Electric Control line Stunt

I am wondering if anyone on this forum has approached electric conversions. I think that there are timers out there. It seems like the coming thing to me. Thanks.

You might be on to something

Doesn't a timer give an Electric F2B flyer an unfair advantage over glow engine powered plane? If an electic can have a timed cutoff then a glo engine should be allowed an electronic or mechanical timed cutoff as well.

Warren Leadbeatter
Port Stephens - Australia
AUS-14782

Right, they should just size the batteries for 7 minutes, like my gas tanks. Fair is fair.

This might be true, but without the ability to use a timer, electric C/L would be next to impossible.
Those in charge of the event had enough foresight to see that electric has to be encouraged. There are far too many good reasons to do so.
Besides, getting a stunter to stop within 8 minutes is not exactly rocket science. 7 gets a bit trickier, but only just.
Pat MacKenzie
edit - Unless I am wrong, reading the rules in post 5 of this thread:
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=258365&mesg_id=258365&page=
shutoffs are now allowed in F2B.

Warren,
Engine shutoffs for IC powered F2B models have been allowable (again) since January 2006. Since F2B is what we fly in Oz, they are OK for us.

They were re-introduced for precisely the reasons you've mentioned.

>Doesn't a timer give an Electric F2B flyer an unfair
>advantage over glow engine powered plane?

Nope. It's the other way round. Not allowing an Electric F2B flyer to use a timer will give a glow engine powered plane an unfair advantage over an electric one...

I was one of the four pilots on the WCh in Spain that used electrics.
I had an effective brake that stopped the prop. The controller felt a bit sluggish in it's response, hence the need for a 3% powerboost before the square eights. We're working on improving the proploading-response right now. The timer is stand-alone and has no need for a notebook or such for setting the values. It's display shows clearly what's going on....

After 40 years of using IC engines, I tried something different. And even with the set-up being far from perfect I still liked the handling better. As things look now, I won't go back to IC and if I wouldn't be allowed to fly electric anymore because of rules changes, I'd quit altogether...

I for me like the lighter planes better than the big heavy ones. The max. line lenght feels to short for them to me.

Nice to see that all four of us were using a different approach.
Kim had the high-power option. Bob and I had a near identical set-up where I opted for less revs on a higher pitched prop. Willi was somewhere in between but using the smallest batteries of us all.

Hello Bruno,

Thank you for your informative post. Hearing from WC flyers like you and Kim is always a big help to us electric CL flyers.

Is your timer a unit that we can buy? I like the idea of it having the "display" you mentioned. Many of us are using the French JMP unit. It works great, but we are always interested in seeing what else is available and trying it out. .... TIA for your help on this.

BTW: I also race F-18s and you Dutch always kick butt in this class. I need to move there for awhile and take some sailing lessons from your expert countymen!



>>Doesn't a timer give an Electric F2B flyer an unfair
>>advantage over glow engine powered plane?
>
>Nope. It's the other way round. Not allowing an Electric F2B
>flyer to use a timer will give a glow engine powered plane an
>unfair advantage over an electric one...
>
>I was one of the four pilots on the WCh in Spain that used
>electrics.
>I had an effective brake that stopped the prop. The controller
>felt a bit sluggish in it's response, hence the need for a 3%
>powerboost before the square eights. We're working on
>improving the proploading-response right now. The timer is
>stand-alone and has no need for a notebook or such for setting
>the values. It's display shows clearly what's going on....
>
>After 40 years of using IC engines, I tried something
>different. And even with the set-up being far from perfect I
>still liked the handling better. As things look now, I won't
>go back to IC and if I wouldn't be allowed to fly electric
>anymore because of rules changes, I'd quit altogether...
>
>I for me like the lighter planes better than the big heavy
>ones. The max. line lenght feels to short for them to me.
>
>Nice to see that all four of us were using a different
>approach.
>Kim had the high-power option. Bob and I had a near identical
>set-up where I opted for less revs on a higher pitched prop.
>Willi was somewhere in between but using the smallest
>batteries of us all.
>
>
>
>

>I am wondering if anyone on this forum has approached
>electric conversions. I think that there are timers out there.
>It seems like the coming thing to me. Thanks.

Nobody is answeering your main question, but, yes, there has been considerable development in electric stunt. There have been several competing at our Nats in the last several years, and Bob Hunt used one to make the world team and competed with it as one of several using electric at the world's.

Batteries are the biggest breakthrough in recent years and keeping up with this can be a bit expensive. But, yes, they work--and they will keep getting better.

This 'lectric stunt smacks of gas turbines at Indy.

They were legal for a long time, but nobody was able to put one together until 1966. They finally got smart and just banned 'em in 68 (or so). Bottom line: they would have changed the whole deal.

Fiddling with piston engines was (and still is) a major key element of the sport. The people who had supported piston engines since 1910 had some "say" in the matter. Ulimately, piston engines improved to the point where they can easily go 230 MPH, and they have to reduce displacement all the time to keep 'em under that limit.

The gas turbine engine would have made 100% reliable driving at top speed a trivial pursuit for the few who could afford it.

Sort of like electic stunt or making a carrier job back up with sliding leadouts.

I believe it's a done deal my friend. Electric is here to stay. In AMA RC Pattern, electric planes have been a major (if not dominant) presence for years. Actually, I think the balance between IC and Electric is pretty even. So far IC engines maintain an overall weight advantage, although shifting battery packs, permits more mass in the center of the plane, easing direction change.

Electric packages also need big time tuning skills. Prop, electric outputs, battery packs... Not a plug and play system by any means.

>>Electric packages also need big time tuning skills. Prop, electric outputs, battery packs... Not a plug and play system by any means<<

And when they are closer to this, I'll probably try it. I have nothing at all against electrics, but as you note, they are still far from a plug and play system for a competitive plane. I guess I'm not in the mood to be a pioneer this time.

>They were legal for a long time, but nobody was able to put
>one together until 1966. They finally got smart and just
>banned 'em in 68 (or so). Bottom line: they would have
>changed the whole deal.

>The gas turbine engine would have made 100% reliable driving
>at top speed a trivial pursuit for the few who could afford
>it.

Interesting that the big unlimited power boats have all gone to turbines - maybe because Merlins were getting awfully difficult to find and maintain. I wonder if the power boats are more reliable these days than in the piston engine days.

>Interesting that the big unlimited power boats have all gone
>to turbines - maybe because Merlins were getting awfully
>difficult to find and maintain. I wonder if the power boats
>are more reliable these days than in the piston engine days.

I went to an unlimited event a couple years ago. Even with turbines, they only had about 50% reliability. The realities of handling big boats at high speed kick in, and turbines aren't much faster than the old WWII airplane engines.

For a long time after WWII, the surplus engines were "affordable", at least to mulit-millinare sportsmen and big companies. New gas turbines are exponentially more expenisve, and even the well-healed sponsers couldn't afford to step up. Everybody was better off with the V-12's.

Word on the street was that if you dug hard enough into the 1966 Indy car or a turbine-powered boat, you' find a crooked Army maintenace sargent. The helicopter engines were written off as totally destroyed, but in fact only slightly damaged (if damaged at all).

There's an electric section at Stunthanger. Mike Palko frequently checks in. He developed the first viable electric planes to fly the pattern. Bob Hunt was inspired by Mike's showing at the NATs. Mike worked with Bob, I believe, on Bob's World Competition plane. Dean Papas is the moderator of the electric section at Stunthanger. Dean's also been instrumental in perfecting Bob Hunt's electric plane.

I assume Leonard's o.k. with me spreading this information. Besides inherent advantages of electric systems for stunt (there are of course liabilities as well) there's a need for quieter CL aircraft at fields where IC noise is an issue.

I'd be very interested to correspond with anyone knowledgeable on electric C/L stunt. I'm by profession a power electronics guy, but don't know the inns and outs of electric C/L at all - things like motors, props, is a geared motor essebtial, best batteries etc. etc.

What I'm thinking of is something like an electric Peacemaker or Ares

Charles

Hi Charles

There was a guy who flew an Electric Nobler in F2B Advanced at the recent Australian Nats. It went well and he apparently didn't have a timer. He (Robert Edgerton I think) had it all worked out so that it would go for just under 7 mins.

Here's a good link I Googled the other day about Electic Stunters. it has some good info at the bottom of the page.

http://www.iroquois.free-online.co.uk/stunt.htm

Also I notice Brodak now sell Brushless Motors, Lithium Batteries and Controller/Timer Switches for their ARF Electric Superclown. Not cheap though, the whole setup will cost you around $300 USD.

Cheers
Warren Leadbeatter
Port Stephens - Australia
AUS-14782

:-) I just purchased the complete Brodak Electric Super Clown, lots of money for a small plane but now I can go out flying and I will not smell of caster oil.Now I will have to ask Mike Palco as to what prop to use as Brodak's is out of stock . Is the Ekectric 9/4 different from a Winsor 9/4 ? See YA NEA [photo not recovered: devil.gif]

At the AMA show in California a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to talk with Bob Hunt about electric stunt. The impression I came away with is not only is stunt viable but unless it is banned (which I do not advocate) it will become the dominate power source for control line pattern.

Let me give a few reasons.
1. Reproducible power for any circumstance at the flip of a switch. Pick any condition you can imagine insert the parameters into an application running on your notebook computer attached to the flight control module and you can upload the profile for whatever the conditions are. If they change you can change the profile.

2. Never have to worry about your flight being too long or too short. No more matching fuel tank/fuel to a time limit.

3. Load sensing that will control the power delivered to the prop regardless of which way the plane is pointed. This will go beyond 4-2-4 it will give a variable rpm range with the plane sensing the situation and adjusting for it.

4. LiPoly batteries are not the end of the development cycle for power, Bob mentioned batteries coming down the line that will provide near equal power storage to a tank of fuel.

5. Planes can be designed with electric in mind. That is, much of the weight required to support the pounding an internal combustion engine delivers can be eliminated. No need for fuel proofing the plane, epoxie would become a thing of the past. As would the extra coats of fuel proof dope to protect he finish. Electric simply put can be built lighter, and how many times on this forum have you heard lighter is better.

There are more reasons I'm sure but talking to Bob Hunt convinced me that nothing short of a complete ban by PAMPA will prevent the ultimate avalanche of electric into the competition arena for control line pattern. As each new piece of hardware and software becomes available the speed of the transition will pick up. If you have any doubts take a look at what is going on in RC patter. They are now flying 1/3 scale pattern ships on batteries in competition.
Andy

(clip)

> ...nothing short of a complete ban by PAMPA
>will prevent the ultimate avalanche of electric into the
>competition arena for control line pattern.

(clip)

>Andy
>


Why do you even suggest that there would be a ban and why would you suggest that PAMPA could ban electrics? PAMPA does not make the rules for CLPA.

If anything, the organization within PAMPA is promoting electrics as demonstrated by the support from the organization and agreement within the AMA Aerobatics Contest Board to adjust the line sizes and pull test for electrics to be more in line with comparable IC powered models (a significant improvement) and the incorporation of electrics into the CL Precision Aerobatics rules section of the AMA rulebook instead of leaving CL Electric Precision Aerobatics as a separate event. These changes are in the AMA rulebook as of January 1. (Event 608 for CL Electric Precision Aerobatics has been eliminated since the provisions for electrics are now in the CL Precision Aerobatics section of the rulebook.)

I believe that electric is THE way to go for model flying in the future as we move into less and less tolerant world. Not even the most dyspeptic old fogey colonel could claim to be disturbed by the "noise" of an electric - which is mainly prop noise.

Charles

I will assume your comment was made in jest. Otherwise you are completely wrong about my feelings towards electric and I resent any suggestion otherwise. Some people who just read what you wrote might understand something different. It was my proposal that relaxed the line requirements and the pull test for electrics starting this January 1 as well as eliminating the separate electric only rules from the rulebook. However, there is at least one person who thinks I was trying to "torpedo the event" with my proposals.

Perhaps there is a cultural misunderstanding here. Charles, I believe, is British. The intolerant dyspeptic old fogey colonel is a classic British character. Charles probably did not know that Keith is an old fogey colonel, although perhaps not dyspeptic.

Howard Rush

Hmm dyspeptic, hmm, fuel cell technology?

>Perhaps there is a cultural misunderstanding here. Charles,
>I believe, is British. The intolerant dyspeptic old fogey
>colonel is a classic British character. Charles probably did
>not know that Keith is an old fogey colonel, although perhaps
>not dyspeptic.
>
>Howard Rush

Howard,

Thanks for trying to clear the air. I have been called a lot of things but I had not yet been called an old dyspeptic fogey until Charles' recent post above.

Keith,
In no way did I suggest a ban on electric, my point was short of a ban there is no way to stop electric from becomming the dominate force in controline pattern. Personally I think bans in general are a negative in any activity with the exception of drugs. Also making it a seperate contest event is in effect a an admission that electric has advantages that cannot be equaled by IC engines.

Electric cannot make a poor performer a great performer, but it can take away the issues with power. This I believe will lead to more parity in the control pattern. My personal opinion is that is positive.

One more thing Bob Hunt mentioned, his schedule leaves little time for practice. With electric he can go to the local school at 7:00am and get some fights in without upsetting anybody with engine noise.
Andy

(clip)

>Personally I think bans
>in general are a negative in any activity with the exception
>of drugs. Also making it a seperate contest event is in
>effect a an admission that electric has advantages that cannot
>be equaled by IC engines.

(clip)

>Andy

First. I think it should be made abundantly clear that nobody has been suggesting any "bans" on electrics. To continue commenting on it as you have in your last two posts might suggest otherwise.

Second. By what you wrote also suggests that Electric PA is being made into a separate event. Nothing could be further from the facts.

The AMA rules have just ELIMINATED Electric PA from the rulebook as a separate event because provisions for electric PA have been rolled into the CLPA rules based on my proposals. There are a lot of people that perhaps still do not realize that there WAS a separate event in the rulebook for electric PA. Furthermore, the FAI F2B rules clearly support electrics in the FAI F2B Aerobatics rulebook.

Am I being too sensitive about this. Perhaps not. I have been accused before of trying to "torpedo" the electric event.

Keith
I would say we both agree on the issue of a ban. There is no ban, nor should there be one.

But you have not responded to my basic point that electric is the future because it offers a number of advantages that are just now being exploited.

I would say if it were not for the cost of getting started there would be a whole lot more electric planes at the field.
Andy

>
>Keith
>I would say we both agree on the issue of a ban. There is no
>ban, nor should there be one.
>
>But you have not responded to my basic point that electric is
>the future because it offers a number of advantages that are
>just now being exploited.

(clip)

>Andy

Agreed that there is no ban. In the future, please do not even suggest that PAMPA might support one.

I did not know that a response was necessary to the fact that electrics offer advantages. In certain regards, they do. And it has already been discussed several times on these boards that rhe FAI F2B rules actually favor the electrics over the IC engines by allowing active power output control systems. For right now, it is correct to say that is not an oversight by the FAI rulesmakers which has also been discussed.

Right now, technology is still evolving with the electrics regarding batteries and control. Comparing electrics to IC, one has advantages over the other. That picture is changing and will continue to change. You can still choose what you want.

Andy,

But the primary reason, in my mind, it the loss of flying sites. People are just less tolerant of noise in this country. Unless you live in a place where you can put a flying site far away from people. Electrics will likely become the power system of choice regardlss if it is really "better".

Keith,

As Howard said, indeed a cultural clash! I never dreamed of you, much less as a dyspeptic old colonel. We have 'em here - complaing for the sake of complaining! You probably have much the same sort of thing in the States?

Cheers

Charles

We have 'em here -
>complaing for the sake of complaining! You probably have much
>the same sort of thing in the States?
>
>Cheers
>
>Charles

Yes, They're called talk radio hosts.

regards,
Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

This rant about electrics taking over from IC engines reminds me of the people that said the small block Chevvy and pushrod motors would be gone by now. Since they were and are totally wrong it only makes sense to apply the same conclusions to this controversy. Be a long time before they beat the Vettes' in GT class, same thing with electrics. Be a long time before they are a staple of the stunt kingdom. RJ

The small block is all but gone.
Only made now for marine and racing applications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Small-Block_engine#Introduction
Newer motors of similar displacement are not "small blocks".
Pat MacKenzie

>The small block is all but gone.
>Only made now for marine and racing applications.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Small-Block_engine#Introduction
>Newer motors of similar displacement are not "small
>blocks".
>Pat MacKenzie


Yeah but though not dyseptic, or a Colonel, Whitely is an old fart.
Just because Chevy doesn't make it anymore doesn't mean anything to Whitely because he only reads after market hot rod rag's about old stuff anyway!
(He does want a ride in the Mig 15 though, so at least he is OK with tubines. This would make him way more progressive than AMA 2 1 blah blah blah Paul!)

Chris...

>I am wondering if anyone on this forum has approached
>electric conversions. I think that there are timers out there.
>It seems like the coming thing to me. Thanks.

As a direct answer to your question: YES, YES, and YES.

Many of us have converted IC CL planes to electric. My Brodak P-40 is an excellent example of a great flying electric CL model. It does a very good pattern in calm or wind. And my new electric Brodak Vector 40 will be even better.

I use the "Turnkey" system that has been well tested by Will Moore, and others. This system works flawlessly. It is easy to buy, it is easy to install, and easy to use. I just push a button, walk out to the handle and FLY!

The inexpensive props we are using are giving us great performance. But, as always in our CL hobby: "the search for the PERFECT prop continues!"

This Turnkey system is winning in Advanced contests, and it is similar to the one used by Bob Hunt at the Worlds. But this system is also great for the sport flyer who wants to enjoy the many advantages of this quiet, clean, and user friendly system.

I am now able to fly quietly in the small park that is a 2 minute walk from my home, instead of driving 50 min. to the club flying site.

Shockingly: Electric power is NOT any more expensive than an equal quality, muffled or piped, IC system. In electric we just buy our "fuel" (AKA batteries) in advance. Our batteries are actually less expensive per flight than wet fuel.

In my experience, the wt. of Elec is approx. 3 to 5 oz (net) more than an IC muffled system. (Please don't forget to count the wt. of the IC tank and wet fuel, and the approx. 2 to 3 oz. of wt removed from the front when you campare the two system wts.)

Converting most present CL ARFs/Kits is easy and will give good results when built stock. (I highly recomend the Brodak P-40, and Vector 40 for elec.) For better results they can be lightened with a little extra effort. The front ends, built for a shaking IC eng., can easily be lightened. The ideal will be CL planes designed to take advantage of our smooth Electric systems with their better wt. distribution. A good example of this is Kim's beautiful "SHOCKWAVE" Electric plane flown by him, representing Canada, at the Worlds. My guess is that more "dedicated" Electric designs will be coming very soon.

Please be gentle, my Flamesuit is at the cleaners!

If someone wants more details, please feel free to contact me "off forum".

The AMA and FAI rules czars have done everything they can think of to jam electrics down our throat.

*** NO LIMIT on motor size.

*** Cheating on pull test by weighing without battery.

*** Legalizing timers, which gas engines don't need, but electrics do.

----------------

In the next rules cycle the time limit will be shortened to six minutes to better match battery size.

Square Eights, Hourglass, and Overhead Eight will be deleted because they put underpowered, overweight electrics at a disadvantage.

A 70 dB limit will be imposed, with continous monitoring.

Further changes to follow, if any piston engines survive.

>The AMA and FAI rules czars have done everything they can
>think of to jam electrics down our throat.
>
>*** NO LIMIT on motor size.
>
>*** Cheating on pull test by weighing without battery.
>
>*** Legalizing timers, which gas engines don't need, but
>electrics do.
>
>----------------
>
>In the next rules cycle the time limit will be shortened to
>six minutes to better match battery size.
>
>Square Eights, Hourglass, and Overhead Eight will be
>deleted becasue they put underpowered, overweight electics at
>a disadvantage.
>
>A 70 dB limit will be imposed, with continous
>monitoring.
>
>Further changes to follow, if any piston engines survive.
>

Paul,

If you are trying to be funny, you are not doing a very good job. Why do you want to distort reality to express whatever problem you have with electrics.

The AMA has had Electric Precision Aerobatics as a separate event in the rulebook for years. A change was made to incorporate electrics in the regular PA rulebook and incorporate realistic/reasonable pull test and lines sizes for electrics in the process. Nothing was done to "jam electrics down our throats" any more than what was already in the rulebook. Your characterization is misleading at best.

FAI rules do have a limit on energy available to the motors. The AMA rules have not seen this to yet be a necessity. After all, there has been an allowance for electrics in the AMA rulebook for years.

Who is cheating on the weighing for pull test. The AMA rules require the batteries to be weighed. The FAI rules are being reviewed regarding this matter.

What is wrong with timers being legal? You seem to indicate that there is some injustice for legal timers. They always have been for AMA. The FAI rules recently have been changed to allow timers. So what is the problem?

Why do you suggest that there will be a change in the time limit. Have you not seen the current state-of-the-art electric equipment where power thoughout the pattern is not a problem?

Have you not seen a state-of-the-art electric handle any of the maneuvers with ease? The time is coming that electrics and their power control systems will have a definite advantage over IC.

Noise limits are already being imposed in many areas. Many flying fields have been lost because of noise. However, you are more than overboard on your suggestion that a rules change is coming with a 70dB limit.

Timers take a lot of the sport out of making a four-engine stunt bomber.

Howard Rush

>Timers take a lot of the sport out of making a four-engine
>stunt bomber.
>
>Howard Rush

Very true, and for one, two, and three engines airplanes as well.

The timer-issue is a lot more ONE-SIDED than it appears on the surface.

Electrics already have 'em, built into the controller, no extra cost, no extra weight.

Gas engine guys will need to design, build, and buy a whole new system. More weight and complexity.

---------------------------------

This NOT intended as a joke. I, for one, have no interest in climbing onto the "electric bandwagon". It's time for gas-engine flyers and producers to step up before it's too late.

This electric power grab is not natural evolution. It's greased by some one-sided rules concessions.

>>Timers take a lot of the sport out of making a
>four-engine
>>stunt bomber.
>>
>>Howard Rush
>
>Very true, and for one, two, and three engines airplanes as
>well.
>
>The timer-issue is a lot more ONE-SIDED than it appears on the
>surface.
>
>Electrics already have 'em, built into the controller, no
>extra cost, no extra weight.
>
>Gas engine guys will need to design, build, and buy a whole
>new system. More weight and complexity.
>
>---------------------------------
>
>This NOT intended as a joke. I, for one, have no interest in
>climbing onto the "electric bandwagon". It's time
>for gas-engine flyers and producers to step up before it's too
>late.
>
>This electric power grab is not natural evolution. It's
>greased by some one-sided rules concessions.
>

Let's back up a bit.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion regardless how it might sound to other people.

"Gas guys" really do not need a timer to shut their engines down unless they feel some additional "impression points" might be gained by doing so. Experienced FAI IC flyers can consistently shut their models down before 7 minutes without resorting to any kind of timer. To have an overrun in AMA competition with our 8 minute limit is almost inexcusable and is justly penalized by loss of pattern and landing points. Please explain why "Gas guys" will need to use a timer.

FAI changed the entire power plant spectrum for F2B for a number of reasons, one of the main reasons being to promote models that are more quiet to operate in the hope to gain or save flying sites. Our AMA rules were changed to use the same power plant provisions as the FAI primarily so that our US flyers would not be required to operate their otherwise restricted normal AMA equipment at a disadvantage when competing in FAI competition. If that means that electrics might someday enjoy an advantage for the way the FAI rules are written, that is something that will have to be accepted regardless of the opinions that might be held by a few individuals. If there is too much of a one-sided advantage in the future for either system, that will have to be addressed at that time by the rules makers. Keep in mind that the IC displacement was increased to the same limit for 2-stroke as well as 4-stroke engines.

There certainly is no requirement for anybody to climb on the "electric bandwagon". But what are you suggesting "gas-engine flyers and producers" should do "before it's too late"?

Who knows what evolustionary processes might take place in the next several years as the technology for electrics progresses? For what we do here in the States, there might be a need to again segregate the electrics from the IC engines based on whatever support evolves for the respective classes.

Some people did not like tuned pipes either and still do not. Maybe they too were not and possibly are still not "natural evolution".

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, we cannot simply watch the rest of the world evolve to new and possibly better power systems and restrict what we use here in the States. Saving flying sites is also a priority here as well as in Europe. For myself, I will take a long time, if ever, before I invest any money or effort in any kind of electric PA powerplant.

Guys, We are all different and we all have to be aware and tolerant that some people just don't like change. I remember when I was racing Postie bikes back in the 90s and we all used to use petrol (gasoline).

Then one day a couple of guys turned up with bikes that ran on methanol (Shell A) and they blew away the rest of the field.

There were a bunch of guys who said "ban them", while there were others who said let's have "two classes", ie petrol and methanol and there were others who said "ah, who cares, we are here for the fun of it all".

Anyway nothing was done about it and eventually all the competetive bikes began using methanol. The die hard pertol guys left and went away to form their own separate much smaller group and we didnt see them again. A few of them eventually came back.

These days we have a mix of petrol and methanol and most times the methanol bikes win, but this is mainly because they also have the best riders.

I guess what I am trying to say is, the arguements over electric and IC will go on regardless of what anyone says, and there will be some who hate them, others who love them and others who just dont care either way.

At the end of the day, the person holding the handle is the one that matters. He/she is the one with the skills to make and fly the plane into the winners circle regardless of what powers it.

Regards,
Warren Leadbeatter
Port Stephens - Australia
AUS-14782

>>Timers take a lot of the sport out of making a
>four-engine
>>stunt bomber.
>>
>>Howard Rush
>
>Very true, and for one, two, and three engines airplanes as
>well.
>
>The timer-issue is a lot more ONE-SIDED than it appears on the
>surface.
>
>Electrics already have 'em, built into the controller, no
>extra cost, no extra weight.
>
>Gas engine guys will need to design, build, and buy a whole
>new system. More weight and complexity.
>
>---------------------------------
>
>This NOT intended as a joke. I, for one, have no interest in
>climbing onto the "electric bandwagon". It's time
>for gas-engine flyers and producers to step up before it's too
>late.
>
>This electric power grab is not natural evolution. It's
>greased by some one-sided rules concessions.
>
>
>

This is not intended as a joke either,
Whatever you're smoking put it down and walk away, because you're coming off as a raving lunatic. For gawd sakes man it's an electric motor not a rip in the time space continuim.

regards,
a gas-engine flyer

>The timer-issue is a lot more ONE-SIDED than it appears on the
>surface.
The only thing ONE-SIDED here seems to be your rant against allowing people to use their choice of powerplant.

>Electrics already have 'em, built into the controller, no
>extra cost, no extra weight.
Wrong, seems you've never seen one, let alone helped develop one and put it to work at a W.Ch....

>This NOT intended as a joke. I, for one, have no interest in
>climbing onto the "electric bandwagon".
Then don't.

>It's time for gas-engine flyers and producers to step up before it's
>too late.
Too late for what?

>This electric power grab is not natural evolution. It's
>greased by some one-sided rules concessions.
I, considering myself a sportsman with honourable intentions, feel seriously offended by this remark.

>The AMA and FAI rules czars have done everything they can
>think of to jam electrics down our throat.
>
>*** NO LIMIT on motor size.
>
>*** Cheating on pull test by weighing without battery.
>
>*** Legalizing timers, which gas engines don't need, but
>electrics do.
>
>----------------
>
>In the next rules cycle the time limit will be shortened to
>six minutes to better match battery size.
>
>Square Eights, Hourglass, and Overhead Eight will be
>deleted because they put underpowered, overweight electrics at
>a disadvantage.
>
>A 70 dB limit will be imposed, with continous
>monitoring.
>
>Further changes to follow, if any piston engines survive.

Uh, no.

Brett

I wonder why people are getting so excited over this? I don't recall it happening when electrics first became viable for RC, though I wasn't doing much flying then.

I have always loved IC engines and most especially the classics like the Rossis, Cox Olympic, K&B series 61 etc and spending a week with Paul Bugl is something I'll never forget.

However, I do fly electric and it has many advantages, the most important to me being cleanliness and quietness. The sound of our motors tends to enrage some - though they seem to accept traffic noise, motor mowers, hedge trimmers, 2-stroke trail bikes etc.

As I see it energy denisity in the batteries is still the limiting factor, though the new batteries have made enormous strides. We are looking at a young technology as compared with IC engines. Think back to the pathetic power output and general performance of the motors of the late 30's and 40's as compared to now.

From an engineering point of view I believe that geared motors will take over because of the undoubted efficiency advantage of larger props running at lower speeds. This will also reduce noise still further. Three phase (brushless) motors will dominate and controllers will become cheaper as volumes increase.

I cannot guess where battery technology will go but as one gets towards the energy density of liquid fuels they will need careful handling. I remember reading some years ago of a very efficient battery that uses liquid suplhur at about 400C as an electrolyte. If they really have an advantage, someone will figure out how to use them.

Meanwhile, I do look forward to an efficient and affordable power train that I can put in something the size of a Nobler - then I will be able to fly within walking distance of home and not have to drive nearly 20 miles to fly.

Charles

If CL is still being flown 50 years from now, there'll probably be a culture clash between proponents of nuclear power and the reactionary old geezers with their electrics.

Fortunately, most of us won't be around to hear it.

Mike Keville

Some in my club are running to electric. Must be that charismatic guru Palko. Who needs consistent motor runs and predictable power. Where's my new in the box McCoy 35. A fox, a fox. Need a fox. FPs, Ro-Jetts and PAs are serious power. Making noise should be a constitutionally protected right.

The essence of CONTROL LINE is based on keeping "old technology", namely, flying on two wire ropes, not the "more modern" RADIO CONTROL.

If you advocate unlimited "technical progress", just go to WalMart and buy a ready-to-fly ELECTRIC radio control model airplane. Now that design, building, engine tuning, and even basic assembly have been eliminated, all the "modeler" needs to do is hire a pilot.

---------------------

When you don't DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE, you end up with a $60,000 300-pound 8-jet B-52.

------------------

The FAI sold out F2b to electrics. There's nothing we can do about that. It only effects about a dozen Americans who fly the event. Maybe people who are hot for electrics should just fly F2b and leave rest of the event alone.

But we do have a chance to save AMA Stunt, P40, Classic, and Old Time before they fall victim to electrics. The glow engine has served us well, just like the 7-strand corecable.

Better yet, just have the hired pilot make a video of the flight and send it to your home entertainment center. Then the airplane would never have to leave China, you wouldn't have to go outdoors, and no valuable US soccer fields would be wasted.

Howard Rush

>The FAI sold out F2b to electrics. There's nothing we can do
>about that. It only effects about a dozen Americans who fly
>the event. Maybe people who are hot for electrics should just
>fly F2b and leave rest of the event alone.

I honestly thought you were kidding, earlier, since it was a classic delusional rant. None of what you are talking about really makes much sense. The only potential valid comment is the obsession with noise in certain quarters. But even that is not really a significant issue - you can make a 2-stroke nearly as quiet as an electric.

And the FAI interest in noise is a lot more valid than the AMA's. I take our European friends comments on the topic as valid. There are in fact very different conditions to fly in, in Europe, than there are here. And it goes a lot further than noise - you also have to consider the emissions as well.I would much rather people be allowed to fly electrics than not fly at all.

Electrics *have* to have controllers to function, therefore it makes sense to allow controllers in the rules. This was NOT permitted before. Until recently electric stunt was completely unfeasible so it didn't matter that the FAI rules wouldn't permit them. Now they are feasible, so it only made sense to change the rule so they wouldn't be precluded.

Of course, for IC motors you don't need anything more than you currently have - current engines have ALL SORTS of active engine controls, they just don't happen to have chips or require electricity. The electric controller designs are needed *just to emulate current IC motor performance".

The rest of it is just nonsense. The FAI, at the same time they changed all the other stuff in your screed, also raised the engine size limit to 15cc/.91. With NO line size requirements. And at the same time specifically allowed uniflow tanks, tuned pipes, engine cutoffs/timers, etc. Doesn't really sound much like a plot to eliminate IC motors to me.

The push, if anything, is towards *fewer restrictions* not more. That seems exactly correct to me.

>But we do have a chance to save AMA Stunt, P40, Classic, and
>Old Time before they fall victim to electrics. The glow
>engine has served us well, just like the 7-strand corecable.

"Save" stunt from electrics? This is the same sort of comment that people made about tuned pipes, the same comment people made about Hot Stuff, the same comment people made about glow engines, and the same comment people made about using balsa wood (instead of bamboo and spruce). If you don't want to fly electrics, then don't. No one is going to force you to.

Brett

Steve,
There is a ton of good info around from Bobby Hunt and Steve Palko, and eventually you will see electric models at a, perhaps, 50/50 mix in C/L just like in R/C.
The technology is there to make it viable, so check these two guys out for more info and good luck.
Chris...

P.S. Try to ignore all of the political thread hijacks on your thread, there are so many old farts in C/L that it is unreasonable to think they won't feel put upon by any new type of equipment!

>There is a ton of good info around from Bobby Hunt and Steve
>Palko, and eventually you will see electric models at a,
>perhaps, 50/50 mix in C/L just like in R/C.

Just a side comment, and no offense to Mike and Bobby, but you might also look at the approach Kim Doherty took - just get a larger battery with a high-power-capacity motor. Get the highest -"power" system that will go in there, and don't worry about the slightly higher weight. That's probably closer to what I would do, if I was going to do it.

A lot of people I talked to were very impressed with Kim's setup.

Brett

Ah well . . .

When will we see a "return" to the only "REAL" and "AUTHENTIC" power source for models?

Of course - I'm talking of RUBBER.

Cheers

Charles

>Ah well . . .
>
>When will we see a "return" to the only
>"REAL" and "AUTHENTIC" power source for
>models?
>
>Of course - I'm talking of RUBBER.
>
Actually, there are a lot of gumbanders in my club. While glow engines and electric are clearly "better" and "more modern" than rubber motors, they have yet to "stretch" their rules to accomidate them. Simply wouldn't be cricket.

----------------------

They wouldn't lose so many models if they just put radios in 'em, either.

>
>>There is a ton of good info around from Bobby Hunt and
>Steve
>>Palko, and eventually you will see electric models at a,
>>perhaps, 50/50 mix in C/L just like in R/C.
>
> Just a side comment, and no offense to Mike and Bobby, but
>you might also look at the approach Kim Doherty took - just
>get a larger battery with a high-power-capacity motor. Get the
>highest -"power" system that will go in there, and
>don't worry about the slightly higher weight. That's probably
>closer to what I would do, if I was going to do it.
>
> A lot of people I talked to were very impressed with Kim's
>setup.
>
> Brett

Brett has a good point. Kim has been a pioneer in North American CL "Large" electrics. Here is a link to see the details of his setup:

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=3327.0

My post, showing the details of a standard size system, is also at this same link. This system that I use, is the well tested (by Will and others) "Almost Plug and Play" system that is perfect for the most popular size CL planes in the 500 sq. in to 650 sq in size,(Nobler, P-40, Cavalier, etc.) with take off wts. from 50 oz to 65 oz. This is the system that most likely will appeal to most of the CL flyers wanting to get into electric.

Like Brett said, Kim's excellent, powerfull, system appeals to him, and my guess it would be perfect for all those pilots serious about CL contests at the highest level, those that perfer larger planes above 650 sq in. with wts over 65 oz.

Thanks to pioneers like Kim, Dean, Mike, Will, Ron, Bob, and many others who have already done most of the research and testing for us, we now have these two "Turnkey" systems that allow us to just install and fly, and have FUN. Unless you really like to experiment, and tinker, there is NO reason to own any test equipment. There is also no need to know a Watt from a Volt if you just want to fly and use the equipment and planes used by those who have already tested everything for us, including which prop to start with.

Of course, many of us CL flyers do like to tinker, at least a little. And we will learn more about this new method of power as we continue to fly with the above systems. But it is nice to know that we now have "Turnkey" systems that are available for anyone to fly "now".

Of course electric power will continue to improve, and the above pioneers will continue their quest for perfection, but we now have these two systems that fly standard size, and large size CL models at least as good as the present IC engines are flying them. This is quiet, smooth, reliable, power. And at a cost that is very similar to the equivalent IC system.

I will be the 1st to say that electric will NOT be for everyone. It took decades for the IC car to catch on, people really loved their horses, and held on tight to that mode of power. And BTW, I do like my IC engines. Like many other CL and RC flyers I own more of them than I want my wife to know , and I still fly some of them. But I also enjoy flying 2 min from my home, saving a 50+ min., each way, drive to the model field.

If you are interested in Electric, please try one of the above, well tested, "Turnkey" systems that fits your size aircraft.

If you are NOT interested in electric, then please continue to enjoy our wonderful IC power systems. ...... As long as we hold on to our CL flying fields there is plenty of room in the circle for both methods of power.

Man, did I hit some hot buttons. I guess the discusions did serve a useful purpose, and there were some very well thought out messages. I did get a great of very useful information, and I am grateful for that. I am going to go back through the thread and pick out the places that I can go for more information.

I just read through the thread, as relief from thinking about diesels.

I read a comment by an RC flier some years ago that at sometime in the future, due to environmental concerns and urbanization, the only outdoor model flying allowed will be CL electric. He said this partially in jest. It does strike me that one might just be allowed to fly an electric CL airplane in a park where those dangerous freeflying RC parkflying airplanes are banned. Little speculation there.

There are big bucks being spent on developing small, powerful, inexpensive electic motors, and small, light, safe, powerful power sources; not to mention controllers. I think the budget for developing new IC engines for toy airplanes is around $17.89 annually. Twenty years from now the only IC engine manufactured will be the Fox stunt 35.

OK, back to the diesels.

Park flying any type of model plane is outlawed in Sydney due to the risk of it hitting someone and the local council being sued. It's not neccesarily because of the noise issue. There are only a few places left where Control line is flown.

Here in Port Stephens on the other hand, control line is flown where ever I decide to fly. Even on the beach at low tide.

[photo not recovered: 21957.jpg]

Warren Leadbeatter
Port Stephens - Australia
AUS-14782

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

>Park flying any type of model plane is outlawed in Sydney due
>to the risk of it hitting someone and the local council being
>sued. It's not neccesarily because of the noise issue.

Bingo! That's the *real* threat to modeling - LIABILITY!

Brett

Will this thread be hijacked in order to begin a series of "lawyer jokes"? For example:

What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

Answer: (anyone?)

Mike Keville

>Will this thread be hijacked in order to begin a series of
>"lawyer jokes"? For example:
>
>What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
>
>Answer: (anyone?)
>
>Mike Keville


A good start?

>>sued. It's not neccesarily because of the noise issue.
>
> Bingo! That's the *real* threat to modeling -
>LIABILITY!
>
> Brett

Finally !!! Somebody's getting the point.

These "silent" electrics will not take us to the utopian promised land of unlimited flying fields. Stunters, with their low-revving engines and silencers are already well below the sound level of reasonable concern.

What electrics will do is subdivide an already-small splinter of modeling. Why didn't the "electric-only" AMA events ever take off?

>>
Why didn't the "electric-only" AMA
>events ever take off?
>

Because until very recently the technology sucked?

Because until very recently the technolgy was extremely expensive, even more so than it is now?

Because until recently aliens had not been able to infiltrate the AMA and erode the rules to reveal the power of electric motors and the evils of IC engines?

Thank gawd you've shone the flashlight of truth upon this incedious take over of the sacred hobby of model aircraft and we will be able to stop it before it's too late.

regards,
Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

Rick,
Now that's really funny...and I thought I wasn't going to like you!

Nothing like a good sense of humor...

I am wondedring if the controler will increase the power when the plane changes attitude.

(clip)

>Why didn't the "electric-only" AMA
>events ever take off?
>

Well, just perhaps, maybe, and/or just because electric control line events did not "take off" is because available motors and batteries did not make those events very practical until recent years. For CL stunt, that was the case, but certainly not the situation now. It all contributes to this being the true golden age of CL Stunt with optional power systems including non-piped engines, piped engines, 4-stroke engines, and now practical electric power components.

Electric Free Flight Scale seems to be doing just fine.

Electric RC Pattern seems to be doing just fine.

Electric RC Scale ducted fans seem to be doing just fine.

And probably much to Paul Smith's consternation, there are a number of FAI RC events for electric power only that have been rapidly evolving and growing suppport with the advances in motor and battery technologies including

F3A Aerobatics
F3B Motor Gliders
F3C Helicopters
F3D Pylon

Plus there are several other FAI provisional events for only electric powered models.

>These "silent" electrics will not take us to the
>utopian promised land of unlimited flying fields. Stunters,
>with their low-revving engines and silencers are already well
>below the sound level of reasonable concern.
Seems you haven't tried this yourself, or else you would know better. Now I can talk to my coach outside the circle without raising my voice. For the first time I can not only hear his remarks, but also understand them...

>What electrics will do is subdivide an already-small splinter
>of modeling.
Is that what you really want? Seems so to me....

>>>sued. It's not neccesarily because of the noise
>issue.
>>
>> Bingo! That's the *real* threat to modeling -
>>LIABILITY!
>>
>> Brett
>
>Finally !!! Somebody's getting the point.

This is hardly a new revelation. Various people (myself included) have been discussing this for 15+ years. I can remember various "Tort Reform" lawyers taking out ads in MA in the late 70's!

Noise has always been a red herring, at least in the modern era. It's a convenient excuse.

>
>These "silent" electrics will not take us to the
>utopian promised land of unlimited flying fields. Stunters,
>with their low-revving engines and silencers are already well
>below the sound level of reasonable concern.
>
>What electrics will do is subdivide an already-small splinter
>of modeling.

No, it will permit people who couldn't otherwise fly to do so. There's nothing at all wrong or negative about using electrics, it's a win-win for everybody. More choices are always better.

Your premise (that there is some dark conspiracy to force electric down everyone's throat) is just silly.

> Why didn't the "electric-only" AMA
>events ever take off?

Because until very recently the performance has not been sufficient to make it practical for the majority of the events. That's why the separate events were created in the first place - since, in most events, they would be at a severe disadvantage. Now, they are not at a severe disadvantage, so you don't need separate events anymore.

You need to take a step back and look at some of the stuff you are saying. Jack-booted thugs are not going to show up at your house to confiscate your Fox 35s.

Brett

Advanvced technology !

Progress !! Innovation !! New is good, old is bad !!

Hit a home run every time at bat !!

Maybe hitting a homer every time would make the game boring.

Like a perfect engine run every time.

Luddites are everywhere. Or should I say "neo-luddite?"

>>What electrics will do is subdivide an already-small
>splinter
>>of modeling.
>
> No, it will permit people who couldn't otherwise fly to
>do so. There's nothing at all wrong or negative about using
>electrics, it's a win-win for everybody. More choices are
>always better.

Exactly. For whatever reasons, electrics seemed to be perceived by the general public as being safer than IC powered planes. I also like the idea of not having to worry about oil seeping into the structure through the seems in the *kote.

> You need to take a step back and look at some of the stuff you are
> saying. Jack-booted thugs are not going to show up at your house to
> confiscate your Fox 35s.

They can have mine when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. LOL

cheers,
Ken