I hope Kim stays with it.   The videos I have seen of the quad copters flying were indoors.   No outside breezes or turbulent air.   One exception was a video in which the gentleman is using GPS to help control his machine. 

Quote from: Igor Burger on August 24, 2013, 07:45:46 AM
I see it is here again. Kim will probably write again that I am stopping world from spinning, but my meaning about it is, that it is not good idea. One thing is playing with such stuff, it is ok, I also did many tests also with gyros etc some years ago, may be someone will remember my pictures with servos attached on fuselage, but pushing that stuff to contests is in my eyes not good idea. Yes replacing pushrods with wire does not violate anything, but it opens doors to several unwanted things. In rules working group we analyzed it some year(s) ago, Doug got it immediatelly, it is very easy to connect stabilizing gyros. It is question of minutes and noone can ever check it, because electronic is blat box for outside spectator. Then we can incorporate altitude stabilization from quadcopters. It is also existing and available solution. We can continue this way until we come to battle of programmers or bank accounts. If you do not believe it is doable, you can see several quadcopters flying paralel the same aerobatic pattern on youtube. There are several such videos.

I cannot say that I am not comfortable in such contest, I will certainly enjoy it, but I do not thing it should be done in event dedicated to competition of human abilities. So my meaning is, that "primary function" as defined in FAI F2B rules should stay mechanical.

And I also affraid of safety risks of such solution. But we are here in electric section, so I will not open it.

Hi Igor,

We have already had our words over this issue. I told you at the W/C's that I would rather be friends and I still believe that is a better path. You have however raised some interesting points and I would appreciate your views.  Since the first electric stunters in 2006 this has been a "battle" of programmers. You are a programmer, Pat is a programmer, I am a programmer, The people at Schulze and Castle are programmers. Without good programming we would not have proper electric motor runs. As to a battle of the cheque book, FAI aerobatics at the world level long ago crossed that line. A significant number of competitors at the 2012 W/C's flew Yatsenko models at approx: $4,000.00 each. I wish I could afford one. As a member of both the FAI FAI F2 Subcommittee and the FAI F2B Workgroup which you mention I am aware that the result of the discussion was that what I was doing with respect to Fly-By-Wire control was judged to be completely within the rules. I am sure you recognize that I could not have passed technical inspection if my model was not in compliance. I had to answer many questions.

In the paragraph above you said:

"I cannot say that I am not comfortable in such contest, I will certainly enjoy it, but I do not thing it should be done in event dedicated to competition of human abilities. So my meaning is, that "primary function" as defined in FAI F2B rules should stay mechanical."

Do you truly mean this? If you do mean this we need to revert to the most primitive motor/engine control systems ( i.e. engine and muffler and electric motor with no governor). I find this just a bit disingenuous as you yourself rely on an active timer with an accelerometer to control your motor. I see nothing there that a simple human being could accomplish without a lot of technology and programming.

You say that this idea (my idea) is bad. Why is your idea ( active timer with accelerometer) good? You have the same "black box" on your model that I do on mine. (no one can "see" inside your chip)

It sounds a little like the pot calling the kettle "black".

Regardless of your response we will always be friends and I will always have the highest respect for your accomplishments.

Kim.

I'm nobody in particular but AI think while it may be an inventive idea.I think it is a bad idea.
I posted before and noone had said when happens in the event of total battery failure ?
Yes thats my one main objection. Granted that on one's lines going slack a model has no control. But you can at least attempt to run and get your lines tight and regain control.
In the event of battery failure what can you do

Quote from: jim gilmore on August 24, 2013, 05:56:32 PM
I'm nobody in particular but AI think while it may be an inventive idea.I think it is a bad idea.
I posted before and no one had said when happens in the event of total battery failure ?
Yes that's my one main objection. Granted that on one's lines going slack a model has no control. But you can at least attempt to run and get your lines tight and regain control.
In the event of battery failure what can you do

Jim,

I appreciate that you see it as "inventive". It certainly keeps me off the streets.   

I do not see much if any difference between an electrical failure and a clogged fuel filter. Depending on when or where they occur the results will not be good. As to running to save a model, at a large contest there are likely to be quite a few people standing in close proximity to the circle. I would not move further than designated pilots circle if something happened. Planes can be replaced.

Kim.

A complete battery failure in level flight, would that be the same as someone flying Class 1 Mouse Racer without a pushrod.   It was done at a NATS and I witnessed it as well as many other people.  Of course the person did not continue as he had no control of the elevator.   Even with the fly by wire and all the programming it still takes a pilot on the handle to make it work.   I too wish I had the finances to get and assemble one of the Yatsenko  Shark and had the knowledge plus ability to program the electronics.   Don't be discouraged Kim.   

Quote from: Kim Doherty on August 24, 2013, 03:56:20 PM
We have already had our words over this issue. I told you at the W/C's that I would rather be friends and I still believe that is a better path.

Yes we had, and I am sorry that you again turn it to friendship problem, I have problem with "the thing", not with you. So ...

Quote from: Kim Doherty on August 24, 2013, 03:56:20 PM
Without good programming we would not have proper electric motor runs.

Exactly and that is reason why we separated "other" functions from "primary" function and all controls of other functions including motor run can be controlled by pilot or also automatically by on board processes. We simply need well working electric power train, because we here in Europe do not have fields where we can fly IC engines anymore. Yes I did lot of in electric power train, reason was not raise battle of programmers, reason was save c/l stunt from death, because we simply cannot continue with IC motors anymore. We lost many fields lately, so we simply needed to do something.

Quote from: Kim Doherty on August 24, 2013, 03:56:20 PM
As to a battle of the cheque book, FAI aerobatics at the world level long ago crossed that line. A significant number of competitors at the 2012 W/C's flew Yatsenko models at approx: $4,000.00 each.

Here I cannot agree. Look to top places of last WCh ... I build my model myself, Alex also, Jiri also, ask Paul if he bold his model himself or got it from Yatsenko. Yes, here are many Yatsenko models, but it is also something what can keep stunt alive. They simply cannot build, so they decided to buy it. But it will not fly instead of them, I do not have problem with it. BTW Yatsenko also build his model :- ))))

Quote from: Kim Doherty on August 24, 2013, 03:56:20 PM

In the paragraph above you said:

"I cannot say that I am not comfortable in such contest, I will certainly enjoy it, but I do not thing it should be done in event dedicated to competition of human abilities. So my meaning is, that "primary function" as defined in FAI F2B rules should stay mechanical."

Do you truly mean this? If you do mean this we need to revert to the most primitive motor/engine control systems ( i.e. engine and muffler and electric motor with no governor). I find this just a bit disingenuous as you yourself rely on an active timer with an accelerometer to control your motor. I see nothing there that a simple human being could accomplish without a lot of technology and programming.

I will repeat again, even I am sure you know it. I am speaking only and only about primary function, means maneuvering in altitude and attitude as defined by rules. That is what we get score for. You can have my solution, Keith solution, you can have it from CC, Jeti, it will still give you only model which you must control yourself. My complain is to open doors to self controlled models. I can believe author of such device or not. You can hide such function and no one on this world can inspect it. You say that you are programmer, Pat is programmer, so you both must know it. So that is reason for my complains. Not you personally, not your wire or servos, but opened doors. And yes, because I did already such thing, I know what everything can become necessary for good chances in competition.

Quote from: Kim Doherty on August 24, 2013, 03:56:20 PM

You say that this idea (my idea) is bad. Why is your idea ( active timer with accelerometer) good? You have the same "black box" on your model that I do on mine. (no one can "see" inside your chip)

Yes exactly I know that I have black box in my model and no one can see what it does. It is not inspectable, so that is reason why I do not want it in path of controls which are after all judged. I hope it is now clear what I mean.

Quote from: Kim Doherty on August 24, 2013, 03:56:20 PM

Regardless of your response we will always be friends and I will always have the highest respect for your accomplishments.

Kim, I am, and I never allowed it to be personal. So you not need to call to be friends "again" :- ))))

Quote from: Kim Doherty on August 24, 2013, 06:39:22 PM
I do not see much if any difference between an electrical failure and a clogged fuel filter. Depending on when or where they occur the results will not be good. As to running to save a model, at a large contest there are likely to be quite a few people standing in close proximity to the circle. I would not move further than designated pilots circle if something happened. Planes can be replaced.

I did not want to solve safety problems here, but I can say that I do see difference. Having servos on flaps (ailerons) and elevator, you have fully maneuverable model which can fly anywhere. so your model doing crazy movements can easily kill pilot inside the circle (do you still promis not to move more then usual pilot with ill motor?  ). That is only one of risks. We have our pull test based on hypothesis that our model flies on lines, but it will be different if it flies cross the circle and lines must survive shock on opposite side of circle, so we will probbaly need to redesign our safety rules. I hope we will not end up with fences around our circles, because that is certain death of stunt minimally in our country.

Yes I know that wilde moving of controll surfaces has very low probability, but I can easily imagime servo failure on inner flap of last vingover corner which will roll model inside the circle and elevator will turn it towards the pilot with similar consequences.

Remember, broken pushrod will make model flying straight, means predictable, while failure in FBW system make it crazy flying around.

I hope still friends :- ))))

Quote from: Howard Rush on August 23, 2013, 11:25:59 PM
I think this is a very bad idea.  Stunt will become an autopilot contest. 

Good or bad, you are correct in extrapolating that an off-the-shelf autopilot could be inserted into the system to give perfect 5' level flight except when overcome by the turn knob.

Quote from: john e. holliday on August 24, 2013, 08:09:14 PM
Even with the fly by wire and all the programming it still takes a pilot on the handle to make it work.

Not much of a pilot.  That's Igor's point.

 About the safety worries; there is maybe million times more RC models flying, many of them much more complicated and quite many operated by morons. And not so many serious accidents. Why is Kim's system suddenly so dangerous? L

Well, once cars had csrburators, then EFI with cable-operated TB, now there's eletronic TBs totally programmable... I guess it's an option, and I like it. Don't see it as a dangerous thing.
But that's me..

Marcus

I agree with Howard and Igor. Cool but no good for stunt competition. If people start to use them I will draft a rules proposal to have them banned.

Derek

Howard (and I am asking this "for reals"), wouldn't you need a radar altimeter onboard to make it an autopilot event?

Or is the possibility for yaw or roll stability augmentation enough to argue against the fly by wire concept.

I have seen the quad copters doing their thing and it is quite amazing to say the least.  I saw one where the stood a 5' wooden dowel on top if it and it balanced it.  BUT it needed programing from the outside to keep it all going.  Plus it was in a an area where it could send signals to a certain area so it knew where it was at all times and could create an "area of flight" or a map of some sort.  It is crazy cool! In stunt we still have to waive the handle.  The surfaces must be controlled by the handle and if that is happening then what does it matter how the surface is moved only that it is moved with the action of the handle connected directly to the control system.

As far as gyros go for stabilization.  I think it would be killer.  In flight trimming!  BUT you have to be able to adjust the gains on gyros to get the proper response.  I have to adjust mine on my helicopter often.  It would be a constant battle of trim every time you go out a fly to make sure it is was acting properly for the conditions.  What if said conditions change in mid flight and you cant make changes....??  Changing the trim every time you go out...sound familiar?  Yep we chase that around all the time but for the most part once we are close there are very few changes made.  We can overcome changing conditions mid flight because our system on board is at one setting the entire time. We can use our brains and sometimes our brawn to go over the flight trim we have set and still make it look good.  A gyro out of sync will actually make things far worse as this would be an active system putting in too much roll / anti-roll, yaw / anti-yaw corrections.  It could be a huge disaster.  But if you got one to work it would be pretty cool if you ask me! 

As far as programmed stunt.  That would be very difficult to do without on board altimeter and mapping.  It is not a simple, program the servo to turn 90 degrees once the up input is given.  If it were that simple the plane would have start from a perfect 0 degrees AoA and we never fly at the perfect 0.  If you aren't at the perfect 0 and you turn it and it goes 90 and stops the leg wont be straight.  When you make a correction it is in the programmed maneuver waiting for the next input to turn 90 again, now your correction is actually a whole 90 degree turn again and the maneuver is lost. 

Autopilot would be outlawed for sure as you don't have to wave the handle.  You are not actually controlling the surfaces in that case so it is already a non issue.

It would be very nice to have an alternative to a fully mechanical control system. The infinite combinations of flap to elevator ratio mixing and expo/reverse expo combinations through software is very enticing. Adjusting flap and elevator neutral settings would be so much easier! 

Preventing autonomous systems would be tricky, but I would hope some medium could be developed to prevent the all out banning of servo based control systems. 

Thanks,
Jason

PS: Doug are you going to be flying in Dallas this weekend?  We are planning to be there.

How functional could an autopilot system operate if the flaps were not allowed to function as ailerons and the rudder was not allowed to be servo driven? I realize Kim's model has independently actuated flaps.  If the flaps are required to be physically connected to one another to prevent independant movement and the rudder was not tied to a servo, then the potential for the model turning into the circle due to servo malfunction would be greatly reduced.  In this configuration, a servo malfunction would simply cause the model to pitch up or down.

Quote from: Derek Barry on August 26, 2013, 09:45:49 AM
I agree with Howard and Igor. Cool but no good for stunt competition. If people start to use them I will draft a rules proposal to have them banned.

Derek

   Probably should do it BEFORE, if you are going to do it ever. Igor's argument about black boxes is pretty much identical to my and others previous points - you have a black box of unknown function, some signals go in, and some signals come out. And you have no idea what it does.

    What Kim is currently doing looks fine to me, but you must have some way to determine that it is not an autopilot. I suggested that we ought to come up with some better way of determining what the box was doing a few years ago.  But eliminating electronics in the pitch axis certainly solves the problem, as crude as it is.

    Brett

Quote from: Brett Buck on August 26, 2013, 10:57:56 PM
   Probably should do it BEFORE, if you are going to do it ever. Igor's argument about black boxes is pretty much identical to my and others previous points - you have a black box of unknown function, some signals go in, and some signals come out. And you have no idea what it does.

    What Kim is currently doing looks fine to me, but you must have some way to determine that it is not an autopilot. I suggested that we ought to come up with some better way of determining what the box was doing a few years ago.  But eliminating electronics in the pitch axis certainly solves the problem, as crude as it is.

    Brett

Maybe I will...

I am not really concerned about getting beat by a "smart plane", I just think adding servos to stunt is a bad idea and it goes against what I believe stunt to be.

Derek

"If it ain't broke don't fix it"  If that had been Jim Walker's attitude we wouldn't even have control line flying as we know it.  I'm sure that there was nothing wrong with free flight flying in his day, it wasn't "broke", but he saw something different.  In all these discussion about keeping the event "like it's always been" it is always forgotten that the pioneers of the event used the best technology that was available to them at the time.  If control line flying were invented today with the availability of today's technology, who knows what our control systems would look like?  They might be quite different from what we're accustomed to.  Is a fly-by-wire system a viable way of controlling a stunt plane or does it have significant advantages over current control systems or is it too finicky, prone to problems or have other flaws that outweigh the theoretical advantages?  We don't know yet.  So we should stop bickering (seems to be controliners second nature) and encourage Kim and others like him to keep trying, keep experimenting, keep struggling and see what comes of it.  They're advancing the state of the art and need to be commended for it.

Quote from: David Hoover on August 27, 2013, 09:52:10 AM
  If control line flying were invented today with the availability of today's technology, who knows what our control systems would look like?  They might be quite different from what we're accustomed to. 

Yeah, they would cut the leadouts off and call it RC.

The problem is not that people want to try new things and develop new technology, it is when those things push the boundaries of what should and should not be allowed in competition. I do not think that having servos move the control surfaces will give anyone an advantage over anyone else. If anything, not having feedback from the controls could make it more difficult to fly. I just think allowing servos and programmable settings on control surfaces will open up a can of worms that will be very hard to close if it gets out of hand. Kind of like the recent BOM/composite debates. Nobody will be able to tell what is and what is not legal...

Derek

Quote from: Derek Barry on August 27, 2013, 03:47:44 AM
Maybe I will...

I am not really concerned about getting beat by a "smart plane", I just think adding servos to stunt is a bad idea and it goes against what I believe stunt to be.

Derek

  Generally, I agree with you. I think allowing 2.4 GHz control is far more like that than a sensor/servo-based bellcrank, but I can see it either way. Control-line means "control through the lines" so I can argue either way on the bellcrank *IF* there was a way to determine the functionality is limited to merely reflecting the control inputs. Right now, I can't see how to do that, nor could I 15 years or so ago when this first came up, hence the "mechanical connections" proposal in FAI (that didn't get adopted).

   Brett

What's the point of handing this hobby over to technicians and programers. I am totally bored by the idea of buying my way into defeating Brett, Paul, Howard, Bob, Kaz, Doug, Derrick and all. Took a while for me to understand the implications of Paul Walker's faux Fox burp. I think it's against the spirit of Control Line Stunt. There is no adequate comparison to what preceded this. Since all tuning before electric was fundamentally mechanical and did not use in any way an on board computer.

All we need is for somebody to find a way to tell the aircraft how to return to level flight and it will them be a contest of manuevers above the 4- 6 Ft level flight zone.
Make a wing over and the ac automatically truns itself to achieve level attitude in the right place.Then yours doing squares and only needing to control 3 out of 4 corners.. Granted this is beyond what the new cotrol is now..but where do new techs stop ??

Quote from: Dennis Moritz on August 27, 2013, 07:15:44 PM
What's the point of handing this hobby over to technicians and programers. I am totally bored by the idea of buying my way into defeating Brett, Paul, Howard, Bob, Kaz, Doug, Derrick and all. Took a while for me to understand the implications of Paul Walker's faux Fox burp. I think it's against the spirit of Control Line Stunt. There is no adequate comparison to what preceded this. Since all tuning before electric was fundamentally mechanical and did not use in any way an on board computer.

It is not yours or mine or anyone elses to hold on to or to hand over. Your part is that of active observer/participant. Be thankful it was a going concern during your lifetime. As to handing it over to programmers I doubt that you have built as many stick and tissue FF, Rubber, Indoor or C/L as this programmer has in the past 52 years. I also doubt that you actively participate in trying to advance or preserve the essence of this incredible pass time.  If you want to defeat Paul or Bob then you surely know the way to Carnegie Hall. Why don't you go do something productive like going to school to learn ASL so you can teach deaf kids to fly. How about running a build and fly clinic for a thousand or so kids. How about anything other than complaining or gum flapping.

There are no on board processors in Hoops and Sticks, Hula Hoops, Super Balls, Tops, Edsels etc. All gone. As surely gone as control line will be if it remains in its current state. Your concern and that of others rings hollow. No one has cheated. No one intends to. Go ahead and further isolate the good ole USA from the rest of the world. Why let facts interfere with good old fashioned story telling.

Frankly Scarlet there is not enough money to buy a victory over any of the above mentioned competitors even if they gave the technology away. Oh I forgot, you know about the burp.

Kim.   

RC does all that you describe Kim. At a more sophisticated level. So what. If I wanted to fly RC, I would fly RC. Keep going in this direction of development and the lines attached to the bird will be without a purpose. Might as well hang them on your neck and turn around and around in a circle. Control Line, Free Fight, building with balsa and tissue and dope doesn't capture the imagination of many young people. Most of us can't work on our cars anymore either. At least not the modern one. Unless we understand the electronics. People don't build anything much these days, work with their hands. Eras pass. In the fifties when I was coming up CL was happening all over the place. Even in NYC. No one coaxed me into the hobby. No one handed it to me. I was drawn to it. In fact, I never met an adult who flew control line until I was an adult myself. Most of us, I bet, were like that. I plan to go on building and flying traditional control line airplanes until my aching back and stiffening arthritic fingers make it impossible. I will continue to compete at my own sorry level of skill because it's fun. Killing off the essence of Control Line flying is no way to save it.

Yeah. Far as I'm concerned Paul Walker did cross a line. The velocity whatever electronic on board computer should not be allowed in competition stunt.