Go Back  RCU Forums > Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more > Control Lines
 Why don't we put technology to work ? >

Why don't we put technology to work ?

Notices
Control Lines For all you fly-by-wire fanatics!

Why don't we put technology to work ?

Old 02-02-2009, 07:06 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: , AUSTRALIA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default Why don't we put technology to work ?

Ever since I read an article by Dale Kirn back in the late 50's, I've always had an urge to try mono-line C/L, the main attraction being that (with a single line) you can fly with an 09 on 100 ft. lines ! The big drawback with mono-line then, was the awkward handle you had to use, which (after learning to fly with a conventional 2 line system & handle) was like trying to pat your head whilst rubbing your (beer ?)belly ! But now we have all this whiz-bang technology available, why aren't we flying 40 size models on a 200 ft. mono-line ? We could have a conventional handle which you move the same way, but with radio signals sent to the model - a completely electronic C/L system ! Anyone who has watched large 10cc stunters on the end of 60 ft. lines must surely have thought it was all out of proportion & scale. Biggest advantage to loooong lines is, a whole new aerobatic pattern could be developed, simply because you have more sky to fly in ! The mind boggles when you think of some of the complicated manoeuvres that could be easily fitted into that
much space. BOB (PS forgot to mention too - no more twisted lines)
Old 02-02-2009, 07:27 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,086
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

I've seen Joe Kirn fly a pretty good Old Time Stunt Pattern with monoline. I have a couple of articles on tethered RC flying. The major advantage to tethering an RC airplane is to keep it in a proscribed area, I would think. I've been told of someone flying the AMA stunt pattern with an RC airplane, untethered.
Old 02-02-2009, 08:03 PM
  #3  
My Feedback: (20)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH,
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 10 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

I have read that the steel monoline acts like a big torsion spring and the control inputs are very damped and delayed. Few people had any success flying monoline stunt. That makes perfect sense to me.
Old 02-02-2009, 08:30 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: , AUSTRALIA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

Guys, I am well aware of the downfalls of the old mono-line system, what I am suggesting is the plane carries a miniature radio receiver and working a servo to control the elevators. BOB
Old 02-02-2009, 09:56 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Pfafftown NC
Posts: 11,517
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?


ORIGINAL: Jim Thomerson

I've seen Joe Kirn fly a pretty good Old Time Stunt Pattern with monoline. I have a couple of articles on tethered RC flying. The major advantage to tethering an RC airplane is to keep it in a proscribed area, I would think. I've been told of someone flying the AMA stunt pattern with an RC airplane, untethered.

Hehehehe......
I do that all the time. Being an old stunt competitor, doing them with R/C planes just seemed "right". And you oughta hear the spectators gasp. I figure they were designed to be close to the ground, so they are. Of course, no need to go for five feet. I don't have an R/C bird that could do the corners needed for that anyway.

Oughta post the video of it someday.

BTW, I don't do the two laps of level flight between maneuvers. Figured the first lap would take out one of the trucks in the parking area......
Old 02-02-2009, 10:01 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Pfafftown NC
Posts: 11,517
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?


ORIGINAL: R8893

I have read that the steel monoline acts like a big torsion spring and the control inputs are very damped and delayed. Few people had any success flying monoline stunt. That makes perfect sense to me.

Having seen speed guys fly, I wouldn't bet on that. There really isn't much resistance for the line to "torsion against". If there was, a 200mph hunk of solid maple/balsa and metal pan would have created a generous plenty.

Old 02-03-2009, 09:03 AM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Lake Worth, FL
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

When you fly the prescribed CLPA pattern, you only have about two twists in the lines when its complete due to the two uncompensated for inside triangles.
Old 02-03-2009, 07:02 PM
  #8  
Member
My Feedback: (10)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lane Cove N.S.W. , AUSTRALIA
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

Hi Bob
You're wasted here!
Come back to where you friends are at Barton!
I've thought along the same lines Bob, as you say with the technology we have it shouldn't be too hard. I even have a copy of the Dale Kirn stunt model from the 60's or was it the late 50's.
I've got a stunt mono line actuator too!
Other stuff has got in the way though.
Cheers John
Old 02-03-2009, 07:51 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fayette, OH
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

74seven, here in the states we call it r/c
Old 02-03-2009, 08:22 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

Actually here in the states the AMA has trouble with this.... says that all control needs to be through the wires... that said there is a basement industry of guys that take an RC transmitter apart and rewire it (like a servo driver) to send a signal down the lines to control the model. It has been used in Scale for maybe 10 or 15 years. They do not use it for elevator control as direct input from a normal handle is much more precise and actually much more powerful than any servo other than some used in quarter scale models. (think hanging a 7 pound scale model on one line giving full up control...)
Bob Furr
Old 02-03-2009, 09:48 PM
  #11  
 
downunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

Imagine trying to do an even moderately tight square turn where the elevator moves from level to up (hold it....hold it...) then back to level again in roughly 1/4 second . BTW, I always end up with 3 twists in the lines at the end of the pattern, probably because of how I do the reverse wing over. I like to untwist them by doing 3 inverted triangles, pointy end down. Trouble is they're easier to do than the proper triangles!
Old 02-04-2009, 04:09 AM
  #12  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: , AUSTRALIA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

ALL you guys are missing the point here ! I'm not talking about trying to convert the grey headed old farts who have been flying competitively for the last 50 years or so - I'm not even talking about the youngsters who fly F2B (few as they are) - what I AM talking about is PUTTING THE FUN back into C/L flying ! Believe it or not - for every one flyer out there who can fly the pattern, there has to be at least 10 who CAN'T (and probably never will - such as myself for instance). That's todays figures - back in the 1950's, it was probably 1 expert to at least three or four hundred "sport" flyers, who just enjoyed doing a few loops and lazy eights. How many car drivers are out there ? How many can drive Formula One ? The time is 1 minute to midnight - after the present lot of experts fall off the perch, who will still be flying Control Line ? Answer : nobody will, simply because so much emphasis is placed on being able to fly stunt at a professional level, and not enough on simply enjoying a great hobby and having fun. BOB
Old 02-04-2009, 08:27 AM
  #13  
 
downunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

ORIGINAL: 74SEVEN7
so much emphasis is placed on being able to fly stunt at a professional level, and not enough on simply enjoying a great hobby and having fun.
Actually I get a huge amount of enjoyment flying stunt, especially when I have a flight that feels really good and then I start yee haaaaaaaing and (to use an Aussie saying) giggling like a mud crab . I've got an old stunter that to me is way overweight (65 ounces or so) so I use it to mess around with like doing the tightest possible lazy eights right on a stall and low. I've taken the fin off a couple of times flying an inch too low inverted. Great fun . It's not necessary for someone to be able to fly the pattern to have fun but knowing how to do a few different manoeuvres sure adds to the fun element
Old 02-04-2009, 05:00 PM
  #14  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

7477,

If you have room to fly tethered 400'-plus circles, more power to you.

If your Postal Service, or whatever controls radio transmissions, is happy to have a few such individuals mucking about with the increasingly crowded electromagnetic spectrum, again go for it.

You don't really need to attack and belittle others who have something they enjoy, or should some of us "more mature" types refer to you as a young smart-rrrs?

Do you have a scheme for what frequencies and equipment you'd like to use? Off-the-shelf model aircraft RC goodies? How would you 'manage' frequencies so that neither your model nor anyone else's is shot down?

I prefer CL at the traditional distance, where the feel and view is more immediately physical. You are free to enjoy what you wish, so long as you don't harm others. If you do engage in this, I, for one, have a mild interest in hearing more about it.
Old 02-04-2009, 11:02 PM
  #15  
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Madrid, IA
Posts: 234
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

I don't understand what it is you are advocating here if you want to tether an RC plane to a stake on the ground - or even to a handle in your hand - then go ahead and do it. There is no "law" or rule against it, for sport flying. Frankly, this subject comes up more often than you'd think, and the general consensus is "sure go ahead", but what no one has explained yet is what advantage you gain. It takes away the part of control line that makes it control line - the direct control of the model through the lines - and it takes away that part of RC that is its advantage - the ability to fly the model using all the control axes anywhere it the sky that you want to fly it. And as for keeping it in a smallish area, you don't need a tether for that, you just need to turn before you get to the end of the field. They are called Park Flyers.

As it happens, I HAVE done what you suggest - as a demo for some youth group that was held in a confined space. We rigged a Sig Kadet with a tether cable (probably 65 or 70 feet) and the other end was hooked to an EZ-Just handle. One guy (me, as it worked out) held the handle, and another guy gave each of the kids a take-off, a few laps of elevator-wiggling, and a landing. It served its purpose in that in a relatively short amount of time we gave several dozen kids a little stick time and a brief exposure to what models are, but we all agreed that the flying was totally lacking in any fun whatsoever. As I said, it just took too much of what constitutes the "FUN" from both the C/L or the R/C experience.

As for the frequency control or the channel selection, I don't see where merely tethering an RC model makes in NOT an RC model, so I don't see where any different frequencies or extra frequency control is necessary. You still need to co-ordinate with any possible other RC activity that might be near or risk being shot down or shooting someone else down.


Old 02-05-2009, 12:17 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Ram Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Burtchville, MI
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

I can certainly understand how you can tether a boat or car but an airplane? The mind boggles.

Bill
Old 02-05-2009, 10:58 AM
  #17  
TFF
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 4,183
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

It has been done. 30 years ago it was done for fun and I have seen a couple of wheelchair bound people do it with the plane tethered and them outside the circle. Even though there are many sport C/L fliers the sport is based on competing. All the rules state the elevator has to be actuated manually through the wires; no radio, so why develope something that cant be used anywhere? In fact, C/L scale is about the electronic control of the plane, but the elevator has to be controlled by the handle. I have heard of up to 12 channels used. All they do is take out the RF parts of the radios and run the pure signal down one of the wires.
Old 02-05-2009, 12:55 PM
  #18  
My Feedback: (20)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH,
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 10 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

TFFcheck the rules carefullythe elevator does not have to be controlled mechanically. Control does have to be via the wires. In FAI scale,F4B, the elevator does indeed have to be controlled mechanically. On the other hand, as mentioned above, why would anyone want to convert a simple, quick, light, very reliable system to one that has none of these traits? The electronic system I use is the Direct Servo Control jack on my JR radio. Nothing to modify.

62 year old, competition C/L flyer
Chuck
Old 02-05-2009, 02:26 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Ram Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Burtchville, MI
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

I think I understand. The elevator is not in a fixed position, it is controlled by a transmitter and servo and that way physically callanged persons can enjoy the hobby. If that's correct, it's a wonderful and worthwhile undertaking.

Regards,
Bill
Old 02-05-2009, 06:38 PM
  #20  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?


ORIGINAL: Ram Jet

I can certainly understand how you can tether a boat or car but an airplane? The mind boggles.

Bill
Bill,

The essential fact of control-line IS the tether. Sure, it's not a spike with a swivel stuck into the ground... WE are the center anchor.

The difference between "disciplines" (RC & CL) was very nicely stated a few posts above this one of yours. IMHO, CL is a more complex flight-force environment than FF or RC, BECAUSE of the tether (our flying lines). The forces involved do not exist in "free-fllying" - controlled or otherwise. Also, most of us in CL do not have trimmable power, roll or yaw while in flight. (Carrier and Scale being the usual exceptions, rarely seen as a sport/fun effort, tho.)

The limited flight radius (that almost all of us accept ) is another big difference from free-sky flying. We most often want our CL model to fly in a flat skid on a radius 20 times wingspan or less. I've seen RC fliers try to make a point by flying, say, a .40-type trainer in about a 60' radius circle, not too high above ground. That required a severe bank angle, and prudence urged that the RC guy try to keep as many of the "3 mistakes high" altitude as possible.

We never get three mistakes high. We never get out of 'ground chop' ambient air conditions. We never can trim up for a cross-wind for two reasons: NO in-flight trim gismos, and we confront the wind from all angles, EVERY LAP. Stunting adds some vertical trig to that picture, too. We can never really ease out to grab some sky and let the plane figure out how to save our bacon, or other groceries.

...Because we hold one end of that special tether that makes CL such a lasting enjoyment for many of us. Mentioned in this thread, too, are the required control forces for the necessarily tight maneuvering we can squeeze into that limited hemisphere. The speed and power of very large RC servos might approach some gentle CL maneuvering load requirements...

Sometimes, while I'm enjoying a CL flight, or perhaps a bel canto Opera, the thought appears: Why should these pleasures be changed only because we have technologies that CAN change them. Another less often mentioned aspect of difference between RC and CL is that CL is PRIMARILY tactile, while RC is primarily visual. There are the zero-lag instinctive, correct, learned physical reactions in CL, and the "see/analyze/choose/react/evaluate the result/back to item one" aspect of RC, which can be run through very quickly, if enough effort is put into it. Unfortunately, to me a transmitter still feels the same whether it is on or off, and something like a cigar box rigged with a couple of Q-Tips and rubber bands... A CL handle, however....

Not knocking your comment, just sharing our joy at holding the leash on a spirited, mostly tamed tiger.
Old 02-05-2009, 06:57 PM
  #21  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

Hello, again, Bill...

There are also mechanical, remote CL systems. I think one was featured in either Model Aviation or Flying Models mag within the past couple of years.

From outside the circle, some cable method of control is led to a pivoting anchor. This could be a single cable pulling against a spring to tilt a "swashplate" mounted flying lines carrier, or two cables operating a bellcrank (a more neutral feel, surely, than pulling against a spring.)

Usually the "remote-CL" flier sits close to the ground - so the cabling to the anchor-pivot-etc., doesn't act as a landing wire, a la USNavy flat-tops.

I've seen such a rig set up at my club's CL site in Tucson. Several things are lost from the CL experience. You can't run back to regain control if the wind starts messing about with the model. You don't get the tactile experience central to CL (is that a pun?) You become more of a spectator, with less real sense of height above ground, of the effects of crosswinds, of the shape of any maneuvers you might try, of the decay of airspeed on landing approach, etc.

Because the flier's remote handle must necessarily be close to the ground, it may not even be an opportunity for mobility-limited persons to try.

However, such remote CL rigs do exist, and if all is right, they do work.
Old 02-06-2009, 10:33 AM
  #22  
 
Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kearney, MO
Posts: 1,525
Received 26 Likes on 19 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

I've heard this comment before usually from RC guys asking if I ever thought about adding RC to my handles. I guess I can see doing extra functions with an rc unit on scale but most of what I do can be done with the 2 or 3 line handle. And being able to fly a 200 foot radius circle runs out of room around here pretty quick although I'd like to try monoline sometime just to see what it's like, but that' doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon.

As far as mixing the disciplines. There are RC assist Free flight planes, and RC assisted Control line but frankly I think they are misnamed. RC Assisted Free flight IS RC. Assisted CL is RC as well albeit tethered, so mixing between the two just doesn't have any appeal to me personally.

But as long as you don't break any of the Flying within the zone of an RC field rules, knock yourself out. It's not what about what I want to do and have a good time with, it's about what you want to do so keep us posted.
Old 12-12-2009, 04:53 PM
  #23  
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
goliathman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: charlotte, NC,
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

Ive seen some carrier CL planes at My field. and I was wondering if it would be possible to use three servos(flaps,tail hook,throttle) and a 2.4 gig system to run them.
Old 12-12-2009, 05:43 PM
  #24  
My Feedback: (90)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Minersville, PA
Posts: 1,872
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

In the late 50's or early 60's, memory fades after awhile, Victor Stanzel Co offered a 100.00 prize to anyone who won stunt at the nats. I don't think you had to win first just place. To this day it has never been claimed.
So to add my part of the story, That 100.00 at the time was about equal to all the money in the world to me at the time and since I could fly mono line, I figured a stunt pattern would be a cinch. Stanzel had a few 'trainer type' models to get you over the hurdle and I got one and set it up. Take off was a piece of cake, level flight was easy, the reverse wing over should have told me to stop, the 3 inside loops were round but not at all in place and I couldn't make small corrections in time. Inverted flight was ok. Outside loops were the same as the upright but scared the crap out of me on the bottoms as it felt that I'd never get it going back up. So it went to square loops and that was all it wrote, oh triangles are not possible for me with M/L and I guess that the resulting crash was a real lesson in reality that I wouldn't be bringing home any of that moolah. Monoline works in speed simply because of the limited control needede to fly one. And they are actually a fairly stable platform to fly.the comment about soft controls is reasonably accurate.
Dennis
Old 12-12-2009, 05:45 PM
  #25  
My Feedback: (90)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Minersville, PA
Posts: 1,872
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: Why don't we put technology to work ?

In the late 50's or early 60's, memory fades after awhile, Victor Stanzel Co offered a 100.00 prize to anyone who won stunt at the nats. I don't think you had to win first just place. To this day it has never been claimed.
So to add my part of the story, That 100.00 at the time was about equal to all the money in the world to me at the time and since I could fly mono line, I figured a stunt pattern would be a cinch. Stanzel had a few 'trainer type' models to get you over the hurdle and I got one and set it up. Take off was a piece of cake, level flight was easy, the reverse wing over should have told me to stop, the 3 inside loops were round but not at all in place and I couldn't make small corrections in time. Inverted flight was ok. Outside loops were the same as the upright but scared the crap out of me on the bottoms as it felt that I'd never get it going back up. So it went to square loops and that was all it wrote, oh triangles are not possible for me with M/L and I guess that the resulting crash was a real lesson in reality that I wouldn't be bringing home any of that moolah. Monoline works in speed simply because of the limited control needed to fly one. And they are actually a fairly stable platform to fly.the comment about soft controls is reasonably accurate.
Dennis

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.