C/L and C/L Stunt rule change status

Just to keep everyone up to speed, from the latest MA (and hopefully without acrimony):

CLG 05-1 (Dixon) (all C/L events) - Control only through the lines - PASSED initial vote - can still have cross-proposals, and can still be voted down in the final vote. Among other things, makes Z-Tron illegal, in line with proposed FAI rules.

I am considering cross-proposing this one to make it more clear, to wit, making it only refer to *in-flight* ground-controllable items like the throttle or elevator. The way it's worded it could be interpreted to outlaw, for example, Rabe rudders, uniflow tanks, or tuned pipes. It's too vague as written, I think, just like the current FAI "no engine control" rule

CLA - 05-1 (Trostle) - Fix 4-leaf geometry to 42 degrees vice 38 - PASSED initial vote.

CLA-05-2 (Trostle) - Raise displacement limit to .92, etc. - PASSED initial vote

CLA-05 -3 (Trostle) - Alter recommended "N" number to "USA" - PASSED initial vote (not that this is not binding in AMA, just a recommendation)

CLA-05-4 (Trostle) - replace current judge's guide - PASSED initial vote

CLA-05-5 (Peabody) - Define BOM as person who glued fuse to wing - FAILED initial vote, dead

CLA-05-06 (Peabody) - same as above, different section of rulebook - FAILED initial vote, dead

CLA-06-7 (Moon) - eliminate BOM - FAILED initial vote, dead

CLA-06-8 (Gardner) - alter line sizes (I think for small models only) - PASSED initial vote

Direct complaints/compliments to C/L stunt CB, not to me!

Just a question...whats does this refer to exactly?

"CLA-05 -3 (Trostle) - Alter recommended "N" number to "USA" - PASSED initial vote (not that this is not binding in AMA, just a recommendation)"

In the current rulebook on page 49 - 2.3 among other things it is "suggested" that the letter "N" be placed in front of your AMA # when the AMA # is on the side of the fuse or on the vertical stab. The way I understand it the change will "suggest" the letters "USA" be placed in front of the numbers instead of "N".

The "N" is international for USA ...correct?

Scott(.92 diplacment?)Riese

Scott, while in the Navy and involved in communications, I learned that back in the 1920's, an organization called I think, the ICO, formed the letter groupings to identify radio staions throughout the world. The A to AZZZ block, N to NZZZ block, w to WZZZ & K to KZZZ blocks were allocated the the United States of America. The G to GZZZ to Great Britain, J to JKKK to Japan, D to DZZZ to Germany (Deutchland) etc. The K block was for commercial radio stations ashore or afloat. Mainly west of the Mississippi river and the W block for the same only east (roughly) of the Mississippi river. The N block was for the US Navy, USMC and USCG. The A block for the US Army and later of course for the USAF. The N was also used for aircraft and is still used up to a point, but the FAI wanted more positive ID, thus USA. Which is required ONLY if you fly in an FAI sanctioned meet, such as the internats or over seas. It is NOT necessary in the USA but an option. I hope this info is not overkill.

Radio call signs. That's why my amateur radio license is K6BSU, obtained in 1952.

>Radio call signs. That's why my amateur radio license is
>K6BSU, obtained in 1952.
>
>Floyd

Mine is N4LN. I once had amateur radio call sign plates with the same number. I was also working on a homebuilt bipe and was wishing I could license it the same way. (Just one of those dumb thoughts while you have nothing else to do with your mind.)

Leonard. Do you have one of these?

>The "N" is international for USA ...correct?
>

N is used as a prefix for the tail number to designate US airplanes. Oddly, despite the obvious connection, the FAI has chosen instead to require the International Olympic Committee country designations for model airplanes, and ours is "USA". This proposal lines up the AMA recommendation with the FAI rules. Same with the .92 rule.

>>The "N" is international for USA ...correct?
>>
>
> N is used as a prefix for the tail number to designate US
>airplanes. Oddly, despite the obvious connection, the FAI
>has chosen instead to require the International Olympic
>Committee country designations for model airplanes, and ours
>is "USA". This proposal lines up the AMA recommendation with
>the FAI rules. Same with the .92 rule.
>
> Brett

And in addition and to further clarify the rule. The suggested "N" designation was in the AMA rules because the FAI rules required at one time the "N" designation on models flown by modelers from the United States. Several years ago, instead of following the international code for full scale aviation, the FAI adopted the three letter designations for all countries following the "nationality abbreviation of the International Olympic Committee".

>The "N" is international for USA ...correct?
>
>Scott(.92 diplacment?)Riese

Not for FAI purposes. The FAI now requires that "USA" preceed the license number for United States entries. They went to a new system of three-letter country identification codes about five years ago. I would guess that the intent is to have our "domestic" markings match the current international convention. Saves re-painting if you decide to fly your AMA stunt ship in FAI competition.

FWIW,

> CLA-06-8 (Gardner) - alter line sizes (I think for small models only) - PASSED initial vote

Does anyone know what this is about? AMA's web site does not have the details.

>Just to keep everyone up to speed, from the latest MA (and
>hopefully without acrimony):

Brett,

Did all the Districts vote?

>>Just to keep everyone up to speed, from the latest MA (and
>>hopefully without acrimony):
>
>Brett,
>
>Did all the Districts vote?

No. Districts 3, 9, and 10 did not vote. 9 because there's no CB rep. It's all on page 161 of the July MA.

The proposed rule change could also outlaw swing weight carbs on racing models and timer operated retracting gears etc on scale or stunt models. I also notice that the scale fraternity didn't get a vote on this! Actually, in reading the existing paragraph in the rule book I feel the proper solution is to rewrite the whole paragraph as it is not well written and only covers elevation control of the models. Now would be the time to make it right.

Don

>The proposed rule change could also outlaw swing weight
>carbs on racing models and timer operated retracting gears
>etc on scale or stunt models. I also notice that the scale
>fraternity didn't get a vote on this! Actually, in reading
>the existing paragraph in the rule book I feel the proper
>solution is to rewrite the whole paragraph as it is not well
>written and only covers elevation control of the models. Now
>would be the time to make it right.
>
>Don

I agree with Don that a complete rewrite of the paragraph is in order.

I think there are good reasons to prohibit remote control devices on our CL stunt airplanes, though I used to think they were a good idea. There was a lively discussion on this matter in the generation of some sweeping change proposals being made for the FAI Aerobatic rules. Among one of the arguments against any kind of remote control, whether by radio or infrared or visible light, is that there would eventually need to be some control of the transmitting devices at a contest. (Yes, this is done in RC, but this is still CL.) I think one of the compelling arguments against such remote devices is that our event is CL Aerobatics; it is not tethered remote control aerobatics.

I also think that a good place to start regarding a possible rewrite of the proposal, as in submitting a cross-proposal, would be to review the wording in the proposed FAI rules change on this matter. The current FAI rules are generally believed to be too restrictive in that throttles are not allowed and all functions must be controled through the lines. (Srict interpretation of these current rules could prohibit the use of uniflow tanks and even disqualify a flight because the engine that quit because it ran out of fuel was not controled through the lines.) The proposed FAI rules on this matter appears to be a significant improvement of the current rules.

Here is the proposed FAI rule change:

"Primary Control Function:
Control of model flying height (the "Primary Control Function") shall only be performed by mechanically-activated flight control elements. This Function must be controlled by a hand-held control handle manipulated by the pilot located on the ground at the centre of the model's Flight Circle. No automatic control of the Primary Control Function shall be permitted."

"Secondary Contro Functions:
The model's Secondary Control Functions may include (but are not limited to:) control of engine/s, landing gear, landing flaps. Secondary Control Functions may be controlled by the pilot via wires/cables, or may function completely automatically. The frequency of electro-magnetic pulses sent through wires/cables shalll not exceed 30 Khz."

"No control of either Primary or Secondary Control functions other than through wires/cables shall be permited."

There is a high probability that this change will be adopted in the FAI rules. I would think it would be prudent to adopt similar standards so that evolving technologies that may be available elsewhere in the world can also be adopted here in the United States. I will be submitting these thoughts to my District Representative on the CL Aerobatics Contest Board.

>I think there are good reasons to prohibit remote control
>devices on our CL stunt airplanes, though I used to think
>they were a good idea. There was a lively discussion on
>this matter in the generation of some sweeping change
>proposals being made for the FAI Aerobatic rules. Among one
>of the arguments against any kind of remote control, whether
>by radio or infrared or visible light, is that there would
>eventually need to be some control of the transmitting
>devices at a contest. (Yes, this is done in RC, but this is
>still CL.) I think one of the compelling arguments against
>such remote devices is that our event is CL Aerobatics; it
>is not tethered remote control aerobatics.

Of course, since the rule is a CL General rule, it will apply to ALL events, not just CLPA.

>"Secondary Contro Functions:
>The model's Secondary Control Functions may include (but are
>not limited to:) control of engine/s, landing gear, landing
>flaps. Secondary Control Functions may be controlled by the
>pilot via wires/cables, or may function completely
>automatically. The frequency of electro-magnetic pulses
>sent through wires/cables shalll not exceed 30 Khz."

What's the standard IF for RC? 455 KHz, right? If so, we should make that the upper limit, since this makes it easier to convert standard RC sets to control-through-the-wires.

I am personnaly upset about the possibility of passing CLG 05-1. I can't help but think that this is an attack on Windy that goes way back in history.

Beyond that, my understanding is that this will affect Scale & Carrier. And how about demonstrations.. would the airplane be covered by insurance?

Scale fliers have been looking for more methods of control for years.

Stunt fliers, in general, probably will not go with the Z-Tron system and expense would not be the issue. It really gives you too much to due in addition to flying the maneuvers. Windy has treated us to one of the "happenings" of the Nationals. I welcome anyone who would try this or any other items.

Brett properly listed other items that could be made illegal, and I will add fuel pumps to the list. These are used in RC, and Paul has used them.. Should we also eliminate the B-17?

Hutch properly points out swing weight carbs, and timed landing gears.. I will add to this wind operated landing gear release with auxillary motors (Harold Price's Crusader had this back in the 60's) and sound operated landing gears.

Windy and Paul have pushed the state of the art to new levels, to all of our enjoyment. We were treated to both at the 2001 NATS.

They have also proven that these devlopements alone are not going to win the Nats.

Let's not ground them!

>I am personnaly upset about the possibility of passing CLG
>05-1. I can't help but think that this is an attack on Windy
>that goes way back in history.

I wouldn't assume that. I have no idea what Tom's motivation might be, but I suggested something pretty similar for FAI a while back, when I had no idea that Z-Tron existed. It boils down to the definition of a Control-line model. And I'm not out to even the score with anybody.

In any event, it's probably just safer to take it on it's merits and not worry about the motivation.

I'm not hard-over on the topic, and I have to admit say that the Z-tron is pretty neat.

>Hutch properly points out swing weight carbs, and timed
>landing gears.. I will add to this wind operated landing
>gear release with auxillary motors (Harold Price's Crusader
>had this back in the 60's) and sound operated landing gears.

As written the proposal is far too vague, because it could be interpreted to mean almost anything. I think at least the existing paragraph has to stay, otherwise, we could easily see servo-controlled pitch axes driven by radio control. That opens up a whole can of worms, like frequency control.

...guess I'm dense... I don't understand the the fundamental objection to the Z-tron concept. It just seems like a good addition to the sport/hobby and a good thing to do. Not just for scale or carrier but also potentially for stunt. It would seem to be benificial to be able to "tweek" the mixture in flight or shut down the engine upon completion of the pattern: fewer "waived off" flights and time over runs to consume the judges time... Appearently the representatives felt they had a good reason for passing this change. Does anybody here know what it is?

>Appearently the representatives felt they had a good reason for
>passing this change. Does anybody here know what it is?

I would also like to know and try to understand the reasoning behind this. Anybody close to Tom that could get an explanation?

I would imagine that a good reason for requesting that the rule be changed/clarified is to prevent the evolution of the event to the point that the "pilot" is simply the guy holding the handle, with a computer or Stephen Hawkings type guiding the entire process through mystical airwaves/rf/ultrasound/laser, whatever.

Even Scott LeFevre wins trophies.

See Ya

Peabody

Your CiC "The academies are really important for a lot of reasons. Obviously, what you learn on the football field is even more important since we're still at war." Washington, D.C., May 16, 2003

>I would imagine that a good reason for requesting that the
>rule be changed/clarified is to prevent the evolution of the
>event to the point that the "pilot" is simply the guy
>holding the handle, with a computer or Stephen Hawkings type
>guiding the entire process through mystical
>airwaves/rf/ultrasound/laser, whatever.

Bear in mind that this proposal is in the general section, so it applies to all events. I doubt that stunt would be significantly effected, but speed and racing could easily devolve to the sort of telemetry/command from the back room, adjusting the engine in the pits, sort of thing used in Formula 1 car racing.

>I am personnaly upset about the possibility of passing CLG
>05-1. I can't help but think that this is an attack on Windy
>that goes way back in history.
>

A personal attack on Windy. Come on Tom. No way. I dont think throttles of any kind should be used in Stunt and I like Windy just fine. I think he is a great guy and alot of fun to be around.

However I dont think controls outside the lines from the pilot to the plane should be allowed, during the flight.

AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO WITH WINDY.

However I think anything else that can be used on the plane that is not controlled by the pilot after take off should be allowed. Such as some of the things you mentioned. Like retracts and stuff that is controlled by things out of the pilots hands after take off. I also think shutoffs should be used also as a way to speed up the event and get the judges out of the sun sooner.

I think CONTROL LINE means just that. Controlled by the lines. But it could be opened up to things the pilot has no control over after take off. Like pumps and other various electronics as it stands now.

I do think it should be written in there that this is for CL stunt only in competition situations. That would exclude all other forms of CL from having to conform.

Saying this was an attack on Windy or implying it was just fuels the fires as people walk away and wonder why someone would attack Windy.

If people are attacking each other through rules proposal changes then they should really consider getting some help, it isnt that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. Yeah it means alot to us CL guys but is it worth it to attack someone through rules proposal or some other means. All I hear is how great stunt people are. All I have experienced is how great stunt people are. If someone is willing to attack through a rules proposal then they really dont fit the mold now do they? I was fith in the Nation last year and outside my family and CL friends that means zip! If I were fith in the Nation on the NASCAR circuit now that is a different story.

Although we can pretty well agree that the Z-tron doesn't provide a competitive advantage to CL Stunt (and therefore would not be protested), I doubt that the same would be said about Carrier.

Clearly, a WIRELESS throttle control could be an advantage in Carrier, where elimination of one of the control lines would translate to reduced line drag and higher speed.

Of course, the Z-tron would be the cat's meow for Scale, for multiplexed flight features. (Getting such controls to work "over the lines" is a minor miracle.)

I see the merit of the argument that wireless controls violate the "spirit" of control line. I am not surprised by an assertion that since it wasn't explicitly excluded by the rules, it must be legal by default.

Fact is, we need an EXPLICIT rules statement about such devices (as well as autonomous controls such as gear drops and fuel shutoffs) for CL.

I'd like to see a similar explicit statement about the application of control line diameter rules based on the 4-stroke 60% displacement handicap. If we need .018s to fly an LA .46 but not a .65-sized 4-stroke, with no regard for model weight, I'd like to see it explicity stated in the rules. (I promise to accept the rule and stop whining.)

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge where there is no river." -Nikita Krushchev

>
>I'd like to see a similar explicit statement about the
>application of control line diameter rules based on the
>4-stroke 60% displacement handicap. If we need .018s to fly
>an LA .46 but not a .65-sized 4-stroke, with no regard for
>model weight, I'd like to see it explicity stated in the
>rules. (I promise to accept the rule and stop whining.)

Proposal 05-02 which increases the displacement limit to .92 (15cc) as in the FAI rules also includes a revised table for line sizes to acommodate the the larger engines. (These line sizes are applicable to only our AMA rules and are "similar" to the existing table as well as correcting a typographical error in the current line size table.) The proposal also removes the 4-stroke adjustment factor as applied to the CL PA event. In other words, this proposal places a 4-stroke 60 in the same line size requirements as a 2-stroke 60.

It does seem to me that pilot control of a CL airplane should be down the lines. Running electricity or a radio signal down the lines strikes me as perfectly OK. I'm not sure what I think about autonomous devices, such as a timer, on the airplane and not controlled by the pilot during the flight. I have a several-year old article in AMI on radio controled tethered flight, also one from an old Aeromodeller on tethered freeflight. I may build one of the latter, but not for CL competition.

Just kicking this idea around, wondering if it would work, or if it would be advantageous. Supposing you locate a transmitter on the ground, at the edge of the circle exactly downwind. And have a doppler shift sensing receiver in the airplane. The receiver increases throttle moving away from the receiver (going up, or upwind), and decreases the throttle moving towards it (down, or downwind). Hmmmmmmmmmm...

How big do the lines get?

>How big do the lines get?

If the question is "What is the size specified in the proposal to increase the maximim displacement for for CL stunt models to .92 cu in (15cc)?", the proposal contained a revised line size/pull test chart.

A summary of the proposed chart shows that .014 solids and .018 stranded lines are required for engines from .4601 to .7628 displacement (7.539 to 12.500cc) with a pull test of 45 pounds. (This is the line size requirements now for .4601 to the current limit of .65 engines.) The proposed chart also shows a requirement for .018 solids and .021 stranded lines for engines from .7628 to .9153 displacement (12.501 to 15.000cc) with a pull test of 50 pounds.

Jets and turbines, which are also proposed in the rule change would have the same line/pull test requirements as these larger engines.

The proposed line chart also shows a maximum model weight of 3.5 KG (7.72 pounds) which is the same as the FAI proposed change. The current AMA rulebook states that "There is no maximum model weight." for CL PA models.

The proposal also includes a statement that "There is no adjustment allowance for the swept volume displacement of four-stroke cycle engines as specified in Paragraph 11.1, General Control Line rules."

The B-17 has fuel pressure reducers and regulators, but no fuel pumps. It complies with current FAI rules.

I guess the bladder doesn't count.

Re: the CLA-08 line size change. How might one find out the specifics?

>Re: the CLA-08 line size change. How might one find out the
>specifics?

A complete copy of any rule proposal can be obtained from the AMA. Also, each District representative on the CL Aerobatics Contest Board should have a complete set of rules proposals.

Keith,

I heard somewhere that they(FAI) might start using the new engine sizes right away instead of waiting the three years. as a trial basis if it looks to pass with flying colors. Have you heard this and will we do the same.

I ask this becaue I want to know if I can use a 65 at the TT this year.

>Keith,
>
>I heard somewhere that they(FAI) might start using the new
>engine sizes right away instead of waiting the three years.
>as a trial basis if it looks to pass with flying colors.
>Have you heard this and will we do the same.
>
>I ask this becaue I want to know if I can use a 65 at the TT
>this year.
Since it's jus the team trials, I would guess that this is more of a question for Warren and maybe Wynn. The team can be chosen any way the AMA wants.

I would be *very* surprised indeed if the W/C used the new rules.

>Keith,
>
>I heard somewhere that they(FAI) might start using the new
>engine sizes right away instead of waiting the three years.
>as a trial basis if it looks to pass with flying colors.
>Have you heard this and will we do the same.
>
>I ask this becaue I want to know if I can use a 65 at the TT
>this year.

Hello Doug,

Good question and I can understand why there might be some confusion on this matter.

The FAI rules have not changed. There has been a significant effort in drafting up a proposal that will make some sweeping changes in the FAI rules, but this has not yet been finalized, even as a proposal and it will be some time before the proposal is acted on.

The organizers of an FAI World Championship do have some flexibility in the format that is used for a particular contest. Plans are underway to use a two-circle qualification procedure at the 2004 WC in Muncie. This will be an oppurtunity for the United States to show how a multi-circle qualification can be held, giving each contestant ample opportunity to demonstrate his capability while at the same time not putting the meet officials, in particular the judges, under excessive work loads.

Now to answer your question, unless something develops that I am totally unaware of, the current FAI rules limiting engine displacement to 10cc (0.61 cu in) for two stoke motors and 15cc (0.92 cu in) for four stroke motors will remain in effect for the 2004 WCs which will be the same for our Team Trials over Labor Day weekend.

(This brings up the interesting point that the FAI rules ALREADY allow up to 15cc four stroke motors. The proposed FAI rule change and the similar proposed AMA rule change will allow ANY engine up to 15cc displacement. However, there are some in other countries that are strongly against the FAI proposal as well as those in this country that are against the similar AMA change proposal.)

>Now to answer your question, unless something develops that
>I am totally unaware of, the current FAI rules limiting
>engine displacement to 10cc (0.61 cu in) for two stoke
>motors and 15cc (0.92 cu in) for four stroke motors will
>remain in effect for the 2004 WCs which will be the same for
>our Team Trials over Labor Day weekend.

I would also point out that there is no requirement to pick the team using the FAI rules. It seems like a good idea, and it's generally done that way, but there's no hard and fast requirement to pick the team any particular way. In actual fact, at the last TT, the requirement for the "USA" on the model was waived. Minor rule, but it was deviated from.

In fact, the team could simply be appointed by the AMA if they felt like it. This happened about 15 years ago with the FAI Glider team. They had some controversy at their team trials, and the then-AMA president cancelled the results and simply decreed the team members. Who were, coincidentally, the top three at the disputed trials.

Point is, the team selection process is up to each country's national aero club, and it can be anything they want. I think using the rules that exist is probably the best way, but there's nothing that really forces it.