model airplane auto pilot in crosswind

[ChrisSarnowski]

Hi Guys,

Here's a video of an autopilot landing some model airplanes in a crosswind.

http://www.uthere.com/video/video_index.html

It is at the 107th R/C Flyers Club in Saugus, MA.

While I haven't met the developer of the system, we are both members of the 107th club.
However I spend most of my time at the C/L circle east of the R/C runway.

Looks to me like they are developing their GPS autopilot for ease of control / new rc pilots, not cross-country flying.

-Chris

[billbyles]

Hi Guys,

Here's a video of an autopilot landing some model airplanes in a crosswind.

http://www.uthere.com/video/video_index.html

It is at the 107th R/C Flyers Club in Saugus, MA.

While I haven't met the developer of the system, we are both members of the 107th club.
However I spend most of my time at the C/L circle east of the R/C runway.

Looks to me like they are developing their GPS autopilot for ease of control / new rc pilots, not cross-country flying.

-Chris

Well, I watched it and, while interesting, it looks like it would be about like watching a movie about landing an R/C model.  I admire the technology that went into developing an autoland system for R/C but for me doing the flying myself is where the fun is, but that is just me.

[ChrisSarnowski]

Hi Bill,

There are some discussions going on about both UAV auto pilot capabilities and irresponsible development.

Here is one designed by a modeler for modelling purposes. It is limited to 3000' area from launch, and deal
with crosswinds at least for landing and circling around a designated point.

But I hear ya, it is more fun to fly yourself rather than have a computer do it for you.

-Chris

[john e. holliday]

When I flew with the twiddley sticks we learned to fly in any thing.  The field at Shawnee Mission Park was called the flat top.   When the wind was blowing too hard for angle down the run way, I would land across the runway on the west end as it was away from the pits and spectators.   At times the wind was blowing so hard you had to stay on the sticks until some one got to the plane.  A coupe of people never learned that and went home with broken plands.   One day it was so windy that one of our experts took off, climbed to about 35 feet and then landed.   He never got to the center of the runway.   I have witnesses to a landing from about 25 feet up when I throttled back the plane stopped and started going backwards.   A little throttle to get it back over the runway and then back a little until it was on its wheels.   Never turned the wheel.  Had to hold throttle until plane was retreived.

[John Fitzgerald]

Is the future of c/l to hold onto the handle and the autopilot flies a perfect pattern?

[Hoss Cain]

It seems that there are some CL people pointed in that direction.

Even the RC Competition folks seem to be against autopilots in competition flying, which means that those that wish to be competitive will have to learn manual pilotage, as they should.

Although it was 16 years ago when I exited the cockpit scene, I get the feedback that now the FAA is complaining that many young pilots cannot maintain their flying proficiency in today's airline business. Could that be because on the other side, the FAA, and company management (mismanagement !) is requiring more and more use of the autopilot during the flight profile ?  Forked tongues exist in FAA and company requirements.
I never let my machine have more than 20 minutes autopilot time in any 40 minute period. All my climbouts, descents, and lndings were made by ME! 

If that thing for everything in CL to be RC but the elevators, shows up in the list of rules, I will write my CB member to NIX it.

Why would any aeromodeler, be he/she RC or CL ever want something automatic? Beats "L" out of me!

[Brett Buck]

Is the future of c/l to hold onto the handle and the autopilot flies a perfect pattern?

  Efforts are underway to preclude that. The issue is how to prevent autonomous maneuvering and allow other forms of electronic control (like Kim Doherty's bellcrank/servo) system.

    Brett

[john e. holliday]

If that thing for everything in CL to be RC but the elevators, shows up in the list of rules, I will write my CB member to NIX it.

It would not be for automatic functions.  You still have to send the command to the plane equipment.   It also has to be made to work before and while flying in the sphere we fly in.   We still require the two lines to go up and down or do loops.

[ChrisSarnowski]

I don't recall mentioning anything about electronic controls for control line.

I am not in favor of auto-pilots for control line nor am I in favor of automated maneuvering.

Please take that line of argument to another thread.

I simply was pointing out a system that could handle some crosswind and was in my opinion developed with some responsible features.

-Chris

[Larry Cunningham]

That landing would be worth about 2 points in CL Stunt.. Looks to me like the altitude control needs more work.

Personally, I think this crap is completely orthogonal to CL Stunt. But that's just me. I'm a grouch.

L.

"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination - Next stop, the Twilight Zone!"

{ dun, dun, DUN! }

[NED-088]

Is the future of c/l to hold onto the handle and the autopilot flies a perfect pattern?

It seems that there are some CL people pointed in that direction.

Can you show us to written examples of this?
Because I have read a lot about new technology in CLPA, but not anything like that.

[dave siegler]

It is kind of neat.  Like a HOME button.  Imagine if a new pilot gets too far down wind and can't see the orientation of the airplane.   

This would bring it back, and save at best a long walk.   

[Sean McEntee]

I don't recall mentioning anything about electronic controls for control line.

I am not in favor of auto-pilots for control line nor am I in favor of automated maneuvering.

Please take that line of argument to another thread.

I simply was pointing out a system that could handle some crosswind and was in my opinion developed with some responsible features.

-Chris

            Kim Doherty designed a sort of "fly by wire" system (no pun intened) awhile back, linking the the belcrank to a reciever, and having servos do the actual deflecting of control surfaces.  I wouldnt have a problem with it--the model is still controled via the lines.

           As for the GPS thing, I dount that could be crossed-over for use in CL.  Most GPS units are 2D.  The ones that do measure altitude arent accurate enough to ensure things like a 6' pullout every single time.  The DGPS modules that the military uses perhaps are...but are not available in stores. 

[Larry Cunningham]

Sean, the update rate for GPS position data is WAY too slow to make any kind of "digital servo" to pilot through a stunt pattern. Don't look for that {commercial} technology to improve enough for a long time. Several other methods (say inertial) are also theoretically possible but not practicable for the application. We see that gyro stabilization works pretty well to make the toy helicopters flyable, and it can provide a pretty decent signal to detect maneuvering (pitch changes) of the model, which has been demonstrated to modulate electric motor speed - not sure how it would be useful to modulate surface controls.

What I envision as reasonable and "ought to be legal" would be a "fly by wire" system which reads bellcrank {transducer} position and moves control surfaces through servos, with a programmable mapping for such. That would make it very nice for trimming models and setting them for specific pilot preferences. You could experiment with a ship by disabling the flaps for example, cranking in more or less rudder offset and/or Rabe rudder rate. Or play with differential flaps. I think a great deal could be learned. (Plus it would be fun.)

The other electronic ditty function which I don't see why anyone would object to is a data logger function, I'd like a multi-channel log, say 10/second sample rate, with mappings of 3-axis accelerations, motor RPM, plus bellcrank position for the entire flight. Real time telemetry is unnecessary, I'd be happy to dump data to a laptop (the same one I used to load mapping look-up-tables in its memory).

We could carry it further with data including ambient and motor temperature and motor voltage and current (instantaneous power).

None of what I've mentioned should violate the spirit of control line stunt, unless of course we are so completely anti-tech as to not want us collecting flight data. As far as the programmable electronic mapping, I would argue that it would be equivalent to an arrangement of cam-controlled mechanical devices, if more conveniently programmed.

Bad vibes for such a system include the obvious problems of battery failure (!), microprocessor burps (even gamma rays can flip a bit), and likely the worst probable disaster: SOFTWARE errors! {speaking from personal experience}

My advice: fear no microprocessors. Nor any GPSes, gyros, nor other insolent electro-mechanical devices.. ;->

L.

"My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my life there." -Charles F. Kettering, inventor of electric ignition