>
>And then I read the Rule's
>Article. I usually like satiric
>pieces (like my paragraph above),
>but I have a bad
>feeling that the article isn't
>intended to be humorous!
>
>The author claims that allowing such
>"innovations" will attract more fliers
>into CL. But if I
>wanted to fly this kind
>of CL, I would just
>fly RC--which I still do.
>My attitude is that there
>already is an event close
>to the author's heart--it is
>called RC Pattern. A nice
>event. I personally think
>these type of innovations will
>kill CL PA.
First, the article in question was written by my PAMPA EC colleague Dave Cook, who's been doing this for a long time and has a keen interest in the future of the event. He's entitled to an opinion, and there's no reason to get upset for him expressing it.
Secondly, I agree with you. Nominally C/L models using R/C or other forms of non-line control are best categorized as "hybrid" models, and represent a different animal from what I would personally consider C/L.
When asked for an input to the new FAI rules proposals, I stated as much. My take was that all control input that was "active" during the flight must be supplied through the lines. This doesn't preclude using R/C subcarriers through the lines (ala Fred Cronnewett's gadget), or fuel shutoffs, but it does preclude EM transmissions like the Ztron, or other direct radio/infrared etc links.
I believe that the question was intended for the C/L "General" section. I (and several others) were concerned that inputs could come from someone other than the pilot. For instance, someone could have a radio link to the compression and needle on a T/R model so that it could be set in flight by someone in the pits or crowd. Of course, if it was legal, it could be jammed or spoofed, bringing a whole new area of problems.
The original intent of this change proposal was to unambiguously allow things like uniflow tanks and tuned pipes. Some "rulebook lawyers" with axes to grind were willing to try to make a stink about this issue as "controlling the engine" which is what is diallowed in the current FAI rules. Of course, the argument could be made that a suction tank also controls the engine, making it go faster and faster as the flight goes on, and that a muffler is a device that makes the engine speed vary a lot during flight. The "tuned pipe is illegal" concept was just another asinine attempt to gain an unfair advantage for individuals who couldn't win otherwise, but the crux of the issue was the dreadful and highly ambiguous current rule.
Additionally, I suggested that any control input that primarily effected pitch be mechanically actuated. This avoids the possibility of autopilots. For me, the problem was one of enforcement. I see no intrinsic problem with stability augmentation. But how do you distinguish a stability augmentation system from an autopilot by looking at it?
The distinction was made for the pitch axis. I see no problem at all with a non-interactive electronic devices for roll and/or yaw, like a gyro-controlled rudder. As long as you set and forget it, I see no difference between mechanically, aerodynamically, or electonically actuated trim items. This would allow beyond question any pre-set engine controls like mufflers, pipes,uniflow tanks, suction tanks, magic "fill while inverted tanks" that allow reasonable cutoffs, engine timers, engine sound listeners for retracts, etc.
The idea that a shutoff was illegal was among the most absurd concepts I had ever heard in modelling. I am not aware of anyone who thought that "accuracy of filling one's fuel tank" should have been a major factor in stunt. This is particularly true in FAI and even more so at the WC, since there's rarely any practice spots at all. This give an extreme advantage to the locals, even more so than having the NATS in Muncie every year.
None of my opinions on this were based on "getting" any individual, and I would be astonished if Dave's input was intent on helping any individuals. It's simply a matter of having an opinion on a topic, based on years of experience and a love of the event. Disagreements are fine, as long as no one gets personal.
I think Dave's underlying premise that allowing hybrid models would somehow stimulate a whole bunch of people to fly stunt is false. I do not believe that anything currently in the rules has any effect on the popularity of C/L. The reason that C/L is not rising as fast as we would like it is a combination of societal issues, like lack of local flying sites, lack of interest in airplanes in general, and the lack of percieved value in hobby and craft activities on the part of parents. Changing competition rules will have an effect only when and if there are a huge pool of C/L sport fliers who are being held back from competition by some rules issue. Changing the competition rules in an effort to stimulate wide-spread participation is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I am not sanguine about the possibilities of generateing a large new crop of C/L participants using any method, but I am pretty sure that changing competition rules won't work.
I also don't beleive that disallowing EM links to the model will stifle innovation. Coming up with a workable gyro-controlled yaw stabilizer, closed-loop engine control, closed-loop airspeed control, or an in-flight datalogger or telemetry system would require some very highly innovative and high-tech work.
I would however point out that Dave's examples (needle valve setting, cutoffs, and similar items) are in the rules "gray area" and were in fact used by Windy at the NATS this year. Therefore his example uses *require no rules changes*. Windy's throttle gadget was pretty neat, and it worked like a charm, and frankly, as he used it, it really didn't cross any lines that bothered me. I would be a lot more concerned about the other potential uses, and I think the rules should define "control-line model" pretty specifically.
Best response to this would be for you to write up a short, non-personally directed article for inclusion in the Rules column next time, expressing an opposing view.
