Quote from: jerry v on September 20, 2021, 07:09:08 PM

    Here is the fun part: it’s ok to put 1 oz in the weight box of the outboard wing, it’s ok to put 1 oz of lead in the tail to balance the model. But to put 1 oz shut off system it is a dead weight!))

What does the receiver end of 2.4gh weigh?  The wires to the esc are thin.  Why can't the receiver and a small battery to power it BE the tip weight?  I have no clue if that could work but if.....

Ken

If I read what Jerry and Ken have written, they appear to be complaining that an electronic device cannot be used to stop a motor on a stunt ship in flight.

For the record, Rule 2.6 in the Control Line Precision Aerobatics rule book states:

"2.4 GHz spread spectrum radio control signals may be used to control ... a one-time irreversible engine or motor stop function."

My apology to those if I misunderstood what they wrote.

Keith

If I read what Jerry and Ken have written, they appear to be complaining that an electronic device cannot be used to stop a motor on a stunt ship in flight.
My apology to those if I misunderstood what they wrote.

Keith

You did miss my point.  I was considering the weight and where it could be placed and secondarily, not in my post,  could a non 2.4ghz device be on the plane in competition but not used.  If that were the case it could be used to stop a flight in a bad or dangerous situation resulting in a -0- score or a C/D ruling.  When was the last time anyone aborted a flight for any reason and got a score that still placed?

Electric PA has no need for a cutoff during competition, the timer does that just fine.  IC in general would LOVE one. It is the non-competition flights and the "emergency" use in competition that I am concerned with.  If the penalty for using one is to DQ the flight, that is OK.  If the penalty is to DQ the flier then that is not OK.  If simply having the plane equipped is a violation then this is all moot which the PA rules seem to do.  Simply having a non 2.4ghz electronic device on the plane is a violation whether you use it or not.

We are doing the same thing here we did with Spectra lines.  Focusing on a single solution to a problem that has many.

Ken

Having said all of that there appears to be several options within the 2.4ghz that just might offer even better options.  What if there was a Timer that could be programmed in flight.  RPM, gain, cutoff to let you actually trim the powertrain while in the air in one long flight instead of many short ones then disabled for all but cutoff and gear retraction in competition.  Now that is a pie I would look to the sky for!  And, all of it could be mounted in the outboard tip.  ZERO weight gain!

"If that were the case" ---   "If the penalty" ---  "If the penalty"  ---  "If simply having"

Ken

"What if there"   ---

So many "ifs".  My head spins.  I guess I am getting old and cannot keep up.

Keith

Of course some pilots will see the opportunity to use the system for better score on landing.

One could do a cutoff loop.  No radio required.

Electric PA has no need for a cutoff during competition, the timer does that just fine.  IC in general would LOVE one. It is the non-competition flights and the "emergency" use in competition that I am concerned with.  If the penalty for using one is to DQ the flight, that is OK.  If the penalty is to DQ the flier then that is not OK.  If simply having the plane equipped is a violation then this is all moot which the PA rules seem to do.  Simply having a non 2.4ghz electronic device on the plane is a violation whether you use it or not.



Having said all of that there appears to be several options within the 2.4ghz that just might offer even better options.  What if there was a Timer that could be programmed in flight.  RPM, gain, cutoff to let you actually trim the powertrain while in the air in one long flight instead of many short ones then disabled for all but cutoff and gear retraction in competition.  Now that is a pie I would look to the sky for!  And, all of it could be mounted in the outboard tip.  ZERO weight gain!

There is an over reliance on the 2.4Ghz technology in the rules and it doesn't provide any better security than using a simple 833 Mhz Tx Rx device. The difference is that the 2.4 Ghz devices are intended for continuous data stream while most of the 833 Mhz devices are simply listening for a 128 bit code they have been bound with and only toggle an output on and off. This is inherently compliant with the intent of this rule. The rule truly should simply state a non reversible cut off device. I use one to operate my electronic "stooge" and I have a version using the other button to start / stop a timer. It's a simple interface to the timer. Of course this idea can be expanded to using the device additional buttons and associated bit toggling to do other things but again it is a simple non proportional control.

I find it amusing that we always seem to come up with all of these rule change ideas just after the window for getting them passed is closed.  I am 100% in agreement with Lauri.  To me it is simple...."Any form of remote cutoff may be used as long as it is irreversible and cannot interfere with any other flier."  So if we all agree then it will be two years before we can use one.  Don't want to rush into anything that makes sense.

Ken

Ken I think we (people on the forum) have had this discussion previously on here and I was pretty much shut down.

To a point I agree.  It seems that "good" ideas need to come from the right source to have any traction but that is not why I am replying.

I just switched to the Fiorotti timer and I am hoping to get feedback from others using it as I try and figure out how to maximize it's features.  I have kept my "Trifacta" thread going primarily to provide feedback on the timer to Fiorotti.  I have flown the plane with both Nose Up and G-Force turned off and even with that it has been a pleasant surprise over the Hubin (which is great for what it does).  I am also getting used to logarythmic flaps at the same time.  Now that is an experience if you have never used them.  Any "rookie" tips would be appreciated.  I think enough people are using it that it would be nice to have a section here dedicated to it or maybe to active timers in general.

Ken

Brett

There would be no need to impound the 833 Mhz devices as well. Once the transition to digital code format interference goes away. Once TX and RX have been "bound" there is no need to worry about other transmitters on the same frequency. It all falls under the open use by the FCC just the same as the 2.4 Ghz frequencies. There's others here more knowledgeable than I am on all of those regulations but basically it is unrestricted.

Here is the reason for being motivated. The 2.4 Ghz devices are intended to communicate digitally and pass data back and forth. This in turn creates a more complex requirement for the transmitter and receiver which drives the cost up. The lower frequencies can be used for this but typical. Generally the 833 devices transmits a single code which the paired receiver listens for. So a tx for 2.4 Ghz low end costs around $80 while a 833 Mhz TX can be purchased for $5. Likewise the receivers are $35 ish and $4 ish. There is no loss of security of the signal or so minor as to be insignificant.

If the rule simply said no proportional control allowed would cover enough of need.

Keith

First this divergence of the thread should move elsewhere. I think we recognize what the rule says and that is specifically what is objectionable to a number of us ( I thought I was alone). The fact that it restricts the technology to only the 2.4 Ghz devices. The other devices on other frequencies have just as adequate lack of interference and do not require impoundment. The specific rule for CLPA requires a non reversible function. In both cases the 833 Mhz devices meet the intent of the rule. Therefore, a rule change is in order. Unfortunately, this has come up outside of a rule cycle.

Personally I think remote motor kill is an extremely desirable thing to have,  especially for those lost soles still flying IC.  Not just for contests but for trimming and safety - you take off and something is wrong with the controls or you have a prop strike on takeoff and it snaps part of a blade off.  How many planes would be saved if we could abort immediately.  How many contests would run on time if we didn't have to wait for that guy that couldn't measure his fuel and was still flying when everyone else left for lunch or to simply take an attempt.  It just makes sense.

Ken

EXACTLY...!!!

This is directly and specifically my number one drive to have a remote on / off feature in my timer. To restrict such a device to an expensive limitation is counter productive to safety.

Keith

First this divergence of the thread should move elsewhere. I think we recognize what the rule says and that is specifically what is objectionable to a number of us ( I thought I was alone). The fact that it restricts the technology to only the 2.4 Ghz devices. The other devices on other frequencies have just as adequate lack of interference and do not require impoundment. The specific rule for CLPA requires a non reversible function. In both cases the 833 Mhz devices meet the intent of the rule. Therefore, a rule change is in order. Unfortunately, this has come up outside of a rule cycle.

    This has been in there for at least 8 years - 4 entire rules cycles -  and there was a fairly extensive discussion of the entire topic here when I wrote the proposal about it for CL Stunt something like 6 years ago.

    For goodness sake, this happens every two years - no one pays the slightest attention to the rules cycle, despite it being posted, for more than a year, and despite Keith and others keeping everyone informed here, and lots of discussion threads. Then the vote results are announced, and  sometimes the very next day, someone starts complaining that "they changed the rules!" or "they didn't fix the rules!", "or that was stupid they should have said THIS...!" or some variant.

    When the first proposal for Spectra lines was made, and failed (for perfectly obvious reasons), literally the next day someone - who admitted that he had never heard there was a proposal at all and had never made a single peep about the topic - said they "might just as well quit CL". Over the failure of a proposal they had never heard of until afterwards?

    You know why the rules didn't change? Because no one made the slightest effort to change them, or even suggest they be changed, or even have a comment about it either way. If you don't do anything, then nothing is going to happen, or it will happen in a way you don't like.

    I would also note - the alternative to 2.4 GHz is not some other frequency - it is *no RC at all*. To be honest with you, I would support a change to CL General to disallow any form of radio or other EM emissions in CL, as not conforming with the idea of "Control through Lines". I am seriously considering removing the current rule for CL Stunt and just disallowing it completely.

      Brett