BMatthews

I think you guys are talking 10 channel. Back then each lever took two channels to run it. One to go each way. So a 5 lever Tx was actually a 10 channel setup. A true 5 channel Tx would only have 2 two way levers and the third lever would only go one way... and that wouldn't work well..... THey did have some 8 channel setups for flying rudder, elevator and throttle plus elevator trim.

Mostly you could twiddle two or even more levers at a time since the "channels" were just audio tones and you could send multiple audio tones. The tones were then filted by tuned reeds in the Rx. Hence the "reed" name. Some degree of proportional was had by blipping the levers so the servos just jogged and returned, jogged and returned. Sort of like Galloping Ghost in a way but blipped by the pilot. How fast and long you held the stick determined how the model responded.

Oddly enough you find a lot of new pilots using the proportional controls the same way until you break them of that habit. Must be all the Ninetendo....

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I actually have a 5 channel reed transmitter made by CG Electronics in the mid-50's. It has a stick instead of levers, with the stick able to move through a "+" shaped gate, allowing only one control at a time to be selected. The 5th channel was controlled by a single push button, and this operated an escapement for throttle. This tube radio is the same make and model as used by Howard Bonner to win the Nationals in 1956 with his famous Smog Hog. At that time, the Smog Hog was controlled by rudder, elevator, and motor.

The following year, Bob Dunham won the Nat's also flying the Smog Hog. But he used one of his new 8 channel radio, also tube powered and I believe dual-simultaneous. This meant the transmitter had two tone generators so the pilot could use one of the two switches on the left side at the same time as one of the two switches on the right side of the transmitter. The extra two channels gave Dunham ailerons, and he could do true spins because of simultaneous control.

Within a couple of years, 10 channel reed sets were the norm for the upper end. As posted before, the 9th and 10th reeds were dedicated to an elevator trim servo that had it's output mechanically mixed with the elevator servo. Since Bonner servos weighed about 3oz each, and batteries were heavy, it took a big airplane with plenty of wing area to carry the load. Both Bonner and Dunham were flying with .35 engines on an airplane with 6 sq ft of wing area. Not a rocket by todays standards, feeble even compared to the average trainer of today.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Did you know that not all single channel airplanes operated the rudder? I know of one that's control system was aileron only.

j.duncker

My Feedback: (2)

I had one of these with a Cox Medallion o49 no throttle and it would loop from a single turn of a spiral dive. It is a Sharkface and was designed by Eric Clutton. It is now a bit of a cult machine but is often flown REM [ wusses ]

Note the raked back rudder hinge line.

Mine was flown single channel with a bang bang Elmic escapement.

BMatthews

That does sound familiar but I can't place which design it would have been. There's no reason at all that it wouldn't work. After all the rudder AND the dihedral work together to provide a rolling action. The yaw produced is only needed to skew the wing to force the generation of the rolling action. Going for aileron only is just cutting out the middle man....

I'm not sure I'd have wanted to do it back in the old escapement days but with today's proportional radio there's no reason not to make an aileron only with the same pitching setup and no dihedral and then go and wow the crowds.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Tokyo Echo - RCM in the Nov '64 issue.

http://www.rcmmagazine.com/store/sto...rnZM4EtWg3L1l7

I think he was using a bang-bang servo instead of an escapement.

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

I haven't built this one, but it's supposed to be a good'ern... the Krackerjack:

David

BMatthews

Looking at the admittedly small picture I'm pretty sure I see hinges for rudder and elevator in that one. Did the article say they were just trim tabs or what? I'd suspect that this was a 4 channel since trying to take off a runway would require rudder or it would be Groundloop Central.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Here is a picture of the plans from the magazine (I doubt they will be doing this in 44 more years). They plainly show the single channel servo controlling the ailerons, and nothing to the tail. The engine control is an escapement. I believe he has wires in place of hinges for trimming. He also mentions that the design could be flown with a 6 channel reed set. As presented, the engine and tail seem to be set at zero-zero, with the wing at 2 degrees positive. Also the CG is at 28%

BMatthews

You're right. The "suggestion" is there with the glued on rudder and elevators but no controls shown as such. That sure is a pretty design. Very Taurus like with the tapered wing and swept tail.

As for the incidence setup that seems VERY light. I'd be looking for maybe +3 in the wing and perhaps -2 in the stabilizer and a lot more downthrust. But that's my high wing RO experience talking. I'd have to read the article to learn more.

So.... who's going to be first to try an aileron only or aileron and throttle model....

simpleton

The mention of the aileron only plane reminded me of an incident while slope flying back in I guess 1990 or so.
I had landed my sloper to do something or other to it, and my friend Jim, who was still flying, started screaming that he was "losing control".
I went to his side and he just thrust the Tx into my hands. His glider was still fairly high, and was continuously stalling, and not responding to the elevator.
Ever since my very first RC experience with a "Dick's Dream" RO plane in the early '70's I have on occasion trimmed my planes for nose-up and then flown with rudder only, just to revisit that special day, and to enjoy the challenge.
Well here I was on the slope in about 15 mph wind and the only way to save the glider was to use the old RO technique, only this time it was Aileron only, and I had the problem of needing to constantly penetrate the wind or get blown back into the dense forest behind the cliff.
Like most slopers this glider had it's cg way back there, probably no more than 1/16" fwd of the neutral point, as most slopeheads prefer a "goes where ya point it" stability profile. So even though the elevator was stuck only slightly up the glider would nose up and stall as soon as the wings were leveled. And so I had to constantly bank from one side to the other, never allowing the glider to point more than maybe 15 or 20 degrees off the northerly wind, and to maintain an average bank angle of I'd guess about 30 degrees.
About 15 nerve-wracked minutes later I had the glider about 2 or 3 hundred feet upwind and at the upwind edge of our usable lift band, and I got the glider down to a point about 50' below launch. I then held her in steady 360's, with the bank angle varying slightly to yield a slow climb as she drifted with the wind back to launch. I was only hoping to get the glider back in a retrievable location, but as she got back to launch at just a few feet high and headed straight at us I levelled the wings and she stalled right into Jims' loving arms.
And so I think that every RC'er should learn to fly RO or AO. Understanding the link between decalage and bank angle might someday save another plane.
Oh yeah, we replaced Jims elevator servo and he had many more flights on that Falco.

gittarpikk

Lol, Is that an old "Rudderbug"..

I designed a plane that looked just about like that one in the 80's and flew it two channel rudder and motor when all I have left of a four channel set was two servos. (an old Expert)

I too have flown everything from the old escapement stuff (yep quick blip throttle position) to galloping ghost (even still have one of those with an Ace Stomper system). I have done all the manuevers with rudder only ..

Most of the time I had some trainerish looking plane (kinda like a mini Mambo) with a honking Cox 049 on the nose. landings on a dirt gliderport path were the most fun as one would time the spiraling decent to gently easing off the turn at just the right height and angle to bring the model into a natural nose high flare as it went by me (and hopefully right on the centerline of the dirt path). This is a bit tricky as one wing was low and very close to the ground at the point where one was "adjusting" or trading turn for flare. I have actually come out of the turn with one wheel touching and the flare was so well timed that the plane arrived at wings level just as the wing stalled and the plane just settled onto both mains and rolled straight out ...right down the centerline of the runway... Gawd, I wish I has someone filming that!!!

My findings were to keep the plane real light like a FF and add just a bit of up elevator to the point when test glided, it will enter a slight stall about 20 feet out and drop into the high grass (don't try this over hard ground). In climb , fly a lot of circles, loops, snaps , whatever you want, in decent a slight spiraling turn and s'turning to make headway against a wind.

lehrscott4

Ive just read this entire thread and ive gotta say that i dont quite understand why anyone would want to fly rudder only!?! Dont frown upon technology, embrace it and be thankfull that we can fly much better and easier and have as much fun as the old days when rudder only was the norm. Maybe i will try rudder only some day and maybe only then will i understand, but for now it seems kinda pointless. No offense intended to you guys.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

There are several reasons to learn how to fly Rudder only or Rudder/motor only. As stated in other posts, the ability to fly a model with very degraded controls can save a model from a fatal crash.

Second, when you can fly anything, and do anything, then you need a new challenge. Controlling a model with just rudder or rudder and throttle is far more difficult. Making it go exactly where you want it is really much harder.

Flypaper 2

I think a lot of todays fliers would have a lot of trouble if you handed them a trans. with oly rudder and throttle. Takes a lot more knowledge about aerodynamic to set a plane up for this. Decalage, incidence, side and downthrust, even CG has a lot more importance with minimum control. A lot more in the setup to do spiral dives, loops, Spins,fishtails, and flaired landings. A lot more challenging.

Gord

lehrscott4

I understand that it would be harder to fly with just rudder, i just dont understand why anyone would "want to do so". Especially having a plane with rudder only controls as opposed to just using the rudder on a traditional setup. I realize that rudder only can help with emergency landings, but what about elevator only, or ailerons only, or only one aileron? If you are going to use the reasoning that it can save your plane if only the rudder is working, then you have to justify using only the other controls as well.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I guess that since the average modeling experience of the contributers to this thread was in excess 41 years, you might have a understanding in, say 40 more years.

da Rock

Some people like simple things. More fun per ounce. Laid back, good time airplanes.

It's a fun challenge. Lots of people build little planes with small engines. One channel is enough to fly them. And they need "light" more than anything.

Cheap to do. They used to get a lot of people started in R/C that couldn't afford more. Guess nobody does that nowadays.

icrashgood

OK,,, I have just come into a NEW" Min-X" " Sportsmaster relayless" Single channel Receiver on 26.995 and a G.M. Hobby specialties
Minicombo ll Actuator "with instruction sheet" and am trying to find out what they would sell for or even if there is a demand for them.
I am pretty old but didn't get in to R.C. until the 70's so this is out of my league. Any help would be appreciated..
Oh yeah, I also got a Goldberg Skylane 62 Kit and a Sterling PT 17 kit never started...

Tall Paul

Aileron only.
Set one side of the elevator and rudder dual rate switches to zero, the other to 100%.
Select the 0 side.
Go fly.
Get back to us.
.
I picked up this Megatech "Cosmic Flyer" at Radio Shack for $19.97.
It's rudder and motor, but... neither control is proportional!
It's motor ON or motor OFF.. nothing else!
And it's left rudder, or neutral, or right rudder. Nothing else!
It has a spirited rate of climb power on, and glides nicely power off.
But... the 1/2 second lag (at least) between a rudder command and the plane's response makes it very difficult to control.
Holding rudder for any period of time puts it into a spiral dive.
I doubt any first time flier could have one of these things in the air more than 5 seconds!
The list price of $79.99 is outrageous, and I bet this kind of thing (common from Megatech) results in many lost fliers to the hobby!

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

A half second delay would void your normal reflexes wouldn't it? I wonder if it is due to the flat wing with the funky rolled up tips. A little model surgery might be in order.

Tall Paul

The delay is in the -control system-!
You push the stick, and then sometime later, the rudder moves.. ALL the WAY!
It's not quite as responsive as the typical gum-band powered escapement controlled single channel planes I started with 55 years ago.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Wow, that radio must have a really narrow bandwidth.

iron eagel

Guys
This article may be of interest to you…

A look at the state of the art in 56”, you guys should get a chuckle out of it.
The third through fifth page has a bit of information which might be of interest to all.

While it goes beyond rudder only it is an nice perspective on early RC flight.

I have got to try some of the tricks you guys have mentioned sounds like good practice for when something breaks...

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

Interesting but a bit hard to read. I find 1 Meg setting on the digital camera works better for text. Only problem is you have to do a couple of entries because of RCU limitations.