Talk:Radio-controlled aircraft

Coroplast

"Amateur hobbyists have more recently developed a range of new model designs utilizing the corrugated plastic or "Coroplast" material. These models are collectively called "SPADs" which stands for Simple Plastic Airplane Design. Fans of the SPAD concept tout increased durability, ease of building, and lower priced materials as opposed to balsa models, sometimes (though not always) at the expense of greater weight and crude appearance." You just can't be serious about the above "Coroplast" comment -- I've been heavily involved in RC for the last 6 years, and I don't know ANYONE who uses Coroplast to build aircraft. Alternatively, we use Dow Bluecore, Depron, and EPP foams -- these foams are inexpensive, durable, and easy to repair. When was this article last updated? :embarassed: Contributions/70.169.212.130 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved in RC since the late 1970's, there is some truth to the above comments (at lease in my area) as I know several people who have made Coroplast airplanes (although they are nowhere near the majority, as the above comments (I believe) seem to imply. It seems that the people in my area that make SPAD's compete with one another to see who can make the cheapest (were talking pocket change here), toughest, and ugliest plane. It's quite funny really... 75.159.102.237 (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Channel"

"Channel" seems to have two different meanings in this article. Perhaps someone more knowledgable can sort this out?

A discussion about channels and frequency has been added to hopefully clarify this. Bgrayless

New extremely light electric aeroplanes

Such as those made by SilverLit are gaining popularity (here in UK anyway), perhaps they deserve a section of their own? --jazzle 09:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right! I added a "Toy class" section!  :-)

-- Gummer85 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge Aircraft Pages

There is another page, Model_aircraft, that has a lot of redundant RC plane related information and some additional information that doesn't seem to be appropriate for a "Model Aircraft" page. Model doesn't necessarily mean RC and seeing how modeling aircraft and actually flying RC aircraft are very different hobbies, I think it would make sense to merge all the relevant RC information from "Model Aircraft" over to this page and then link to this page. - Bgrayless

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Anyone want to help?

Well they are obviously related, since some peopl build their models to fly, so that article should cover at least a little bit about flying them and RC specifically, but I agree it has too much. Take it up with people on that talk page and see what you can do. Each article should be comprehensive about their topic, but not go into too much detail about specific areas and exclude other important ones. This article should be the detailed RC one, that article should summarize the RC facet. - Taxman ^Talk 12:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the RC related info over to this page. There were some comments on "Model_aircraft" that mentioned doing the same thing, so I took care of it. Both pages could use a little bit of cleanup for consistency though. - Bgrayless 12:52, August 30, 2005

That's generally good, but don't take everything out of that article. Have a look at Wikipedia:Summary style. It shows a way to organize related material so no one article gets too detailed and loses focus, but each also covers an overview of what they should. Hopefully that guideline is clear enough. What should happen in this case is Model aircraft should carry a summary of RC info (basically a summary 1 or 2 paragraphs of what this article should ideally cover), and this article should be listed as the main article of the RC section of Model aircraft. Then this article should have a summary discussion of model aircraft and link to that article. After that it's just a lot of style and formatting work that this article needs, so try to review the manual of style guidelines when you can. - Taxman ^Talk 19:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a notice on the Model_airplanes page letting editors know that this page exists. I put an image on the Model_airplanes page without knowing about this page. When I later found this page, which I thought was the same because much of the content is very similar, I wondered why my image had been removed. I would like to help merging the pages or making a wikibook. - The_Ball 22:03, November 15, 2005

Article Size

Does anyone have any problems with the size of this article? I'm curious because I have been adding a lot to it(using mostly other peoples great expertise) over the past month or so. The reason I have been adding so much is because I personally had a very difficult time finding good information to get started with RC planes. I understand that this article may not be the best place for a full "RC Plane Guide", but there is so much factual information in regards to the RC plane hobby that it seems you can only find through experience or working with a mentor, that I wanted to define and create great definitive information on RC planes for others to use. Eventually, I would like to add information on RC plane history (which would probably be broken out into its own article) and more photos that visually describe some of the terms and concepts that are so confusing to newbees. Any feedback???

Hmm, I don't get it. That is exactly what my comment above was designed to help with. Summary style is the way to avoid having an article be too long, but still cover all the most important information appropriately. Also try to avoid original research. - Taxman ^Talk 17:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the summary information after you recommended it. I did modify the first part of the article to more of a generic RC plane summary and moved the specific info about frequencies and channels down to the proper area of the article. Do you have any recommendations as to what parts, if any, would be good candidates for their own article? I was thinking that "Radio controlled airplane (flight)" could be it's own since it could get technical and detailed, but is still crucial. Perhaps "Radio controlled airplane (construction)" could be it's own as well, seeing how many hobbyists don't build, they only buy assembled planes, so the information wouldn't be crucial to a "buyer". If the technical specifics of model aeronatics and calculations gets too deep for this article, it could become its own topic as well. I am trying to avoid original research. Much of the stuff in the article is stuff that was already on the Wiki site, just reorganized or transferred to this page as appropriate. Other info has been extracted from several experienced hobbyists either in person or in research (much of which can be tweaked as required) but not easily available to a new researcher. - Brian Grayless

Well I don't know enough about the topic to really know what is important, but what you've outlined above seems like a good start to me. You'll just have to outline it on paper maybe and prioritize what is the most important, top level, overview information, and move down from there. Take a look at examples of featured articles to see how the articles the community considers its best are organized. Another general comment is there is too much advice type writing, like "Getting Started", "Selecting a plane", etc. Instead, it should be something like:

Types of planes

Kits, building, etc

RTF

etc

Plane characteristics

Size

Wing location

etc

Don't take it all the wrong way, because the article is coming along nicely, but of course needs work like other articles. Generally the recommendation on size is to try to stay at or a bit below 32kb because that is a good size to avoid overwhelming the reader, and they can still read the subarticles for details. Keep up the good work. - Taxman ^Talk 21:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Howto: building RC airplanes

I really appreciate all the information people have added to this article. When this article gets trimmed back to a short encyclopedia article on what is a radio controlled airplane, I think it would be good to move the trimmings over to a wikibook focused more on how to build RC planes, like other how-to wikibooks such as Wikibooks:Becoming a Private Pilot, Wikibooks:Jet Propulsion, Wikibooks:How To Build A Computer, etc. Would Wikibooks:RC Airplane be a good name, or would you prefer something else? --DavidCary 23:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll see if I can do this. --phatmonkey 09:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved a huge amount to the wikibooks article and cleaned up this page. --phatmonkey 10:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a great improvement overall. Though some of that could be pulled back as short summaries if needed or to fill out sub articles on specific topics. Also, please use useful Wikipedia:Edit summaries so people know you're chopping out large amounts of material. - Taxman ^Talk 14:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

legality

where can people fly these rc airplanes? I see people flying them in parks, but is it really legal to fly them over cities? What kinds of limitations are there?

There are park fliers that can be flown pretty much anywhere, they are generally relatively small in size. If it is gas powered model, most pilots are associated to an RC hobby club. These clubs have very strict rules and safety procedures for flying model aircraft. Most clubs belong to either AMA (USA) or MAAC (Canada) organizations. These organizations are legal entities that provide insurance coverage to persons and property damage in the event of an accident. They also ensure that clubs enforce their safety guidelines on club members, etc.

Gdavidp1 07:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to RC flying and as such do not have the knowlege of others in here, but I have found out that some cities do have specific rules / legalities for flying any type of RC aircraft. Here in Jacksonville Beach you are required to keep all electric powered RC aircraft at least 30 feet away from people and buildings, and aircraft with glow engines must maintain a distance of at least 100 feet. Also, you are not permitted to fly on the beach here if the winds exceed a certain speed at or below 300 feet AGL.

Stregon 12:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Guys i do not know how to use this feature but let me tell you that this article just explains the variety of RC planes. I added some beginners advice for choosing their channels and i truely hope many others can start a section or even a article on Beginners Advice on RC Aircraft. Thanks!

Does anyone see the problems I see with the statement: "The Federal Government has recently prohibited such use of RC Jets in urban areas (2006)."?

First: Whose Federal Government? Lithuania maybe? Second: Can anyone find the citation of this law? Or do we just trust that "sometime in 2006" "some unknown Federation's Government" made such flight illegal? Sounds pretty hokey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.83.37 (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I've removed the "hokey" statement. -- Jmc (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Why were all the external links tossed... and now only the single electric RC-centric link exist? jsonin 21.May.08

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Turning

I moved the para just before the Turning section into it and revised it, then removed this sentence:

There are generally two ways of turning a simple Remote Control Aircraft. Probably the most common way is via the rudder. The alternative is by cutting one engine or lowering the power while the other engine is at full power.

which was at one time the entire "Turning section". Seemed out of place, not to mention not entirely accurate. Nibios 02:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Non constructive edits

Hello JmcYou seem to just delete stuff that you dont understand such as in Radio-controlled aircraft RC model aircraft dont always use the same airfoil types as real aircraft KF type airfoil's DO NOT work well on real aircraft and are not used on them, but are great on RC planes. Instead of just deleting information why don't you take some time polish it up using your "greater familiarity with English grammar and style." as you mentioned on your user talk page (talk. Can you please restore the information in the article. May i suggest using this talk page first if there is an issue with the document —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefmanzzz (talk • contribs) 09:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Chiefmanzzz assumes that my edits to his (Dickeroo's?) new section 'Wing Types' (which I amended to the more correct 'Airfoils') are made with lack of understanding. Not so. Over 50 years' experience with model aircraft have taught me that the same aerodynamic principles are involved whatever the size of aircraft (shades of The Flight of the Phoenix !). For my part, I'd be interested to know in what respects they're claimed to differ, and what is the evidence for that claimed difference, if any.

Once that's established, I'm sure we can settle on a consensus wording for an 'Airfoils' section.

-- Jmc (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Stability

The subsections concerning the positioning of the wings on an airplane (e.g. high low and mid-wing) seem to suggest that an airplane can be treated like a pendulum. Specifically, the first sentence in the low wing section states: "... the weight of the plane sits on top of the wing structure, making the balance a bit top heavy."

Any explanation of longitudinal or latitudinal stability involving a pendulum is generally wrong. As a plane rolls, the lift vector rotates with the airplane resulting in no restoring moment; it largely doesn't matter where the CG is with respect to the wing. Side slip of the airplane will result in a significant portion of longitudinal stability. From personal experience, classic high wing airplanes have large ${L_{\beta }}$ from dihedral and large vertical stabilizers. Airplanes with lower wings often happen to have less dihedral and are less longitudinally stable. However, this is not necessarily always the case.

There are several other relevant sources of stability in addition to ${L_{\beta }}$which are not particularly relevant to this page but are covered reasonably well on the Flight Dynamics page. Either way, the wing location section should be edited. As a final note, the second paragraph in the low wing section is gibberish. The.Nth (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments make sense to me, The.Nth - certainly more sense than the current section. Please feel free to go ahead and edit. -- Jmc (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

FPV section

I just added a section on video piloting/first-person view flying. Since FPV is rapidly growing in popularity among RC hobbyists, I felt it was worth mentioning in this article. I'm not entirely sure I put this section in the best spot, however. Right now it's just after the section on 3D flying, since that part of the article was talking about different categories of RC flight. But if someone thinks it fits better in a different part of the article, feel free to move it.--DebateLord (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff, but could you find some references for it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks good, but references are needed. I'm particularly interested in references for this: "The most common frequencies used for video transmission are 900 MHz, 1.2 GHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz. Specialized long-range control systems operating at 433 MHz[.]" –Sparkgap (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on finding references for that.--DebateLord (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Added references. If anyone thinks the section needs more, feel free to add them.--DebateLord (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This answers some questions I had about the frequencies mentioned. The distance reference is questionable though. Generally, web-forums are not considered reliable sources (See WP:SPS). –Sparkgap (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A380

I say this is relevant, and another editor says it isn't. Frankly, we could put in a whole section on the video, as this is a very neat Radio Controlled aircraft that is being talked about. We could do it one way or another. Relevancy is in the eyes of the beholder. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Or we could put in text to this effect: At least one large radio controlled model of the A-380 has been built and flown in a model air show in Switzerland.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

On what basis could a link to the Airbus A380 article possibly be relevant? If a link to that article is relevant, then why not add links to articles on every full-size aircraft of which a radio-controlled model has been built and flown? -- Jmc (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem very relevant to me. Why are we talking about an Airbus? It's not even the biggest RC plane. The biggest one is a model of the Boeing 747, and it's nowhere near the size of a real one. What you are suggesting is more for Youtube. No one really cares that there's an RC airbus, and it seems more like advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfson (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Insider jargon

An encyclopedia isn't the place for "shop talk" for enthusiasts and experts.The section on 3d flying has too much jargon to be understandable to someone who isn't already knowledgeable. Why is stunt flying called "3d"? All flying is in 3 dimensions (forward, left/right, up/down). This article is the least helpful one I've seen so far on r/c aircraft.(The FPV section is very good though.)77Mike77 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

US Air Near Miss--Legal Ceiling for RC

I don't see any info on legal flight ceiling for RCs on this page. Considering recent events, that could be important. Genepoz (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead Image Replacement

I replaced the lead image on 2017-11-30. The original lead image was only 240×320 pixels from 2008. Since then, images with higher resolution showcasing this hobby have become available on Wikimedia Commons. I replaced the lead image with one I uploaded, taken at my flying field showing a random member of the club and his two planes.

This was promptly reverted by Jmc

See the two images in question below. Starting with the original 240x320 one:

A radio-control flyer (holding a transmitter) guides his aircraft in for a landing

My replacement (3,024×4,032) that has since been reverted:

Hobbyist carries a 60" wingspan plane back to workbench where a micro RC biplane sits

Now. This article does not need to use the image I uploaded. There are plenty of great pictures to choose from, on the Mediawiki category page.

If no one contests in two days, I'll choose another better and higher-resolution picture from the category (not mine) to replace the lead image. If someone thinks my original choice is OK, do let me know. If I hear nothing, for the sake of being objective I'll use someone else's picture, such as these:

Thanks! Fred Hsu (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

To explain my reversion: although, as an image, Fred Hsu's intended replacemnt is of superior quality, it's decidedly inferior as an illustration of the central point of radio-controlled aircraft. The original shows a flier actively controlling his aircraft in flight. By contrast, the intended replacement shows, in the foreground, a statically positioned model with nothing to identify it specifically as a r/c model and, in the background, a person holding, not flying, another model.

Now, I'd be the first to concede that the original illustration now looks a bit dated. But I'd still want to press the point that any replacement should be no less effective in conveying the essence of the subject of radio-controlled aircraft. Maybe the third of Fred's other offerings (Arava Pam X 007.jpg)? (Incidentally, it's remarkable how few of the images on the Mediawiki Category:Radio-controlled aircraft page clearly show aircraft being actively radio-controlled.) -- Jmc (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I figured that you reverted for that reason. That's also why the images I proposed as alternatives all have a pilot and a plane in flight. I felt that any of the three alternatives is better than the old picture that already served its purpose in the past years. But on the other hand, I am not completely satisfied with the three of them either. They are all HD. But the first shot follows the plane thus making people in the foreground blurry - it's actually a good picture but many may not appreciate it. The second one has too much smoke in the scene. The third one isn't the best composition. All three of them feel too commercial.

On your comment about the "static model" - look more closely ;)

Maybe I'll look for a better image. And come back for further discussion. Fred Hsu (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fred Hsu Good. Glad you're hunting down a better illustration. I felt I was making the best of a less-than-optimal choice in plumping for the third. I agree that all feel commercial. And, with the first, it's not at all clear that any of the four blurry people is actually controlling the jet!

As for the "statically positioned model", I really can't make out what clearly distinguishes it from a free-flight craft =? [EDIT] On closer (very much closer!) examination, I guess the distinguishing feature is the control horn and Z-bend on the bottom of the rudder. Though it might just as well be a stick insect ;) Jmc (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. I took some pictures today. While image quality is not HD compared to the three alternatives I picked, it is much better than the existing one. It is more typical of today's RC flying at a typical AMA flying field. The alternative 3 I showed earlier is really not what most people fly - that looks like a monster 1/2 scale plane. Better pictures will be take in the future, and perhaps the lead image will be replaced yet again. Fred Hsu (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement on the previous illustration in that "is more typical of today's RC flying". It lacks one key feature of that illustration, though: the transmitter is completely obscured. It'd be good to have a lead illustration which clearly shows the flier exercising radio control. -- Jmc (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I get what you mean about the antenna. The truth is that today's radios look like this:

modern radio

There is no antenna to speak of. The only way to do this right is to capture a picture with the plane between the photographer and the pilot. No AMA flying fields will allow this. I may set up a tripod in the middle of the field to take shots like this, with a remote trigger. But it's unlikely to happen this year. I haven't used my SLR camera for years now.

While we are talking about modern equipment, the Frequency section can use a rewrite. Things have changed in the last 10 years. But that will also have to wait. If I get to it, I'll propose a reorganization of this article on the talk page before I do anything major with the text. That section on Pylon racing is excessive, for instance. It should go into its own article. Types of planes probably can be reorganized based on popular classifications as shown on rcgroups.com, the popular model airplane discussion group. Cheers. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fred Hsu I didn't refer to the antenna; what I said was "the transmitter is completely obscured". Though AMA makes it difficult to get a suitable shot, on my local MFNZ flying field it would be possible, so maybe I'll try myself sometime in the new year.

I look forward to your proposal for a reorganization of this article. A glaring deficiency at the moment is an illustrated section on r/c equipment. -- Jmc (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Uploading usable images and rearranging images

The above lead image discussion led me to upload a few more useful pictures for the purpose of illustration. One key point is to include pictures of hobbyists with planes in view. I am uploading pictures specifically to plug gaps in coverage based on existing text. Perhaps one day I will revise the article text holistically.

In the process I may remove a few pictures. I will move these removed pictures over here for recording purposes, and in case I later find sections where they can be resurrected.

Shinden by Bryan Hebert

I agree with the above, that the ideal new (or replacement) pictures should include the following:

1. A clear relative close-up of a plane as it is being flown

2. The radio control transmitter should be in view

3. And I would add that the radio control modeler's face should not be in view

4. No advertisements should be in view

Just my two cents. I don't even know if this would be possible, in a practical sense. Eparaqutam (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Radio-controlled aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140709152959/http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf to http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210100627/http://www.nzmaa.org.nz/frequencies.asp to http://nzmaa.org.nz/frequencies.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Can I add a diagram of how RC planes work?

I have a diagram, and I got it from https://maker.pro/custom/projects/rc-plane-beginners Erfson (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect a similar question I have just answered for you at the Teahouse relates to this website. The answer then is 'no, you may not add these images'. Unless I've missed it, I cannot see anywhere on that site a release of images for non-commercial and commercial use. Without that CC-BY-SA release, you would be breaching another person's copyright, and that is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. You can add images you've created yourself, or those that have been released with a Creative Commons commercial use licence. But not if they belong to another person, or have only been released for non-commercial use, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for further info. -- Jmc (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Large scale J-3 Cub Remote Control aircraft.jpg
• P-51 Large Scale Electric RC Airplane.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

/* Basic flight controls */

Hello JMC: I noticed that you reverted my edits on basic flight controls for Radio Control Aircraft on the 18th of May. Could you please explain why you reverted them. Thank you Eparaqutam (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)