Thanks for the info Lou.
For now, I will try to master the G-Line and the Thum-it & Control-it Stanzel systems.

Orv.

Are you guys speaking English?
I'm reading this thread feeling like I fell down a wormhole.
Not having ever heard of or seen this monoline stuff, I feel like I was dropped on a foreign planet, what with all those gizmos and stuff you guys are saying.
Ha!

Just replied to an email from 'BrightGarden.' He seems to think we are all blowing smoke....

I restated my post, above, in simpler terms.

Another advantage of MonoLine: Line tension is not essential to keeping control of the model! As mentioned above. The model DID get aloft and out to the end of the line, eventually...

Wa-a-ay back when, CL models published in mag articles had a few design quirks that look funny today. Rudders were offset MANY degrees to assure line tension, but the leadouts were usually straight out from the bellcrank, parallel to the "barn-door" (rectangular) wing's leading edge. Nowadays, we know about the effects of leadout rake due to line drag, and about possible problems from the leadout guides being too far apart.

Rudder offset can cause the model to fly crabbed w/respect to the direction of flight - unnecessary drag and compromise of control surface efficiency.

Line rake from the leadout guides to the CG is the important thing. Getting that wrong can cause the fuselage to fly yawed regarding the direction of flight - again unnecessary drag and compromise of control surface efficiency.

Even today, we don't often think to account for the curved path the fuselage travels. IF the model should fly "tangent" to its circular flight path, where do we put the reference point along the fuselage length? I feel the CG is the appropriate location.

(Pull force direction reaches the model at the leadout guides, along the direction of the center of the flying line wires or cables. Dynamically, if we 'aim' forces ahead or behind, above or below, the CG, the model will attempt to roll or yaw to align pull to the CG, as aimed through the leadout guides.)

So, on modern mid-size stunters, the prop is 10" to 15" forward of the CG, and the horizontal tail aero center is 20" to 30" aft of CG. (Roughly, your mileage may vary.) It is a simple geometric effort to find the 'natural' engine out-thrust angle when there is no built-in angle from the fuse centerline. With these sample numbers, we could find a 1.5° "automatic", "structural" engine offset, and about double that - 3° - fin/rudder offset even if they are aligned at 0° to the structure. I am not recommending turning the engine and tail in to yaw the model in to compensate that!

Thrust line, for example, causes very little loss of forward thrust unless the angle is extreme. (Side F= prop thrust * Sin ( (net) Offset angle) ) and remaining forward thrust is = prop thrust * Cos ( (net) Offset angle) ). THE main reason for some thrust offset is dynamic, not simply static. Prop thrust varies continuously, according to load. MAX Thrust occurs, probably, several feet into the takeoff roll, when the prop cleans up from a stalled condition. As the model accelerates from there, thrust load decreases. At steady, level flight conditions, the only applied thrust is that needed to meet the drag load of a clean model flying at a very low lift coefficient. (We use fuel, prop, and mixture settings to set this comfortable cruise condition. More lift causes more drag. Drag loads - as in turns and corners - rise, and increase engine loads.)

SO , when drag loads slow the model, thrust load increases. Its outward component also increases. If the model (never you, but always the model) does something disastrously dumb and loses a lot of forward speed, ONLY the thrust and its outward component increase. That outward component is the only life-line that might-could save the model. Its cost, in normal flight conditions, is slight, so why not - keeping the structural and added engine offset below 5° total.

Hi Lou - I appreciate your detailed response, something I can start understanding. I was actually paying a complement to you'all - I am returning to model airplanes after several decades away, and now with more where-with-all to get deeper into it. I have appreciation of the heritage of model flying, and I was playing up my ignorance more than anything else.

Electric foamies got me back into the hobby/addiction fast, but classics and balsa are taking me further. I hope there is even more renewal of interest in branches of the hobby like C/L.

Amidst a buying frenzy I landed a few serviceable C/L engines and definitely want to get a range of planes, here. I was happy to see one of the club members bring out a recent C/L plane and fly it - I feel there should be more of that. Unfortunately, there are fewer people around to learn from these days. On the bright side, there are those like you quite lively on the internet forums.

The experience of reading this thread was one of those ignorance-is-bliss moments. Everything in here was new to me, and entirely not visualizable (if there were such a word) to me. Actually, it was awesome there is a whole new branch of model flying I can try out (I feel another necessary spending spree coming on.)

I get now a few points about monoline that were getting by me - the whole loss of control with two-line systems when one or both lines goes slack.
Is there a youtube video that shows how the monoline system works? I would be into figuring this system out - for both enjoyment and for memorialization and preservation value.

Cheers,
Poughkeepsie Pete

PS This is the current state of my C/L program - a leftover Guillows Trainer from the 60's I recently got in an estate sale.
The one thing going for it is that it was built by a NASA engineer, so you know it has to be good.
I have a ways to go.

Here is one flying. It doesn't show much otherwise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_wRbhaZYXc I found they just barely can fly a plane. A loop would never happen for instance. I have never used the helical type unit though, just the basic monoline airplane springy unit. The plane shown had the mere Canadian record until the class was changed to profile proto. I just used a piece of flying wire through the wing, and soldered a horn in the centre. It was anchored at the wingtip, and the protruding end with the eyelet was attached to the flying wire and then the handle which is the long one in the other pic. This is not the one the OP was referring to with the gears, just the Stanzel handle I think. This one flew clockwise so the torque would not bank it into the circle. Really that is the 'right' way to fly control line. At that time the wire was .014" solids, on 42'.

Hi aspeed, both the video and photo help to get an idea bout these monolines.
The monoline handle you have in your photo, you use one hand on the handle and in the other you hold a string ?
I take it you spin the bobbin by pulling the string, and that gets transmitted to the plane?

Hi Pete,
I'm just curious... is that Poughkeepsie NY or Poughkeepsie AZ?

Your Model shown fired up my interest. What size engine is on the plane? It looks like a McCoy bluehead R/C.

Orv.

Hi Aspeed,
Do I understand you correctly. You took the standard .014" solid control line and anchored it at the end of the outboard wing. Then at the fuselage you attached a horn, which is connected directly to the elevator horn by a pushrod, to the line. You then passed the line through a leadout at the end of the inboard wing. If I am correct, this system doesn't have the transmission ratio that the commercial units have using the helix or the worm gear and only needs a small amount of twist to effect control. This would mean that the line between the anchor at the outboard wingtip and the horn at the fuse. acts like a torque rod wanting to neutralize the control.

If this is the way you provide control, it is very simple and clever.

What is the down-side?
Do you have any data relating to how much twist per foot of line is needed to give you say +/- 30 degrees of "horn-on-the-line" movement on a plane with a 2 foot wingspan?
I ask because this seems like an interesting project to do experiments with the mono-line idea.

What I imagine is that if you don't twist the line to follow the pitch-up or down of the model, the elevator movement would be effected by the pitching action. This brings up a very interesting condition. You could arrange the control setup so that the model would have automatic pitch stability control... when the model pitches down, the elevator goes up... in other words, a mechanical auto-pilot.... Cool!
I wonder why Stanzel didn't use your system.

Please let me know what you think.

Orv.

You hold on to the handle, the other end holds the line which is looped over a split piece of tubing which is bound with copper wire every time you go flying. To fly it you just hold the handle and with neutral elevator, you put the bobbin in the center of the travel. To go up, you pull the bobbin towards you, and down you push it away. If it is out of trim, you spin it a bit. There is a twisted wire that gives the flying wire the torque/twist for control. A bearing is near the handle so it twists easily. The twisted wire on the handle is similar to the really old tops that were pumped up from the top. some little cheap helicopters had a similar twisted wire that could launch a propeller in the air. There are commercial airplane units that were available and are easy to make. A bit more safe than the single wire like mine. They use a few loops of finer wire that is soldered at each end. One on the horn and the other on an anchor pin. It is all you can do to fly level in the wind and keep a fast plane level sometimes. The length of the twisted wire is about 24", with about 4 twists per inch using about .060 wire. It must work freely, and be lubed occasionally.

Hi Orv,

It does have a blue head, just checked. It's a .19 and has an exhaust baffle.
Now, I would tell you this plane doesn't mean much to me but I was hoping someone knew what it was.
If you are interested in having it, the major obstacle is shipping costs for this solid pine airplane to Saskatoon.
If you're interested in having it let me know. Something like this plane I prefer to have it in the hands of someone that it matters to. I was hoping it might have some N-factor (Nostalgia) for someone.
Cheers,
Peter

PS I'm in NY, not Arkansas. Some time ago, Poughkeepsie AR started popping up in google searches. The name comes form a local Native American tribe - means Little Hut by the River I think - and I have been wanting to know who from here moved to AR and didn't name it _New_ Poughkeepsie, There is a Poughkeepsie Gulch in Colorado, a place where they do some serious 4-Wheeling - again, someone with a sense of humor from this town that went there, sometime.

Here's what you get when you let Google Maps take you to Pok AR, in Street View (I can't believe Google paid someone to go all the way out there and get this picture)

Hi Peter,
Your model did raise my N-factor. At Air Cadet camp in 1957, I purchased a McCoy 19 C/L engine and a Guillows trainer like you have. Up to that time I could only afford 1/2A motors and planes. This was my first "big" outfit and a pretty proud moment. I built and flew the model at the Camp. It is a good trainer and a good starting point for you in C/L.
I am however not going to take you up on your kind offer since I am already loaded down with engines and planes along with sliding into home plate age wise... but thanks.

About Poughkeepsie, when my USA friends kid me about the funny name of where I live (Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada), I counter with Poughkeepsie!

All kidding aside, This last July we attended a Flying Aces Free Flight contest in Geneseo NY. After the contest, we took in the air show at the Old Reignbeck Airdrome in Reignbeck NY. then traveled past your neck of the woods to Gettysberg. That is such lovely country but it has way too many trees for this prairie boy.

Thank you for the geography lesson and good luck with your C/L adventure. If you need any help please feel free to ask on this site since it is populated with folks who would generously try to help you.

Orv.

Bright Garden, to your #32 (or was it #33?) - The handle at top right in the post #30 photo of several handles looks like a mono-line handle.

The long 'wire' with the bobbin in the middle is actually two solid wires twisted together along their length. The bobbin has a slot just wide enough to fit the wire diameter, and just long enough to fit the pair of them. At the handle end, the wires run in a bearing that can withstand the model's pull, yet let the bobbin rotate the twinned solid wires..

As mentioned above, the end of the flying line is formed to loop like the eye of an oversize knitting needle. The AMA Rulebook has good illustrations of how to make and use this kind of connection. Visitors to the AMA website can have access without joining as members. (I consider membership worthwhile. A personal thing...) A split bead or very small bobbin connects that wire to the controller.

Remember - you hold the bobbin from rotating, and slide it towards you or away to make it rotate the twisted wire pair to put turns into the flying wire. THAT'S what turns the 'cam' unit at the model. (As mentioned, consecutive loops have the same effect as sliding the controller bobbin. You can let go of it to spin it along the twist to restore neutral where you want it.)

Mono-line is most useful for speed models. The 1/2A model with the metal pan looks like it is for the "Proto Speed" event. Nice decorations on the decoration, no?

The black handle is the traditional U-Reely. It and the smaller ones in the middle require your lines to be closely matched in length. Adjustment for a comfortable neutral is limited. The yellow handle with a flat metal plate does allow some adjustment.

The large handle on the right is a 3-line unit that can operate a throttle. The "science" of that is fascinating! The trigger and the lever out the top are connected, and operate the other function. The top and bottom lines are for 'elevator' control. unless you really need a throttled CL model, fussing with 3-lines is a nuisance. The standard 2-line setup is much more natural feeling, and easier to hook up.

Aha - now I know what the Stanzel looks like.
On eBay at the moment:

Monoline control is allowed and used extensively in AMA/USA style Speed, but not allowed in F2A FAI competition, only in FAI record runs. Actually the 2-line "grouped" flying lines with a small syringe cut from injection needles has less resistance aerodynamically.with a small "flap" in the joint, with two thin wires are side by side and the resulting flow over the wires make this a better choice. In FAI Record runs all the records are made this way,The Brits, Ken Morrisey, Paul Easter etc. have the present world records now. I believe.

I am pretty sure the line groupers were outlawed a long time ago. About the year after they were discovered. The last I checked in about 1980? FAI F2A did not allow them either.There had to be 10mm or something between the lines at the leadouts. Since then they went to longer lines, from 52 to 60 ft. They went too fast for me on 52 ft lines, and I got out, but since then they go faster , and the lap time is still the same. Oh, and I got older too. .4 mm lines , or about .016" is still the diameter for FAI. I believe A speed went up from .020" monoline to .024" or so, and lengthened from 60ft. to 65? because they were spinning pretty fast too.

Aspeed: Please follow this thread thru: ken Morrisey used groupers to set his British open 10cc record with a sidewinder OS marine based engine (by Henry Nelson) http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/cont...f2c-print.html The record is still valid. You can use your own rules, regarding the lines- the lenght of it-fuel etc. Provided your model passes the pull test and the engine is below 10cc. FAI F2A world champs contests is a different matter, that`s true ! Nice plane, nice trophies Ken ! ...http://www.deluxematerials.com/sponsorships.html The ad copy text has a fault: His speed record stands at 340km/h plus...maybe the 248 reading is miles per hour ???? If I would go after a world cl speed record I would do the following: Have a carbon graphite line moulded with aerodynamic profile. Single strand "monoline" that would taper thinner when going closer to the model. Use NO CONTROL except have the model balance and level itself when flying: Bill Wisniewski`s Pink lady planes with large lifting stab were doing all that. Then just hang to the pylon,let go... Carbon is far stronger that steel wire so a much thinner set up could be used. There is in the rules NO MENTION that you must actually control the model in flight...!!

340 kph is around 211 mph I think. Pretty quick. This was likely an earlier attempt at the 'unlimited' FAI record www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0MN6NHChZI The older AMA D speed which was a .65 cu in. limit was hitting 200 mph when I was a teenager. Nitro was allowed as well as a pipe. As soon as 200 mph was hit, the pipe was banned. Then it hit 200 again, and 10% fuel was the new rule. A piped .61 would be fun to try on nitro again especially if you could use a thin monoline. There are surely better motors now than in the 1970's. I would want some control when going fast. The planes oscillate with any breeze and the planes hit hard at over 150 mph, been there done that. The parts scatter.

dear aspeed: you are talking about AMA regulations. I am talking about FAI, sometimes things get blurred. There are NO RESRICTIONS except the pull test and total limit to 10cc (61 cu in) in FAI record world. You could even fly with longer lines, to make the piloting easier, if you could solve the aerodynamic drag of longer lines.

So a piped Novarossi .61 with 80% nitro on .018" monoline on 80 ft lines would be the ticket, if it passes the pull test.

why not? just check the tensile strenght of .018 monoline wire, so you don`end up sitting in the circle with your ass and your rossi making a hole in a car window, parked some where near the site...

I would have thought it would be .032 monoline wire or 018 2 line. That's what we have to fly here in Australia.

PWF63: "Just a hypothese" let aspeed try.. between us:single 018 steel line don`t havea chance to live even the pull test. the guy will sit on his ass in the middle of the circle.

I think .033" is right. Two line is .022", not .018 which is very draggy. The unlimited FAI has no size limit, just a pull test which is likely fairly safe. I don't have a copy of that. It think it would be 2 line anyway because they don't go for the whipping that is possible with monoline. Sorry about being upside down. This is AMA. That is pretty much what we go by here in Canada. There really isn't many of us that fly speed any more.