Dale Kirn used to go around the country demonstrating either a Thunderbird or Smoothie (the model is in the Stanzel museum, but my memory is not!) flying the stunt pattern on monoline. As said above, I was judging OTS at the 2000 VSC when Joe Kirn flew the OTS pattern with monoline. He did not do it badly. there have been various attempts to make a geared regular-type handle which would spin the wire, but I don't think any were really successful. I've seen one George Aldrich made.

A couple people I've talked to who have flown monoline have talked about a system response that's not quite as immediate or accurate as with the more conventional system. I've never run into anyone who followed a suggestion in a hints n' Tips from American Modeller that suggested integrating a monoline handle with a conventional handle. Apparently, speed models respond to the system better than more aerobatic models. For a while, some 1/2A models at least didn't even use an elevator, just a swivel tab on the inner wingtip worked by the Monoline handle. I believe this was banned for competition in the (early 70s?) Seems to me that speed models may not even need a control system, when I think back to a point where the local CL club had a number of seasons of indoor tethered .020 speed.

I remember seeing adds for a couple systems where the pilot sits outside the circle, and controls the model through a conventional 2 line system to some kind of wobble plate system on a central post. One might actually have been available in the late 1940s.

I'd think an RC equipped tethered plane would be ideal for someone with some kind of physical limitation that prevented him from moving around in the center of a circle. I know I was thinking of doing this during my convalesence from a mild stroke, till I got myself back into condition to fly CL. That took me longer than getting back into condition to throw hand launched glider in local competitions. About the only possible problem would be the possibility of frequency conflict with nearby RC flying, unless maybe a 2.4 GHz system is used.

There have been many applications of the RC encoder/decoder sections being stripped out of RC gear to drive on-board servos with the signals being sent through insulated wires. fairly practical. Some of the systems use custom handles, some use modified transmitters clipped to the pilots belt. There have been commercial systems, and do-it-yourself systems. I believe Clancy Arnold sells the Ultronics system in single and multi-channel versions.

The systems are out there and available. Whether or not theyare worth the effort is a personal decision. Like my son couln't understand why I wasn't hot n' bohered by the idea of a refridgerator with the control system connected to the internet.

IMO, I'd think using a system like this mounted to a handle just for elevator to be a needless weight adding complication that at best might improve flying for only a very small number of people. For me, not worth the effort or expense. The added weight of decoder, batteries, and servos might have some application in carrier, but again the weight would probably be a handicap for the slow speed portion of the flight. It's main application, and to me the only practcal application, has been and will continue to be in scale flying. Or in just for the H of it fun flying for an expirementer.

But then, in 1966, I told people I didn't think anything practical would come out of some work reported in several issues of American Modeler. Something about a couple guys actually finding a way to control RC helicopters. Anybody know how that came out?

Possible? Sure - many people have flown a C/L model of one type or another with a receiver/servos in the plane and a transmitter hung around the neck or from the belt ... however -

for competition purposes, it would not be legal. AMA competition rules prevent one from using ANY radio control for any functions. The Carrier models you saw were most likely built for competition and therefore any controls were activated by the lines or by electronic signals down the lines (NOTE: it is legal to control things with servos and electronic signals - just not using any type of RF transmitter or through the air signals).

In any case, the functions that you asked about specifically - throttle, hook and flaps - as well as ailerons and some rudder offset, are controlled quite nicely by the 3-line systems that we have available to us. There are some who use servos and down the line signals for throttle but for Navy Carrier we don't generally need proportional control of anything except throttle and elevator, so the flaps and other functions are usually spring loaded into "High Speed" and "Low Speed" positions and actuated either by the throttle line or a quick application of full up or full down elevator.

(Also, note the above posts that mention sport flying is not affected by competition rules if you want to add these functions to sport flying planes there is no reason not to do it, if care is taken not to interfere with other RC units within range).

Personally, I prefer the KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) principle. Like at work, a manager wanted some prototypes put through a life test. I got hit with making the fixture. In a day, I had the test running with a simple programmable relay timer. He had wanted something a little more hi-tech, something that would have required tying up a laptop, support circuitry, and a custom program for several months. My simple solution had the results of the poor quality Chinese product failure mode in just a week, before we could have even had his system ready to start the test. And for a lot less cost.

Or, take my Sterling A2D Skyshark for example. Roberts 3- wire system. For a less than an ounce of system weight, I can take off at full throttle, play with the throttle to give me the flight envelope I want, and with jut a pull on the trigger, and a quick jerk of up elevator, I have dropped the flaps, kicked in ailerons, ad dropped the hook for slow speed and a simulated carrier landing. For an on-board electronic system, I'd have what, probably a 1.5 ounce battery, 1/2 ounce decoder, a couple ounces of servos, wiring, plus the extra weight and drag of insulated lines, plus what would probably be a bulky and awkward control unit in my hand or hanging from my belt. What would I have gained? Especially with the extra weight on 245 square inches of wing area?

On the other hand, if someday I ever pull out the old notes from when I built a CL Whitworth Whitely bomber from my college days, and tried again, a high tech electronic system would be just perfect. Say a 7 channel system, for throttle, flaps, retract gear, bomb bay doors, and two rotating turrets. That pot set-up on that indoor CL plane could probably be acceptable for elevator control. Or maybe a C-130 CL doing a LAPES drop.

Hmmm! Come to think of it, I have a servo excersizer in a small package. Next CL - hook the bellcrank to the pot, drive one of my S148s or KPS-IIs for elevator - or mebe flaps and elevator. Could be fun to play around with, anyway. And that's what a hobby is about, isn't it?

Anyway, while newer high tech has it's place, that doesn't mean it should always bee used to replace what came before, nor does it mean it's always a better way of doing things. Like in a Modern Weapons report on the Iowa clas battleships, after all the modernization, with missle launch, SEAWHIZ and GPS installations, and all that latest and greatest, the 16" guns were still using the original firing solution computer, the 1940s era mostly mechanical analog computer. Big and bulky. But, an operator can learn to use it in a matter of hours instead of weeks, maintenance is mostly a matter of an occasional spray of cleaning lubricant, no electric power cabels to get broken, and if there happens to be a source of EMP that would blank any fancy solid state electronics, the Mk III is totaly unaffected.

If you like t, go for it.