The deadline for submitting new rules change proposals was March 15th.  There are a total of FOUR proposals which have a direct bearing on CL Scale events.  I would recommend that competitors go to the AMA web site -- http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals.aspx -- and read the four new rules proposals.  Three of the four pertain to allowing 2.4ghz radio control of mechanical options OTHER THAN the elevator.

You will find two of them under the section titled "CL Scale Proposals":

CLS 13-1:  A proposal by Grant Hiestand to allow 2.4GHz radio use in CL Scale events for any control other than elevator, which must remain via the lines.

CLS 13-2:  A proposal by Richard Scheider for several tweaks to the CL Fun Scale rules.

The other two proposals are in the section titled "CL General Proposals":

CLG 13-1:  A proposal by Don Burke to change the Control Line General rules section to allow 2.4GHz radios in control line events for any control other than elevator, which must remain via the lines.

CLG 13-2:  A proposal by Richard Perry to change the Control Line General rules section to allow 2.4GHz radios in control line events for any control other than elevator, which must remain via the lines, with final discretion left in the hands of the individual contest boards for each event.

Please read the proposals and let your Scale Contest Board representative know your opinions soon.  The Initial Vote on all these proposals will be at the end of April.

Mike Gretz
Chairman
AMA Scale COntest Board

I am hoping that Grant's proposal along with Dick Perry's would allow 2.4 Ghz to be used in CL scale. Is it fair to say that we would need to allow Dick Perry's and Grant's to be in place or can CL scale run with Grant's proposal alone?

The whole issue of allowing 2.4 Ghz needs to be looked at as a big picture with all events being considered. If the Scale board only looks at Grant's proposal and does not consider the CL general then they might not understand the big picture. There are conflicting proposals including some in CL carrier. I have a feeling that all of the 2.4 Ghz proposals will require some "Editing" once the big picture is determined. Some will be approved with some editing and some will not be approved.

This is a game changing topic that needs to be addressed.

I already have letters printed up for the Scale contest board members ready to send out.

Fred Cronenwett
Proudly flying with electronic controls since 1991
Wichita, KS

As a voting member of the Scale Contest Board, I am presently leaning strongly in favor of Dick Perry's proposal (CLG 13-2) to amend the CL General rules to allow the use of 2.4ghz radio signals in CL models, to control functions OTHER THAN ELEVATOR.  As I said earlier, this is already being done, and I think it is important for legal and liability reasons to allow it in the general rules.  It would still be up to the contest boards for the individual events to determine if they want to allow it in competition.

Regarding Grant Hiestand's proposal to allow 2.4 in CL Scale events, I am waiting to be lobbied on that.  I am not against it in principal, but I think it is critical to get the opinions of the AMA members who are actively flying the events.

Fred.  I need to point out that Grant's proposal is not very well put together.  In the section of the proposal titled Brief summary of the proposed change., he clearly states that his intent is to, "Allow 2.4 ghz radios to be allowed in CL scale events to control auxiliary functions."  That is totally understandable and without contradiction.

However, in the next section titled Exact wording proposed for the rule book., Grant is very vague, with no specific mention of 2.4, or what events his proposal would apply to (need specific rule book paragraph numbers).  The words he does propose only mention the use of electronic controls down the wires, and then he quotes the FAI rule about the same thing, down the wires.  What does this have to do with 2.4?

If Grant's proposal passes the Initial Vote, it will need a more clearly worded Cross Proposal if you want any hope of it passing the Final Vote, in my opinion.

Mike

Below is Grant's proposal, as submitted to the SCB.

CL scale has been using electronic controls for a long time, transmitting signal and ground down the flying lines. Switching over to a wireless system (2.4 Ghz) is still a form of electronic controls, just without transmitting down the lines. While I agree 3-line works just fine it can only control one function. Once you set up and fly with electronic controls you will probably find out that you won't install a 3-line bellcrank again.

The model will still be a CL model since it still has a bellcrank and flies in a circle. With 2.4 Ghz we would allow a better way to control aux functions especially electric powered models. Models with 2.4 Ghz, down the line electronic controls have never had an advantage over models with 3-line control. Now that Taxi is only worth 10 ponts it getting harder to fill out the 6 options with only the throttle.

Land softly,
Fred Cronenwett

Not if you build a plane that actually flys. 
Sure, it's easy to use a "rudder wag" as a manuover.  Too easy.

Huh?

If you prefer RC, just fly RC and GET OUT OF CONTROL LINE !!!!

Paul,

The point is that there are evidently quite a few people who still love the feel of flying control-line, but they want to expand their enjoyment by being able to perform additional mechanical operations, without loss of flight performance due to heavy coated lines.

The use of electronics in control line has been with us since the dawn of control line, although I admit it was with limited success through the 50s and 60s.  In 1973 a radio transmitter was first modified to send it's signals down insulated lines (by US Scale Team members Mike Stott and myself).  That form of control has been going on for nearly 40 YEARS now!  In fact it has become the predominant method for serious CL Scale competitors worldwide.  

Mike

At the 2010 FAI in Poland I saw many competitors use "leaflet drop", talk about an easy option.

Allen,

I agree that leaflet drop is not one of the more difficult scale operations you will see.  It's been going on in FAI for many years (seems like there is always at least one competitor at each WC using it).  I think the reason the FAI judges allow it is because it is a mechanical option.  Did the guy using it win?  Usually not! 

Mike

Being an old timer in control line flying several different events thru the years, I would welcome the 2.4gz radios for control line as long as the elevator is still control by the control lines via a bell crank.   I still have my servo operating system I used in carrier way back in the 80's.   Managed a 6th in Class II.   I am still trying to figure out what scale project I would lke to tackle.  So I hope that it gets passed in the General section that the radios can be used.

Mike;

The winners at the 2010 FAI did use leaflet drop.

If my memory is correct, didn't Ralf Berstine have a Holiday Inn Pitts at the FAI worlds in Muncie several years ago, use a rudder/tail wheel control as an option?

Blessings
Allen

As I have stated before, all one has to do is say "rules" and the place goes wonky. Being one who can seriously relate to being an old timer, I can definitely attest the fact that we resist all change. However, what I really enjoy is the building of scale model airplanes of unusual subjects. So just tell me what rules are and I will comply. It won't diminish the enjoyment that I get from the hobby.

Admitting that I am not the most versed in 2.4GHz technology, I tried to find out what I could via the internet. What I read somewhat concerned me that it may not be as foolproof as it has been portrayed. It was stated that the big name manufacturer's systems (Futaba, JR) were trustworthy but there were also some lesser named Chinese manufacturer's equipment that were not so. So, I guess my prime concern would be that we don't create a control line problem for other concurrent events (the Nationals come to mind). It would be terrible if our control line operations brought down any of the R/C scale ships. If my concerns are unfound, I take no exception.

Jim Fruit

Also don't know exactally how 2.4 Ghz works.  But the whole idea is that it won't interfeer with RC flying.  I also suspect that the scale RC folkes use good equipment. I would hope that the ability to reject unwanted transmitters are in the smarts of a good receiver.  Besides RC folkes fly multiple 2.4 side by side with no problem.   We will be hundreds of feet away from them.

(Clip)

Keith, I think I remember your Martin Baker being 5 line control? ( a beautiful airplane I might add) I would never dream of trying that, what if you had the option of 2.4Ghz back then?[/b]

Just one mans thoughts.

Blessings
Allen[/b]

Allen,

Thanks for the mention of the Martin Baker MB 5.

First, I want to comment on previous statements where it appears an individual feels that the use of the 2.4 GHz system somehow makes it too easy to add optional flight functions to a CL model and in that light, the individual feels that somehow in doing so, the sanctity of our CL models is wrongfully breached.  I might ask anyone who feels this way to show us a simple way to incorporate a retracting gear, or flaps, or moving turrets, or bomb drop with operating bomb bay doors, or whatever other functions that might be attempted for our CL models, regardless of the method to actuate whether it be by some secondary function from a 2-line system or a 3-line system, or extra lines, or timers or some variation of signals down the lines.  The point is, to incorporate a practical and reliable operating function in these models takes some initiative and work regardless of the method used to actuate the function.   It is A LOT more of a task than the alledged simple use of

"off the shelf RC parts....[which] could be bought and installed with no creativity whatsoever." claimed earlier in this thread.

The Roberts 3-line system opened the door to reliably and effectively use a throttle.  What a tremendous advance in our equipment that was and still is.  The 2.4 GHz is just another evolutionary step to give us a system that offers reliability and control without the performance limiting additions of an extra line, or lines, and/or insulated lines.  Furthermore, the 2.4 GHZ adds a degree of safety in that the power can be controlled if the lines are slack.

Now that I have had my time on the soapbox---

Yes, that Martin Baker has 5 lines.  Even though electronic systems were in use at the time, this model was started in the early 70's and I chose to use lines to control various functions.  Having tried a retracting gear on a stunt ship several years before, I chose to avoid the complications and problems that would create.  (That was also before the advent of serious penalties for not retracting the gear in scale models where the full size airplane did.)   It has the standard Robers 3-line system for the throttle.  The other two lines are connected to another bellcrank that actuates the shutter that controlled the airflow through the air scoop on the bottom of the airplane.    That bellcrank was mounted in a mechanism so that with the shutter full open, a spring loaded overcenter actuator would deflect the flaps, then with the shutter fully closed, the flaps would close.  The model has running lights that can be turned on and off by a switch actuated by a push-on/push-off switch next to the throttle pushrod.  It has operating ailerons and rudder which are free to operate with the cockpit controls.  For flight, these control are connected to the throttle control and adjusted so that for high speed, there is neutral ailerons and slight right rudder; for slow speed, there is some right aileron and more right rudder.

At the Nats Precision Scale events, that model was 3rd in 79, 2nd in 96 and 1st in 2000.  The model is in the Muncie AMA museum.  It is interesting to me that it is displayed beside Warren MacZura's 1/12 Grumman Gulfhawk that won scale at the 1960 World CL Championships, with the construction article in the American Aircraft Modeler 1968 Annual.  I used that article and plans for the machining of the shock absorbing gear, shock absorbing swivieling tail wheel, and sliding canopy on my Martin Baker.

Keith

You've got to realize that with 2.4 gHz (R/C) the model would require a receiver, battery, antenna and wiring harness (added weight/ mounting space).
With the traditional insl. lines everything is in the handle, assuming a 2 wire setup whereas the servos are the same/ same.
Just my 2c. 

The Recievers are very small and if flying with electric power you don't have a 4.8 volt battery. The speed control that I use has a BEC circuit which takes power from the main battery and powers the reciever. Weight impact is quite small especially if you consider the electric BEC combination.

With a 2.4 Ghz model and electric power you would have this in the model

1) reciever
2) wire harness
3) main battery
4) speed control

with a glow engine you need the following

1) Reciever
2) wire harness
3) 4.8 volt battery, only need a small one
4) Servo, micro dues just fine.

I have a 41" span Grumman Tigercat (profile scale) and it has a 4 "AAA" batteries in the nose, 2 micro servos, on/off switch and some wires, and all of this is hidden inside the profile structure except the head of the servo. And this model uses single channel system.

The trick is to put this hardware where you need it to balance the model anyways. the larger the model the smaller percentage of the overall wieght. on my larger models that are over 8 lbs, the additional weight of this hardware is barely noticable. on smaller models it might be an issue.

Fred Cronenwett

The smallest indoor receiver will do - you never get more than 60' away. 

What would you think the additional weight would be? There is discussion on this subject (2.4 gHz R/C legality and rules proposals) down in the Carrier forum where the models are smaller and space is at a premium.
An electric throttle without the drag penalty of insl. lines would be soooo much nicer. You wouldn't have the slop of a third line and a monkey-motion bellcrank setup.
Sometimes I think this entire forum needs dragged into the 21st Century.

It can be done with 1 to 3 oz.  But the weight gain is all in the noise (most scales are tail heavy) and the total weight gain may well be 0.  You are removing other stuff while adding a receiver and battery.  If you are electric powered aircraft it may well lose weight because you already have a battery on board.

If you factor in reduction in line weight and drag it will be much more efficent.