Hi

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've heard everything discussed in this topic in talking about this to freinds and thinking it over for myself.

I've decided that if you decide to get into the Park flyer /slow flyer realm you owe it to yourself and possible future freinds/ enemies that you may create through your actions, the time to research WHO flys WHERE, WHEN they fly and on WHAT channel, and at least try to make some friends at the closest model field, even if they're AMA or not. You might discover that the "cranky old power tripping geezer" has an incredible soft spot in his heart for tiny, flimsy rubber powered tissue or silkspan freeflighters and is completely unaware of whats happening in the land of small and slow.

It's kinda like getting to know all your neighbors, you may not see things eye to eye, but you try to live with each other's space in mind. I also think that the time spent searching out flying fields and reading maps of the area will give you a clue as to how close you are to their base of operations. I'd give at least six miles as the Buzzzard fly's as a ballpark figure, pun intended.

Our advantage is that we can set up and fly at a moments notice. and nearly anywhere we have the skill to manoever. I'm glad to hear that the AMA is thoughtfully considering this, 'cause in reality guy's, we've kinda have the upper hand.

Looee

I have found no club locally that didnt suffer from the ego-maniac power mongering retired old guys (no bias towards non ego-maniac power mongering retired old guys, I would kill to be retired right now!). These are the folks that desire to turn a group of people playing with toy airplanes into an over organized, over-rule oriented totalitarianist organization. The glow clubs do definatly (locally) have anti e-power biases.

Instead, we have an ad-hoc group of e-fliers that meet every weekend in the same spot. There are about 15-20 of us that regularly gather in an empty field, call out our frequencies prior to turning on the transmitters, call out "landing" when we are landing, and are generally respectful of eachother. With the exception of one or two folks who infrequently join us, we all get along very well. We also take issue with anyone trying to over-regulate a mostly anti-regulatory group

This topic has come up so much that is should have its on section on the board.
Lets see if I can distil what has been concluded before.

1. While it makes sense to think that the parkflyers are ignorant of the R/C rules of decorum, no one has proof they have been shot down by one.

2. The receivers in all RC planes are the most sensitive to the closest transmitter and dual conversion doing a better job. Park flyers fly close and are using single conversion receivers more and more.

3. Park flyers would have to be much closer to our planes than currently seems to be happening. The problems we see with radio interference usually is with transmitters on our field or high powered commercial transmitters.

4. It makes some sense for the manufactures to put a dual transmitter strength switch on the transmitters. High for normal flying and low for park or indoor flying.

5. CDMA is coming down in price. The government may or may not let us use it. (makes reliable remote detonators)

Did I miss anything?

Interesting thread and a real bit of insight into some minds.

I see this as an education issue...with very little chance of success. We could just beat a dead horse and get the same results.

AMA is aware of the possibilities and they are trying to come up with something that will help along with the industry, but this is a hard process that will activate the voices of some "radical fringe groups".

What I found really interesting as I read thru this is the "us against them". I think we've become as prejudiced as the guys we used to whine about. Than again, that's just an opinion and we all know about them :-)

To Avalanche / Steve:

You've discovered the solution that works for me...

Originally posted by avalanche:

"I know more people are trying to get their HAM license so they can get off the crowded 72Mhz band. I will probably try to get a HAM license myself just so I have additional options."

Interference? Most days (in a city of 500,000) I have the band to myself. The scanner doesn't even "pop" until I turn my transmitter on. And my boys can use the same gear with cars and boats because in the amateur service there's no distinction, surface vs. air.

Sharing frequencies? It's a hobby dominated by gentlemen (a lot like e-flying!).

The license? About as difficult as a drivers exam -- no Morse code requirement, either.

The problem with unlicensed operators? It's federally regulated and enforced (unlike CB), and the bad boys get arrested and do go to jail.

To Leccyflier / Brian:

Futaba (I use the 6XAS) and JR offer 6 meter radios. FMA Direct has their dual-conversion, full-range, Quantum receiver, 6 channels, 0.5 ounce, dimensions about 2 inches by 0.8 by 0.5. Biggest advantage -- I can "experiment" to my heart's content, in "wide open spaces".

Best Regards,

Ray, NJ0G





[This message has been edited by Ray Heaton (edited 04-19-2001).]

If concern is "my $400 models".....spend a few extra $$ and time and get a Ham-band setup. Given that the parkflyers only fly $25 plains, how could they afford a setup like that for their "toys"?

pullin'

"Tokenizing" the airwaves?

That works real well with "data on a wire" such as Token-Ring or Ethernet.

Yes, all users on the single wire do eventually transmit their data, but they use a mechanism that detects other users such as CDMA (collision detection). When a user is seen sending data, all other senders will WAIT to send data until the user is finnished. In data terms, this can be milliseconds or seconds (in congested situations with several users).

Can you imagine what would happen if your plane were to have to wait seconds until another person(s) on the same channel has sent their data? Sure, the data will be sent to your airplane, but when it finally gets there, it wont matter.

pullin'

While I understand the concerns, I am not convinced that this is an issue - unless it is someone setting up on the other end of the field, or in the next field. The thought of a park flyer crashing in a public park as the result of a frequency clash with a toy car really does concern me.

Remember that the power of the radio emission reduces by the square of the distance, but that doesn't stop someone looking for someone else to blame when their model is destroyed by not having the aerial screwed in properly.

Yes, we do need E flight clubs so that the differing requirements for electrics are met, at least the ones that I fly, but the usable spaces around here seem to be dominated by "real" model flyers.

BTW, I'm the safety officer of a "real" model club!

Regards, John

It's really disconcerting to read post's about the clubs that have taken a stance against Electrics and slow flyers.

Maybe it's the laid backness of our club, but I went to a meeting, two weeks ago at a club I no longer belong to and was welcomed, and put on the spot to give an impromtu talk about slowies and small electrics in general. (I was there to show some friends my latest mad scientist gear drives).
God, talk about nervous and rambling, I didn't want to broach the subject of non AMA flyers being attracted to these planes, but I did eventually get into a discussion about them.

Everyone in the club was "all ears" and interested, yes and a little concerned...
but this is the future of our hobby, I think everyone there realized the attraction and simplicity of these planes. The Club's model shows have been having a few Guillows kits entered as of late, so the interest is there. Their concern has a lot to do with electrics past performance issues, and possible interfernce concerns with the single conversion RX's and TX's being used in the immediate vicinity without proper freq. control.

I can only think that the clubs that ban and pass laws banning and harrass "Lone Eagle" slow flyers are shooting themselves down. This part of the hobby is enevitable.
I'd like to think our club, at least, has the welcome mat out for the slow flyer/park flyer.

Which club would you like to be part of?

Looee

I should also have said that we have a flight line for "real" models and a flight line for indoor/park flyers (some like to call it the IFO line!), that is fine if the two lines are back to back and everyone is using a common frequency control. At another club the issue was sorted out by an IFO being flown on the proper flight line, they soon had an "IFO line"! The problem I have is with faster 400 and 600 models that really don't fit into the normal flight line, but take up too much space for the park flyer line - solution for me at the moment is to go out when it is quiet at the field, while I look for somewhere else to fly.

Regards, John

I'm a little disheartened to hear about some clubs not being open to different types of models or electrics in general. I can say that the members of the club I belong to all seem to share an appreciation for anything that flies, regardless of the power source.

I think we may be parties to one of the most interesting junctures that perhaps this hobby has seen. And it goes beyond simply the emergence of park flyers and electrics on the scene.

The availability of relatively low-cost, lightweight equipment is bringing free-flight modelers into RC and the acquired knowledge that can be shared benefits everyone.

In that regard, I don't think I would like to see park flyers relegated to surface channels or to a discrete set of channels within the aircraft spectrum. The horse is out of the barn already, with so many of us having a small model in our hangar.

What I would like to see is for this debate to be expanded and go "outside the box" so to speak.

For example, the AMA has broad definitions and requirements for an ideal RC flying site. What about developing a set of standards for an glo/electric or electric park flying site (dimensions, flight line location, overfly areas, etc.). These could even be broken down into a 280 or smaller flying field, a speed 400 field or more.

This information could be used by hobbyists like us in securing/acquiring new flying areas--dedicated small flying fields--from municipal authorities or other landowners. These basic dimensions also could be helpful for a first timer getting ready to toss a plane in the air at a baseball diamond. What I'm thinking is maybe the AMA could step up on its flying site assistance efforts for smaller models and electrics.

On the frequency issue, new hobbyists coming in need to be educated about prudent use of their equipment. This responsibility should fall upon hobby shops, kit and equipment providers, the AMA, the modeling press, and all of us.

Hello friends

This discussion always brings up many good and bad ideas, but one thing that keeps bothering me is the reoccurring theme of entitlement, the idea that one group or type of model has more right to use our frequencies is just not the case. Some would say that choice between a $200 slow flyer in the backyard and a $2000 pattern ship at the club field is obvious, but what about that pattern ship vs. a $2000 heli hovering in the driveway? IC, electric, scratch built, ARF, park, competition, plane, heli, club, solo, $40.00 or $4000.00 the FCC makes no stipulation, Just “Model Aircraft Use Only”, the “green haired kid” with a Sky Scooter and the “old geezer” with a 30 year AMA membership are both the same. The truth is that any solution to this very real problem of frequency conflicts lies in the hands of all of us in the R/C model community, we all have a responsibility to do our very best to be aware of others around us. This segregation of groups within the hobby is of no use to any of us on this subject or any other.

Now (stepping off my soapbox), what’s the practical solution? This may be one of those cases where there is no simple and concert answer (such is life). Will the FCC designate frequencies again? Unlikely, where would they make the split in aircraft frequencies, IC / electric? Sense we (electric) are probably no more than 15% of the hobby, we would get about 15% of the channels, then no more than a few of us could fly together. I don’t think splitting up the aircraft channels is a good idea, to preserve are right to choose I think we need to fix this one ourselves.

First order of business in education and information, radio manufactures and retailers could and should provide a warning about this topic specifically. Organizations like the AMA, local clubs and hobby shops can play a large role in spreading the word.

Now even if we all know the danger of shoot downs, not falling victim to it or being perpetrators of it is very hard to stop. Maybe the AMA or other group could start an online registry of frequency use (members and non-members) based on zip code, this would of course be voluntary but who among us would not like to have this information. This database could even be used by radio retailers to help new radio purchaser to choose less crowded channels. I realize that his idea may not be of much use in more heavily populated areas with lots of radios. Radio retailers could also inform customers about clubs and flying sites in the area where they live so that the new radio owner could call and let them know there’s a new flyer in the neighborhood and what channel there on. Also, if you see someone in your area flying, stop and say hi, most of us in the hobby love to chat a bit with a fellow modeler. Exchange information with them about where you fly and what channels you use, and then post that information on a map at a local flying site. And those of us who fly in parks and backyards that are near club fields should make a point of informing the clubs where we fly and on which channels.

Communication between all of us in the hobby is the most effective way to keep things safe and happy.

Gary
Zip code 98946
Channel 54

[This message has been edited by All_talk (edited 04-19-2001).]

I thought I would relate my own experience when I was returning to the hobby as an electric flier a couple of years ago. I wanted a place to fly when I was in town, so I took note of the various fields in use when I was in different hobby shops. I asked around and there was usually promotional material with maps to various fields. I asked one of the people working in a hobby store if he knew of a nearby field that I could use, and he suggested a great place that was in an unused field, pretty far from any known R/C activity. I flew my T-33 there a half dozen time maybe. You can imagine my shock a year or so later when I'd morphed into a heli flier and found that the unofficial heli flying field was just down the street from where I was flying. What's worse was that the owner of the hobby shop where the employee had recommended this field to me was the president of the heli club! I sheepishly asked if there's been any known incidents on ch 28 the previous year. I had tried to act reponsibly, but still tempted fate to give a horrible result. I think it would be a good idea, especially in a city with many clubs, for the local clubs to get together and produce a city area map with blackout areas where one should simply not fly. This handout could be given out by the local hobby shops who are selling kits and supplies.

Regards,

Glen

Very fine comments all around. I just wish there was less conflicts between e-flyers/slimers, AMA/non-AMA, etc.
We're all in this together, and there just is too much elitism around here.

Any active interference will generally be created by another transmitter at the same field.
If the two sites have any distance between them, both planes should be interference free, as the receiver goes for the stronger signal.
I've heard there's two flight lines at our national AMA field.. how far apart are they?
Anything more than a mile should be quite safe for anyone..
As there are no "parks" within 5 miles of the local field, I wouldn't expect any interference except from inadvertant turn ons at our field.
And the parks are closing down flying of -anything- at a rapid rate all over the country because of the loose cannons that flick into "slow flying", screw it up for everyone, and go find some other thing to screw up...
Getting all in a lather over someone flying a distance away is pointless.
.
Sparky Paul http://www.angelfire.com/indie/aerostuff
PJB's Seriously Aeronautical Stuff http://www.networkone.net/~pjburke/index.html