in that each event should look to see if it makes sense for them. In scale I think the differences are small. Fliers either use simple, mostly throttle control only mechanical systems (when is the last time you saw a multi-function multi-wire plane?) or multi-channel through the lines. Changing over to 2.4Ghz is trivial in the latter case and would probably not obsolesce anybody’s equipment.

John

Paul Smith · « **Reply #61 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:26:30 PM »

It would certainly put everybody with a 3-line or insulated 2-line system at a crippling disadvantage.

While not disallowing existing equipment, it would continue to permit traditional Control Line modelers to contribute their entry fees, pad the entry list, and take a beating.

-------------------
Quoted from the SCALE section of The Rule Book:

"1. General: All AMA regulations (see sections titled Sanctioned Competitions, Records, Selection of Champions, General, Control Line General and Scale General) shall be applicable, except as specified below."

So this idea will need to clear quite a few boards to become effective. Getting RC past the combined CLCB's will be quite a piece of work.

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #62 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:52:55 PM »

The rule that I thought we were discussing was in Section 2 of Control Line General: "The use of radio control to accomplish any control functions on Control Line models is specifically prohibited." My concern is that repealing this rule would have immediate consequences for all control line events and, at least for most of these events, the participants would not be likely to approve the change to their event if given the chance. At least the individual participants should carefully consider the consequences of such a major change to their events.

Pete

john vlna · « **Reply #63 on:** March 30, 2011, 06:56:52 PM »

I also thought that is what we were discussing. And I thought CL general applies to scale. It that not correct?

However, at this time there is no proposal on the AMA site for allowing 2.4Ghz radio that I can find, only a mention of it being done in the MA SCALE column

John Rist · « **Reply #64 on:** March 30, 2011, 07:33:04 PM »

Quote from: john vlna on March 30, 2011, 06:56:52 PM

I also thought that is what we were discussing. And I thought CL general applies to scale. It that not correct?

However, at this time there is no proposal on the AMA site for allowing 2.4Ghz radio that I can find, only a mention of it being done in the MA SCALE column

In Bill Boss' column Control Line Scale it states that Don Burke of California Has submitted the proposal to allow 2.4 Ghz in UC. Supposedly it is reported in some publication called the REPLICAL. Would be interesting to find out if such a proposal has or has not been submitted. Are such proposals posted on the AMA web site? Regardless I am still am in the "Must go down the wires" camp.

john vlna · « **Reply #65 on:** March 30, 2011, 07:45:28 PM »

John
There is section under the competition tab on the AMA site which lists currently submitted proposals. I did not see one for 2.4Ghz anywhere. Perhaps it is still being processed? Replica is the Scale newsletter. More info on scale on the NASA scale site. http://www.nasascale.org/
JV

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #66 on:** March 31, 2011, 08:31:20 AM »

Ted Kraver was kind enough to update me on the situation. Don Burke has submitted a proposal to AMA to change the C/L General section to delete the radio control forbidden sentence and to replace it with one allowing the use of 2.4 gHz radio for non-elevation control. It has not been posted yet. I think Greg Hahn might need a reminder, or perhaps there is some of the behind-the-scenes discussion going on. That sometimes happens with rules proposals to vet them before publication. Various officials in the process may be discussing the clarity of the wording (I am still unclear on the definition of "elevation control" and under what circumstances it applies to flaps, for example) and the Safety Committee may be discussing the safety aspects of adding more users to, for example, the crowd already using them at the Nats. I have no idea what the upper limit is on the number of such radios that can operate safely at the same site, but I am hope some experts are reviewing this.
But, indeed, the proposal would make the use of radios legal for all C/L events without further restriction, which is exactly what I am concerned about. So I would hope that an amendment such as I mentioned earlier, perhaps adding, "Control by 2.4 gHz radio is permitted only in the manner and to the extent specifically identified in the rules for the event involved."

Pete

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #67 on:** March 31, 2011, 03:49:06 PM »

There are two proposals that have not been posted yet on the AMA web site

#1 - Don Burke's addresses 2.4 Ghz for CL general

#2 - Grant Hiestand's addresses 2.4 Ghz for CL scale only

If #1 was to pass then #2 would not be required, but If #1 is not adopted, then #2 could be voted on by the Scale community and only affect the CL scale models.

I hope the proposals get posted on the AMA web site soon.

Land Softly

Grant Hiestand · « **Reply #68 on:** April 02, 2011, 12:43:20 PM »

Having flown with the 2.4ghz radio in my CL ships for about 1 year, the major difference in performance has been the reduction of line drag. My Spacewalker and Cub still fly pretty much the same other than that. The electronics act exactly the same, and my through the lines method are legal for all current contests. By the way, as mentioned earlier, when Keith Trostle beat my electronic Spacewalker at the NW Regionals, he did it with a gas powered 3-line model. Any good three line model is competitive against electronics. Electronics simply make the setting up of the model much easier. And for an electric flier like myself, nearly essential.

john vlna · « **Reply #69 on:** April 02, 2011, 05:42:17 PM »

Grant,
Well said. People usually worry that technological changes will somehow always be better, but with models it usually is the better modeler that wins.
John

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #70 on:** April 03, 2011, 08:13:27 PM »

Go to the AMA archives and look in the November 2002 issue of Model Aviation, I wrote an article that discussed the various throttle control systems that were available at that time. The article is titled "Control Line throttle-Control Systems", search under that title and my name. The article talked about the following systems: 3-line, Multi-channel electronics (permanent conversions), Single channel, Direct Servo Connection with JR radios, Custom made units and the Z-tron units. In all there are 6 different systems used to control the throttle, and this did not even cover the systems developed by Clancy Arnold and others. Like Mike Gretz has stated in an eariler reply, this has been around for a long time. This article is by no means complete, just a sampling of the systems that I had flown with up to 2002. I still use single channel and DSC systems on a regular basis.

Land Softly,
Fred Cronenwett

john vlna · « **Reply #71 on:** April 04, 2011, 07:57:40 PM »

One final comment, see attached

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #72 on:** April 05, 2011, 07:06:54 PM »

I just want to remind everyone of John Vlna's Replies # 26 and 28 above.

John and I both have been flying CL models using standard flying lines PAINTED with Polyurethane. You could even color code the lines while you are at it.

Please remember that electronic control has been used in Navy Carrier for several years as well as in CL Scale.

I prefer to use electronic controlled glow engines on a CL trainer allowing me to reduce the speed of the model or totally shut it down if the student has a problem.

As I am the "Clancy" several have referenced above and the source of U/Tronics Controls I will not comment on the basic question. I will state for the record that NO RF has ever been involved in any U/Tronics Control system I have ever built!
U/Tronics Control complies with both the Wording and Spirit of the CL General rules.

Clancy

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #73 on:** April 13, 2011, 02:50:03 PM »

Clancy,
I'd love to know the details of your poly painted lines. I'd like to build a Raven Acro model and use down the line but the insulation made any stunts seem kinda clumsy and I was looking for precision. This sounds like the missing link for my plan.
Chris...

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #74 on:** April 13, 2011, 08:09:50 PM »

Chris
I got the idea of trying to paint standard lines in place of the nylon coated fishing line. I tried it using Polyurethane and it worked for me. I told John Vlna and he tried it and he also likes it.

John Vlna's Directions: "I use water base polyurethane, I've tried oil base too, but it does not seem to be necessary. Usually two coats just to be safe and ensure coverage."

After painting a set of lines I would suggest trying them on an old beater model and see how many loops and other maneuvers it takes to wear through the Polyurethane.

Please share your results!

Clancy

john vlna · « **Reply #75 on:** April 13, 2011, 09:18:37 PM »

Chris,

Clancy tipped me off about the polyurethane coating at Brodak’s last year. I built a set of lines shortly after returning home. I used them all last year and have several flights already this year. Since then I’ve built two other sets.

I check the lines with an ohm meter while rolled up on the reel. No shorts so far. I’ll probably coat them again this year just to be on the safe side. Water based poly dries in a couple of hours. I simply string them up in the yard between two small tee shaped poles. Dip a rag in the paint and wipe down the lines.

John