RCPRO Club 40 Committee Report
11-11-2014, 04:22 AM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RCPRO Club 40 Committee Report
This thread will report on happenings of the guidance of RCPRO Club 40 and RCPRO Club 40 Sport.
The 2014 rules were not posted on the RCPRO content site until today. You can find them at http://www.rcpro.org/content/rcpro/c...4/default.aspx in Word and PDF format. Plus a viewer has been added for the combined rules in PDF format. It may not work in older browsers or some tablets.
Ken Erickson is the committee chairman. We will be publishing a list of the committee members soon so that you can contact them with your thoughts and opinions.
On of the proposals being discussed is elimination of the 4 screw servo rule in favor of the servo rules in the AMA Pylon General Rules. This is the proposal:
The 2014 rules were not posted on the RCPRO content site until today. You can find them at http://www.rcpro.org/content/rcpro/c...4/default.aspx in Word and PDF format. Plus a viewer has been added for the combined rules in PDF format. It may not work in older browsers or some tablets.
Ken Erickson is the committee chairman. We will be publishing a list of the committee members soon so that you can contact them with your thoughts and opinions.
On of the proposals being discussed is elimination of the 4 screw servo rule in favor of the servo rules in the AMA Pylon General Rules. This is the proposal:
i originally specified 4 screw servos as a way of maintaining weight and to keep people from going too light on servos. However, I now believe that we should adopt the guidelines in the official Pylon Racing rules.
8.e. Servos controlling the pitch and roll functions shall be of adequate strength for the weight and speed of the aircraft. Except in 1/2A, whenever a single servo is used to control one of these functions, it shall be designed and built to accommodate at least four mounting screws. When two or more servos are used together to control the same function, as in the case of dual aileron servos or the movable tail surfaces on a “V”-tailed aircraft, each of such servos may be of the two-screw variety
This rule places no restrictions on rudder or throttle.
I also believe we should specify that servos should be mounted securely but that there are no restrictions on the mounting other than they must be screwed in or glued (as in the EF1 rules).
8.e. Servos controlling the pitch and roll functions shall be of adequate strength for the weight and speed of the aircraft. Except in 1/2A, whenever a single servo is used to control one of these functions, it shall be designed and built to accommodate at least four mounting screws. When two or more servos are used together to control the same function, as in the case of dual aileron servos or the movable tail surfaces on a “V”-tailed aircraft, each of such servos may be of the two-screw variety
This rule places no restrictions on rudder or throttle.
I also believe we should specify that servos should be mounted securely but that there are no restrictions on the mounting other than they must be screwed in or glued (as in the EF1 rules).
11-15-2014, 08:12 PM
#2
My Feedback: (6)
I would propose we eliminate anything about servos. Two or 4 screw servos has nothing to do with the quality or power of the servo. It only has to do with how securely mounted the servo ends up. I have never seen a properly mounted two screw servo come loose except as the result of a crash which is well over a 100G's (I would estimate.)
AMA/NMPRA classes can do as they wish, we are flying sport planes around two sticks. Recently I stuffed a 100MPH foam electric crushing the foam airframe but the two screw servos remained securely mounted to the plywood plate.
Sparky
AMA/NMPRA classes can do as they wish, we are flying sport planes around two sticks. Recently I stuffed a 100MPH foam electric crushing the foam airframe but the two screw servos remained securely mounted to the plywood plate.
Sparky
11-16-2014, 06:06 AM
#3
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the 4 screw servo rule is outdated. I added to the initial rules in 2005. Even though I was using Hitec HS-85MG servos for other applications on throttle, rudder, and dual aileron. My concern about not using the AMA rule is that it is easy to strip a servo hole. It is also easy to repair a stripped servo hole. My other concern would be liability. The 4 screw servo rule exceeded the AMA rule. Even though our class is not an AMA class, we are racing it under the General Pylon Rules and sanctioning races using http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/540-B.pdf. However, 540-B says nothing about servos. But at least originally, it was assumed that we would follow the AMA Competition Regulations for Radio Control Pylon Racing.
You are right that 4 screws has nothing to do with the quality or power of the servo, except that most 2 screw servos are not as powerful as most 4 screw mini servos. Even high quality 4 screw servos go bad.
I will quote your response in the committee forum.
You are right that 4 screws has nothing to do with the quality or power of the servo, except that most 2 screw servos are not as powerful as most 4 screw mini servos. Even high quality 4 screw servos go bad.
I will quote your response in the committee forum.
11-16-2014, 07:01 AM
#4
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BLOOMINGTON,
IN
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoted from my post on the club 40 website, sums up my opinions:
"Respectfully request consideration of removal of the requirement for 4 screw servos. There is no competition safety or competitive requirement that I can think of for this particular rule. Many mini servos now come with only two screw holes and are plenty robust enough for these .40 size planes particularly for the throttle. Why do I care? First the new LA Racer with the hatch and upgraded landing gear is heavier out of the box, being able to use lighter servos will keep this plane competitive. Removes a barrier to entry, let the builder/pilot figure out what works best or costs the least but works. Enforce the minimum weight requirement for each class and if needed inspect for safe installations."
"Respectfully request consideration of removal of the requirement for 4 screw servos. There is no competition safety or competitive requirement that I can think of for this particular rule. Many mini servos now come with only two screw holes and are plenty robust enough for these .40 size planes particularly for the throttle. Why do I care? First the new LA Racer with the hatch and upgraded landing gear is heavier out of the box, being able to use lighter servos will keep this plane competitive. Removes a barrier to entry, let the builder/pilot figure out what works best or costs the least but works. Enforce the minimum weight requirement for each class and if needed inspect for safe installations."
11-19-2014, 08:29 PM
#5
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus,
IN
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More about the matters before the committee:
Several proposals to remove the 4-screw requirement.
- - - - This is pretty much a done deal. One proposal lists minimum strength for servos, the other does not.
A proposal to add a third class under the RCPRO Club 40 umbrella. Club 46 would be separate from Club 40, just as the bushing engine class is separate from the ball-bearing class.
- - - - We know that no one racing .40s wants .46s in their races. But that is not what this is about.
There was a proposal about the prop rule, but the wording is already in our rules in Section 7.5 and is referenced in Section 16.
There was a proposal to not have our classes called "Stock".
- - - - -The only uses of the words stock refer to engines, carbs and props. And then there are the allowed exceptions and modifications. Oh yes, one use of the word in Section 1, to define the word "Stock".
A proposal to allow the use of a mechanical stooge to hold the airplanes until release.
- - - - - Presently, several circuits have humans holding the airplanes, with engines at full throttle until the Starter gives the "Go" signals. This merely allows a mechanical stooge instead of the human ones.
Several proposals to remove the 4-screw requirement.
- - - - This is pretty much a done deal. One proposal lists minimum strength for servos, the other does not.
A proposal to add a third class under the RCPRO Club 40 umbrella. Club 46 would be separate from Club 40, just as the bushing engine class is separate from the ball-bearing class.
- - - - We know that no one racing .40s wants .46s in their races. But that is not what this is about.
There was a proposal about the prop rule, but the wording is already in our rules in Section 7.5 and is referenced in Section 16.
There was a proposal to not have our classes called "Stock".
- - - - -The only uses of the words stock refer to engines, carbs and props. And then there are the allowed exceptions and modifications. Oh yes, one use of the word in Section 1, to define the word "Stock".
A proposal to allow the use of a mechanical stooge to hold the airplanes until release.
- - - - - Presently, several circuits have humans holding the airplanes, with engines at full throttle until the Starter gives the "Go" signals. This merely allows a mechanical stooge instead of the human ones.
11-19-2014, 08:42 PM
#6
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus,
IN
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, who does the voting on these matters?
The RCPRO President, Vice President and the leaders of the club 40 circuits around the country. In order to be on the committee your circuit has to be known to us ( either we find out about a circuit from forums of reading MA, or you contact us to say you have a circuit) and you must agree to be on the committee. Yes, we have had some people tell us "No".
Therefore, if you are racing Club 40 in any of its forms, ask around as to who is your leader. When you find him/her, ask if they are on the committee. If not, contact me, Ken Erickson, or Don Stegall so we can see about getting them on the committee or in with another circuit somewhat close to you.
If you do not have a racing circuit and want help, there is a lot of good stuff in our rules on RCPRO.org. If you call or email me, I will tell you what I know about getting it going. I have done it twice and the second time was harder.
Ken
[email protected]
The RCPRO President, Vice President and the leaders of the club 40 circuits around the country. In order to be on the committee your circuit has to be known to us ( either we find out about a circuit from forums of reading MA, or you contact us to say you have a circuit) and you must agree to be on the committee. Yes, we have had some people tell us "No".
Therefore, if you are racing Club 40 in any of its forms, ask around as to who is your leader. When you find him/her, ask if they are on the committee. If not, contact me, Ken Erickson, or Don Stegall so we can see about getting them on the committee or in with another circuit somewhat close to you.
If you do not have a racing circuit and want help, there is a lot of good stuff in our rules on RCPRO.org. If you call or email me, I will tell you what I know about getting it going. I have done it twice and the second time was harder.
Ken
[email protected]
Last edited by Ken Erickson; 11-19-2014 at 08:45 PM.
11-22-2014, 02:38 AM
#8
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was advised by the late AMA Executive Council District IV member Bliss Teague to keep the organization as a private organization, like NASCAR, until it needed or was asked to be an AMA SIG.
We welcome volunteers and you can see the officers at http://www.rcpro.org/content/officers/default.aspx
11-22-2014, 02:45 PM
#10
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus,
IN
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two of the proposals have passed. They are:
There will be three separate classes of RCPRO Club 40. They will be:
Club 46 - - - - - - - - - -(For now, allow up to .46 BB engines of the brands and clones listed for Club 40 and our present airframes).
Club 40 - - - - - - - - - - (Our present list of engines, clones and airframes)
Club 40 Bronze - - - (Our present list of engines, clones and airframes.) (appropriate as the bushing engines use bronze bearings)
The bold wording is the proposal. The text in parentheses is explanation. Each class will have a subsection of Section 16.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 13.1.8.1, after the sentence “No mechanical device shall be used to assist in launching the aircraft” insert the following. "A mechanical stooge may be used to hold the aircraft until they are released by the starter to start the heat."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three proposals to allow 2-screw servos. They are still being discussed.
Ken Erickson
There will be three separate classes of RCPRO Club 40. They will be:
Club 46 - - - - - - - - - -(For now, allow up to .46 BB engines of the brands and clones listed for Club 40 and our present airframes).
Club 40 - - - - - - - - - - (Our present list of engines, clones and airframes)
Club 40 Bronze - - - (Our present list of engines, clones and airframes.) (appropriate as the bushing engines use bronze bearings)
The bold wording is the proposal. The text in parentheses is explanation. Each class will have a subsection of Section 16.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 13.1.8.1, after the sentence “No mechanical device shall be used to assist in launching the aircraft” insert the following. "A mechanical stooge may be used to hold the aircraft until they are released by the starter to start the heat."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three proposals to allow 2-screw servos. They are still being discussed.
Ken Erickson
11-23-2014, 04:38 AM
#11
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sparky,
Yes, thank you very much to the people who have volunteered for positions at RCPRO over the years. I will be getting the committee members on the site as well.
Just a brief history. RCPRO was founded in 2003 by Dan Kane Jr, Ed Smith, Paul Herman, Tony Pacini, and myself. Dan and Ed were from 3 pole racing, Tony was from 3 pole and 2 pole, and Paul from 2 pole. Other board members have come and gone. The goal was to cover all aspects of racing. There was some overlap with the NMPRA and in 2006, we effectively refocused RCPRO on 2 pole sport racing. So there was less of a reason for the 3 pole guys to stay around. I wrote the RCPRO forum software. It has limitations, so I post on both RCU and RCPRO. But we use some private RCPRO forums for the committees.
Our mission statement is:
There is one really great thread by Tony Pacini at Composite Q-40 build from masking through molding ... check it out if you get a chance.
Barry Reade served as President in 2010 and 2011 and helped keep things going while I was on hiatus due to work and family. He did a great thread at LA Racer 40 Build
I think even I had a good idea with this: The 1.5 mile courses, for under 100 mph racing
Yes, thank you very much to the people who have volunteered for positions at RCPRO over the years. I will be getting the committee members on the site as well.
Just a brief history. RCPRO was founded in 2003 by Dan Kane Jr, Ed Smith, Paul Herman, Tony Pacini, and myself. Dan and Ed were from 3 pole racing, Tony was from 3 pole and 2 pole, and Paul from 2 pole. Other board members have come and gone. The goal was to cover all aspects of racing. There was some overlap with the NMPRA and in 2006, we effectively refocused RCPRO on 2 pole sport racing. So there was less of a reason for the 3 pole guys to stay around. I wrote the RCPRO forum software. It has limitations, so I post on both RCU and RCPRO. But we use some private RCPRO forums for the committees.
Our mission statement is:
Spreading the fun and excitement of pylon racing to all R/C modelers regardless of the type of aircraft they build or fly, from Park Flyers to Giant Scale, with our primary focus on 2 pole racing.
Barry Reade served as President in 2010 and 2011 and helped keep things going while I was on hiatus due to work and family. He did a great thread at LA Racer 40 Build
I think even I had a good idea with this: The 1.5 mile courses, for under 100 mph racing
Last edited by DonStegall; 11-23-2014 at 05:14 AM. Reason: Added comment about Barry Reade any myself
11-27-2014, 07:36 AM
#13
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: georgetown,
TX
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken I like your clarification of the Bronze class. Bronze bushings!! Why didn’t I think of that? The three classes as presented make it clear which engine is to be used in each class.
Bob
Bob
12-08-2014, 11:46 AM
#14
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2015 RCPRO Club 40 rules are posted at http://www.rcpro.org/content/rcpro/c...5/default.aspx
The RCPRO Club 40 Committee members are listed at http://www.rcpro.org/content/rcpro/c...e/default.aspx
Please have a look at the rules and Ken's 2015_Explanation. Let us know of any mistakes, misspellings, or concerns. You have our email addresses on the members page.
The RCPRO Club 40 Committee members are listed at http://www.rcpro.org/content/rcpro/c...e/default.aspx
Please have a look at the rules and Ken's 2015_Explanation. Let us know of any mistakes, misspellings, or concerns. You have our email addresses on the members page.
12-08-2014, 07:28 PM
#15
My Feedback: (6)
Glad to see the new rules published there is always something that needs to be tweaked.
I just noticed you listed Lipo batteries. Really we shouldn't be in the business of telling guys what type or size of batteries to use. I use 700 Mah LiFe is that ok? According to the rules it might be interpreted that I do not have a legal power supply.
Just sayin that this is welcome update to the rules.
Good job guys!
Sparky
I just noticed you listed Lipo batteries. Really we shouldn't be in the business of telling guys what type or size of batteries to use. I use 700 Mah LiFe is that ok? According to the rules it might be interpreted that I do not have a legal power supply.
Just sayin that this is welcome update to the rules.
Good job guys!
Sparky
12-08-2014, 10:34 PM
#16
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sparky,
Thanks for reading the rules. I created this thread so we could keep people updated as the rules were updated. I gave a 12/15/14 target date and Ken and the group really pushed this through. Especially with the addition of the RCPRO Club 46 class. Ken did a great job on Section 16.
I will post your message to the RCPRO Club 40 Committee forum so we can possibly make adjustments.
When we created the class, we did not specify a minimum weight. This quickly became an issue. I thought the four screw servo thing would keep the weight reasonable. But racers will take any advantage given and a weight limit was quickly added.
The beam mount rule had gotten dropped somewhere along the way, and between Sunday when Ken sent me the rules and Monday, we had fixed the rule and voted on it.
I would say that the servo rule change is the biggest thing in this revision. You can choose servos from a much wider array and use the stuff you use for AMA racing and NMPRA EF1 with the provision that the two screw servos must be adequate in strength and must be mounted securely however they are mounted.
RCPRO Club 46 doesn't affect RCPRO Club 40 or RCPRO Club 40 Bronze. It just allows groups more engine choice.
We used holding stooges at Charlotte Motor Speedway in 2008. I didn't even realize that we technically were not going by the rules. Other groups are using them too. Hopefully we can get them documented so other groups can benefit from this more fair way of starting ROG races.
Thanks for reading the rules. I created this thread so we could keep people updated as the rules were updated. I gave a 12/15/14 target date and Ken and the group really pushed this through. Especially with the addition of the RCPRO Club 46 class. Ken did a great job on Section 16.
I will post your message to the RCPRO Club 40 Committee forum so we can possibly make adjustments.
When we created the class, we did not specify a minimum weight. This quickly became an issue. I thought the four screw servo thing would keep the weight reasonable. But racers will take any advantage given and a weight limit was quickly added.
The beam mount rule had gotten dropped somewhere along the way, and between Sunday when Ken sent me the rules and Monday, we had fixed the rule and voted on it.
I would say that the servo rule change is the biggest thing in this revision. You can choose servos from a much wider array and use the stuff you use for AMA racing and NMPRA EF1 with the provision that the two screw servos must be adequate in strength and must be mounted securely however they are mounted.
RCPRO Club 46 doesn't affect RCPRO Club 40 or RCPRO Club 40 Bronze. It just allows groups more engine choice.
We used holding stooges at Charlotte Motor Speedway in 2008. I didn't even realize that we technically were not going by the rules. Other groups are using them too. Hopefully we can get them documented so other groups can benefit from this more fair way of starting ROG races.
12-09-2014, 08:02 AM
#17
My Feedback: (6)
Don,
There is always the standing start at idle like Ken has us do here in the Indiana.
Once you have your engine quit a few times on the start line you get the idle set and proper glow plug to prevent that being an issue.
For the bronze class i would recommend race promoters use the idle start, it is a learning process that gets guys setting up the engine and linkages correctly.
On the battery the 500 MAH "recommendation" would be a field day for a lawyer...
The two screw servo was the thing I championed, I am glad to see that the board took my suggestion. Securely mounted as mentioned in the rules is just motherhood, as we always want to have all our servos securely mounted regardless of two or 4 screw mounting.
Yes Ken is great at herding cats which I am sure is far easier than getting all the board to come to a consensus.
Sparky
There is always the standing start at idle like Ken has us do here in the Indiana.
Once you have your engine quit a few times on the start line you get the idle set and proper glow plug to prevent that being an issue.For the bronze class i would recommend race promoters use the idle start, it is a learning process that gets guys setting up the engine and linkages correctly.
On the battery the 500 MAH "recommendation" would be a field day for a lawyer...
The two screw servo was the thing I championed, I am glad to see that the board took my suggestion. Securely mounted as mentioned in the rules is just motherhood, as we always want to have all our servos securely mounted regardless of two or 4 screw mounting.
Yes Ken is great at herding cats which I am sure is far easier than getting all the board to come to a consensus.
Sparky
12-09-2014, 12:52 PM
#18
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sparky,
If you look at http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2...ylonRacing.pdf .... 8.d, 8.e, and 8.g are what our rules are based on. 250 mAh is not enough for these planes in my opinion. But if we need to adjust it the battery rule, now is the time for a proposal. I wanted to have things locked down by 12/15/14.
Don
If you look at http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2...ylonRacing.pdf .... 8.d, 8.e, and 8.g are what our rules are based on. 250 mAh is not enough for these planes in my opinion. But if we need to adjust it the battery rule, now is the time for a proposal. I wanted to have things locked down by 12/15/14.
Don
12-09-2014, 02:08 PM
#21
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the 2014 rules which Ken had posted here and in other places http://www.rcpro.org/content/rcpro/c..._Airplane).pdf ... there is this line "Battery packs may be four or five cell (or 2-3 cell LiPo) with a suggested minimum of 500 mAh."
And yes, the 250 mAh thing is my opinion. And it is "a suggested minimum of 500 mAh".in the 2014 rules and you can also visit the 2011 rules archive at http://www.rcpro.org/content/rcpro/c...011/rules.aspx
It's been in the rules a long time. Somehow you just missed it. Please take it up with Ken, your rep.
Right now the new server I switched to a couple of weeks ago has a problem with doc files. I will get it fixed.
We've had suggestions for 2 screw servos since before you became involved. Barry Reade asked me about it in 2008.
And yes, the 250 mAh thing is my opinion. And it is "a suggested minimum of 500 mAh".in the 2014 rules and you can also visit the 2011 rules archive at http://www.rcpro.org/content/rcpro/c...011/rules.aspx
It's been in the rules a long time. Somehow you just missed it. Please take it up with Ken, your rep.
Right now the new server I switched to a couple of weeks ago has a problem with doc files. I will get it fixed.
We've had suggestions for 2 screw servos since before you became involved. Barry Reade asked me about it in 2008.
12-09-2014, 03:20 PM
#22
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the server didn't have problems with doc or docx files. When I moved them to the Rules Archive on Sunday, the doc files just didn't get moved into the proper directories. But the 2011 and 2013 files are the original files.that have been on there since those years. I can probably re-post the very original rules just for yuks if anyone wants to see them. Should have everything on backups and on old computers.
12-11-2014, 01:54 PM
#23
My Feedback: (4)
From my testing of batteries and C40 racing, I use about 250mAh for a full race event. This includes a pre-race check flight, five or six rounds, a fly off round and then a main event race. Your mileage may vary.........
I use a 700mAh LiFE battery and it gives me plenty of flight time with a good safety margin.
Tim
I use a 700mAh LiFE battery and it gives me plenty of flight time with a good safety margin.
Tim
12-16-2014, 03:36 AM
#24
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: MonroeNorth Carolina
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The final rules for RCPRO Club 40 in 2015 are at http://www.rcpro.org/content/rcpro/c...5/default.aspx so read up and see if anything was missed.
The Explanation of Changes for 2015 summarizes the changes that were made from the 2014 rules.
The Explanation of Changes for 2015 summarizes the changes that were made from the 2014 rules.
12-16-2014, 10:59 AM
#25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus,
IN
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, that is it. Don has the rules posted on rcpro.org.
The explanation is also there. Changes were:
Copying the requirement, in Section 2, to use beam mounts, to Section 16.
Authorizing the use of a mechanical stooge.
Allowing two-screw servos.
Removing references to battery chemistry and minimums.
So, basically, anything that was legal before, is still legal.
Ken
The explanation is also there. Changes were:
Copying the requirement, in Section 2, to use beam mounts, to Section 16.
Authorizing the use of a mechanical stooge.
Allowing two-screw servos.
Removing references to battery chemistry and minimums.
So, basically, anything that was legal before, is still legal.
Ken
Last edited by Ken Erickson; 12-16-2014 at 11:03 AM.
