What is Traditional RC modeling?
 

In another AMA thread the comment "traditional RC modeling" came up, so I asked what that was, can't seem to get an answer on that. So I'm asking that here in a clean thread, absent discussions of drones, AMA rate increases, etc. The AMA has embraced all different types of modeling and aircraft, and recent improvements in technology have brought forth a nasty hornets nest of question and concerns. It remains to be seen how it will turn out. But for the purposes of this thread, I'm asking, what is your opinion of "traditional RC modeling". Not looking to debate it, question it, say it wrong or right, etc etc, and hope others will do the same as well as commenting. Hoping this doesn't go the way of other threads dealing with broader issues.

I don't know that I can specifically answer the question, for what it's worth, so perhaps someone will say something that clicks in my head and makes sense. I've only been involved in the hobby about 8 years, so I've come along after the electrics/arfs/foamies have become popular, so my perception is filtered accordingly.

At this point, I think it's a fluid living thing, and anything allowed for by the AMA would fall into that category. Might be a cop out answer to give, but that's where I'm at now.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

I think anything that operates by remote can be traditional, That being said I think where you operate your model say if you don't operate at a RC flying site or a place that is suitable for what you are flying is when there can be a problem.

I can't believe this needs to be explained.
I call the mode I fly "conventional" RC.
The plane is always flown in my field of view and within the confines of the airfield.
It matters not how unconventional my plane is or how it's equipped [within AMA rules].
NEXT..........

traditional rc modeling is building from a plan........nothing to do with drones.......or helis.....( that will be me in bother )

I think most of us gray hairs would consider kit/scratch built RC fixed wing aircraft as traditional. Which would cover from the 30's when the Good Bro's started experimenting with radio controls up to the early 70's when helicopters and arfs started finding their way into the hobby.

Kit built, scratch built, foam, etc ? Does that matter or are you looking at it from purely a functional thing, ie How you fly?

"What is Traditional RC modeling? "

flying r/c for the pure enjoyment of it, within line of sight of the operator of that model.
everything outside of that, is non traditional r/c modeling.

ps
i did not define the "model" on purpose, as it maters not.

I think traditional rc means using a folding
antenna you carry over your shoulder and
stick into the ground, connected to your 40
pound transmitter, controlling the rubber wound
escapement on the rudder with a button that
you push once to turn left and twice to turn
right.

All this newfangled stuff that makes the plane
do all kind of exotic gyrations is just a fad.

Don't even get me started on these things
with the propellers pointing the wrong way.

Jenny

PS. Real men and women fly in circles with
a string, and there is no "two mistakes high"

Ha! I love it...:) I'm still at 3 mistakes high, and even then sometimes it's not enough.

A+ for Mongo...and an extra ration of liquor for both him and his bird...!

What is traditional RC modeling? Obviously there is no single answer to that one. It's like "beauty", it's in the eyes of the beholder. For me, it's a yellow J-3 Cub being flown in a scale like manner making a perfect no-bounce landing. Others may disagree !:)

Back in 1968 built my first R/C plane Goldberg Falcon 56 & built my first radio Heathkit 5 channel, those servoes had about 25 compounts on the circuit board. Back then a Kraft 4 channel cost about 600.00 no way i could afford one.

Line of sight.
No return to Home
No GPS
No FPV
If you take your hands off the sticks the airplane does not hold heading or altitude. It crashes.
New technology in some of the trainers and air frames IMO would not be considered "traditional" although it is useful to the newbee.
Flame on.
Mike

IMHO "traditional RC modeling" is not about the aircraft, but the operation of the RC aircraft.

I think AC No. 91-57A is well done, all encompassing, and sums up the past, present, and future of "traditional RC modeling" the way I would like to see it preserved.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../AC_91-57A.pdf

The issue with AC 91-57A is it still categorizes the design, development, testing, and marketing of what are intended to be model aircraft as a commercial operation, i.e., not hobby/recreation. It also means that sponsored pilots are not operating as hobby pilots.

So in order to be in compliance with AC 91-57A people who do the work that results in the models we have to fly will have to comply with Section 33 Exemptions or get a COA. Neither of which make a lick of sense. Those same companies would also be required to obtain an FAA registration number, or "N" number, for all the models they test or demonstrate.

Once consequence of this may be that these companies relocate these tasks outside the US.

When it comes to the FAA, nothing is simple.

Another land mine in AC 91-57A is the establishment of a 400 foot altitude cap as a "best practice." This is not a casual term, it carries a well defined legal meaning, so in other words, the FAA could turn around and say any time you are flying above 400 feet agl you are no longer following a "best practice" and thus are in violation of FAR 91.13 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...0.1.3.10.1.4.7

So this could effectively end pattern, IMAC, soaring, jets, etc.

BTW - I generally agree that it is less about what you fly and more about how you fly when parsing out the differences between conventional/traditional modeling and other types of flying. Having said that, even if you are flying your airborne camera platform for the pure joy and recreation of that activity, I still feel that is not what this hobby of model aviation is about. It is certainly a hobby, but it is one in its own right separate from what most all of the rest of the AMA memberships has been about for so many years.

My intention of starting the thread was just to get some thoughts and opinions on what people felt "traditional RC modeling" was, not have it turn into another AMA or political debate. Hopefully there will be no debate, and no flaming of any type. As expected, it is different things to different people, from both he building and operational viewpoint.

Mongo's post (#7) resonates with me, but I see different pieces of other comments as well. Like I said in my OP, there is no right or wrong.

"not have it turn into another AMA or political debate. Hopefully there will be no debate, and no flaming of any type."

That would be a refreshing change.

Mike

Yup! Had a great day a warbird event, nice to check in and see some great comments. Since I can't moderate the thread, I can only ask that it go stay this way.

On another note saw a spectacular balsa Corsair today that was smaller than Parkzone foamy and don't ya know it had a small nitro motor on it. Man that thing hauled out!

Traditonal is anything but the 16 year old backwards hat wearing arrogant teenager with his quad and fpv glasses, who don't even know what an airfoil does let alone what it is, smirking and rolling his eyes at your prize and joy.
There I've said it and I'm glad I did!

I agree and wonder if they'd even have the presence of mind to go so far as to at least turn their hat around so the bill faces forward at funerals out of respect for the dead.

There no such character as "Traditional R/C modeling"

Radio Control modeling allow for two things, enjoyment and technical education. As time progresses so does technology and what can be done with R/C Aviation.

Responses here and elsewhere seem to indicate something contrary to your two sentences. I would lean towards your first comment though, but thank for the comments. Again, no right or wrong opinions as they are each unique.