2011; Future Power Control for F2B Motors

[Peter G]

Dear members of the F2B Working Group

 

With electric power for F2B being fully competitive meanwhile our group may  want to take a fresh look at the current 2011 FAI rules defining engine power control for IC and electric motors in F2B:

 

Volume F2   4.2.2. Characteristics of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft (extracts)

f) 

ii   For piston engines… Active or dynamic automatic power output control based on flight parameters such as, but not limited to, shall also not be permitted: model aircraft speed; angular speed; centrifugal force; line pull; flying height; or any combination or derivation thereof.

 

g) For power sources other than piston engines, engine power controlling systems, whether pilot operated or automatic, shall be permitted.

 

At this point in time in April 2011, I am not aware of any available devices as per g.) above and I therefore do not believe either system having an unfair advantage today.

 

However, taking into account the substantial time it takes to reach consensus for a rule change and considering the speed of technical progress, chances are that in not too distant future automatic devices controlling the power of electric motors will become available. This then may lead to a situation where the current rules might discriminate the users of IC power.

 

As this is a not acceptable perspective I would like to invite you think about this particular issue and to share what you have found with the group.

 

Thank you for considering this request, I look forward to your reply here.

 

Kind regards

 

Peter Germann

Coordinator

[Brett Buck]

On Apr 4, 2011, at 4:47 AM, Peter G wrote:

> Dear members of the F2B Working Group
>
> With electric power for F2B being fully competitive meanwhile our
> group may want to take a fresh look at the current 2011 FAI rules
> defining engine power control for IC and electric motors in F2B:
>
> Volume F2 4.2.2. Characteristics of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft
> (extracts)
> f)
> ii For piston engines… Active or dynamic automatic power output
> control based on flight parameters such as, but not limited to,
> shall also not be permitted: model aircraft speed; angular speed;
> centrifugal force; line pull; flying height; or any combination or
> derivation thereof.
>
> g) For power sources other than piston engines, engine power
> controlling systems, whether pilot operated or automatic, shall be
> permitted.
>
> At this point in time in April 2011, I am not aware of any available
> devices as per g.) above and I therefore do not believe either
> system having an unfair advantage today.

As far as paragraph g goes, depending on interpretation, there are
certainly devices in use in the form of a governor. If one had a
schematic of the existing ESC governor, I would expect it to take
around 1/2 an hour to figure out how to make the governor "overshoot",
resulting in something quite akin to a "4-2 break" and the
mechanization of this would be nearly trivial. Same with all the
other items listed in paragraph F as prohibited for IC engines. All
you need is to sense whatever parameter you want to control, and then
generate a PWM signal that the ESC likes, entirely trivial an
imminently practical. I (since I do this sort of thing professionally)
have already been approached about developing a basic package along
these lines. I haven't had any time to contribute to it due to other
commitments but, I repeat, it's essentially a trivial problem.

I would agree that this makes the rules highly discriminatory
against IC engines; in fact, the ability to easily govern the output
is the primary reason to use electric as has been repeatedly pointed
out. This was my primary objection to F and G when it was first
introduced- that it was not "technology-neutral" and subsequent
discussion has led to the (not surprising) revelation that it was done
to encourage electric use. I have no objection in any way to the use
of electric motors and associated controllers in stunt - but the rules
should "never" try to drive the technology or intentionally favor any
particular approach.

So, I strongly support a change that would eliminate this
discrimination. I would suggest that the simplest approach be to
simply remove both f/ii and g, and replace them with a statement to
the effect that "Any function of the airplane or propulsion system
shall be either automatically controlled onboard the aircraft, or
controlled by the pilot through the lines. External control of any
function outside the pilot's input is not permitted." I would have to
dig through the rule book for a while to decide the optimum place to
put it, but presumably somewhere in 4.2.2. It may also permit the
removal of some of the other paragraphs around there, too.

Brett

[Igor]

IC engines has specifically allowed systems for power controll like
fuel pressure and tuned pipes, while electric power train uses
governors as equivalent of tuned pipe or sensors trying simulate 4-2-4
run of IC engine. So I do not think IC are too much discriminated in
this case, may be the quality or chances of tuning are better on
electric. But real discrimination is for sure in flight time, electric
power train has exact timers.

Since all devices used in electric power train are convertible to
servo throttle controll on IC (including all mechanical devices), I
would say we can allow all of them for IC too. I already heard several
voices calling for that, so I think we can support it.

igor

[go_s...@comcast.net]

All,

I agree with Igor. We should allow governing of IC engines similar to electric engines. As stated, we already have some of that now with tuned pipes, pressure regulators, etc.

Let's keep the field level to all types of power.

 

Paul Walker

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To post to this group, send an email to f2b-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to f2b-group+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/f2b-group?hl=en-GB.

[Keith Renecle]

Hi All,

I totally agree with Igor and Paul on this. To those that believe that it makes everything too technical and will put our event out of reach to those without huge budgets, this is not true. It could even make it cheaper, because with an electronic or mechanical governor you can then use a basic R/C engine without the need for a pro-stunt engine. It's a win-win situation for everyone. Those that do not want to use these systems can carry on using their existing systems like the straight-forward Retro 60 for example. This is a readily available no-frills engine that has an excellent record in world-wide competition.

 

I wanted to produce a timer system for engines, and with the experience that I have gained from my governor-timer for electric stunt, I was going to add a governor for engines anyway. I know that the present rules do not allow this, but I just enjoy the experimenting. If the rules do indeed allow this in the near future, then I sincerely believe that we will have taken a good step forward.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Renecle

[Peter G]

Dear Friends

Adressing issues such as wireless operated motor shut off (currently legal in F2D) and/or automatic flight assistance, F2 Subcommittee President Bengt-Olof Samuelsson has recently announced to initiate work on the rule defining Control Line Flight for all categories in 2011. Here is the rule in question:

 

Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight

This is a flight during which the model aircraft is manoeuvred by control surfaces in attitude and altitude by the flier on the ground by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft. Devices in which the control wires or cables are held in the hand or connected to a central pivot may be used. No other means of controlling the model or the engine(s) may be employed during the take-off and flight except that exercised by the flier through the line or lines.

 

Related to the issue of F2B power control what this means is that we should try to reach consensus on how ABR 1.3.2.shall be revised in order to satisfy the current and future needs of F2B first. Other categories representatives will do the same and finally the F2 Subcommittee will submit a related rule change proposal to the 2012 CIAM Plenary Meeting.

 

Brett Buck has suggested this:

“Any function of the airplane or propulsion system shall be either automatically controlled onboard the aircraft, or controlled by the pilot through the lines. External control of any function outside the pilot's input is not permitted.”

 

As we already have legal wireless shutoff in F2D, I would like to bring up the question whether a wireless shutoff (or perhaps even a wireless throttle) would be of value for F2B?

 

Looking forward to read your comments, kind regards, Peter Germann

[Keith Renecle]

Hi All,

 

Wireless throttle is permitted in the AMA stunt rules, and if I'm not mistaken, Windy Urtnowski did use a wireless infra-red throttle control by Z-Tron in his Typhoon one year at the Nats. A perfect 2/4 break could be done with the present electric power systems by switching between high and a lower throttle setting with a simple push-button either on the control handle or as a seperate button operated by your spare hand. This would be a huge advantage over any present 2/4 break system because it will not be affected by turbulance or wind. As I mentioned before, I am going to build myself such a system to experiment with anyway. I will use an RF link and not infra-red, so it will be an interesting project.

 

We will of course get a lot of flak about this, but that is quite normal. As with all things in stunt, the same good pilots will always be on top no matter what technology is added.

 

Regards,

 

Keith R

----- Original Message -----

From: Peter G

To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:58 PM

Subject: Re: 2011; Future Power Control for F2B Motors

--

[Club...@cs.com]

Hi Peter,
Thanks for the update. I would be in favor of F2B leading the way to new electric power technology for F2B electric motors. A wireless throttle and wireless motor shutoff controlled on board or by the pilot would seem the way to go. I realize many the US F2B pilots never want to change anything, however why should we stick our heads in the sand, let's embrace the leading edge of technology.
Gary McClellan

[Igor]

I have little bit problem with wireles shut off for F2B. Wireles is
used for combat, and as far as I know also for free flight. But it is
always emergency device, not part of the game. While wireles shut off
in F2B will clearly lead to cutting of motor run as part of the judged
landing figure (correct landing depending of the judges, wind etc) so
this leads slowly but safely to radio controleed flight. I would vote
for Brett's "through the lines" definition

I hope I am not too "backward" :-)))))))))))

igor

[Brett Buck]

And just to clarify, my reasoning is the same as it was back in 99
or so when this first came up for FAI, specifically, I don't think we
want a situation where the control is performed in the pits. One of
the more practical and certainly the lightest way to implement a very
sophisticated engine/motor control system would be to telemeter the
necessary data from the airplane the ground, have the control
algorithm in a computer or some other control device in the pits, and
then send the control signals back to the airplane.

If you could somehow guarantee that it was solely controlled by
the pilot, then I would have no objection. The local radio spectrum
regulators might have a different opinion, however.

That opens up a whole new can of worms, both with the potential
need for some sort of regulation of the signals and potential jamming
from competitors*, but more that it then would become a team sport
with "backrooms" controlling the settings of the airplane remotely,
not with the pilot's input. That is already done in Formula 1 car
racing- most of the pit crew for any race sits in a control center in
England regardless of where the race might be and adjusts the engine
and suspension settings from the comfort of an Aeron chair. I doubt it
would be worth the effort for stunt but it might be well worth it to
keep a T/R diesel

Brett

*Gary will appreciate this one. After the use of the ZTron at the ~99
NATs, I had rigged up an impressive-looking gadget that had some
sensors, antennas, etc, with some wires that went to a mysterious
metal box, then out to a laptop computer.

If it had been used again the next year, I wasn't going to say
anything about it, but set it up at the edge of the circle, safely out
of the way but aimed at Windy's IR hat, when he flew. Then have a few
of my buddies cluster around the laptop and point excitedly at it
during the flight.

Unfortunately, no one came back with it the next year.

Of course it was all perfectly non-functional.

[Joan McIntyre]

Dear members,

 

It has been suggested that perhaps simpler is better…

 

Control line flight is flight within a hemisphere during which all control is accomplished by any of either:-

 

Direct mechanical connection by one or more inextensible cables or wires from the pilot to the model aircraft  or by preset means.

 

Kind regards,

 

Joan McIntyre.

 

---

From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: Monday, 25 April 2011 8:58 PM
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 2011; Future Power Control for F2B Motors

 

Dear Friends

--

[Kim Doherty]

All,

 

I am in agreement with keeping any rule as simple as possible. I agree with Joan’s direction and offer my edit on this.

 

I would suggest the following edit simply to clarify where those “pre set” actions are to take place:

 

Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight

 

a.)   Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft or via preset, onboard processes.

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

Kim

[Peter G]

Dear members of the F2B Working Group,

 

Hoping that I have understood the simplifying suggestions made by Joan McIntyre and Kim Doherty, I am now trying to come up with a suggestion on how ABR 1.3.2. could look like. As you will note, I have kept the wireless shut-down option, reasons being that it is already legal in F2D and that it adds to the safety of other classes, too.

 

(Reasons in italics for better understanding only, not to be incorporated in ABR 1.3.2)

 

----------

 

Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight

 

a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft or via preset, onboard processes.

Reason: For the preservation of the ”fly by hand” principle.

 

 

b.) The use of 2.4 Ghz spread spectrum wireless control for the sole use of permanent shut-down of the engine(s) by the pilot is allowed.

Reason: To make ABR 1.3.2 compatible to currently valid rule for F2D (Combat) and added safety for all c/l classes.

 

 

c.) Declaring invalid ABR 1.3.2. in class rules is not permitted.

Reason:  ABR 1.3.2 is the immovable constitution of FAI c/l. Therefore, this sub-paragraph must be added.

 

 

d.) Amendments of ABR 1.3.2. may be made in the rules for specific classes. Such amendments must not violate sub-paragraphs a.), b) and/or c.)

Reason: Allowing future class rules adjustments while conserving the basic principle of Control Line Flight.

 

------------

 

Please comment, Peter Germann

[Club...@cs.com]

Hi Peter,
Looks OK to me.
Gary McClellan

[Bill Lee]

Peter, nowhere in this version is electronic control signals sent via the lines precluded since that is "physically connected". Is that the intention?

Bill

On 07/13/2011 10:08 AM, Peter G wrote:

Dear members of the F2B Working Group,

�

Hoping that I have understood the simplifying suggestions made by Joan McIntyre and Kim Doherty, I am now trying to come up with a suggestion on how ABR 1.3.2. could look like. As you will note, I have kept the wireless shut-down option, reasons being that it is already legal in F2D and that it adds to the safety of other classes, too.

�

(Reasons in italics for better understanding only, not to be incorporated in ABR 1.3.2)

�

----------

�

Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight

�

a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft or via preset, onboard processes.

Reason: For the preservation of the �fly by hand� principle.

�

�

b.) The use of 2.4 Ghz spread spectrum wireless control for the sole use of permanent shut-down of the engine(s) by the pilot is allowed.

Reason: To make ABR 1.3.2 compatible to currently valid rule for F2D (Combat) and added safety for all c/l classes.

�

�

c.) Declaring invalid ABR 1.3.2. in class rules is not permitted.

Reason:� ABR 1.3.2 is the immovable constitution of FAI c/l. Therefore, this sub-paragraph must be added.

�

�

d.) Amendments of ABR 1.3.2. may be made in the rules for specific classes. Such amendments must not violate sub-paragraphs a.), b) and/or c.)

Reason: Allowing future class rules adjustments while conserving the basic principle of Control Line Flight.

�

------------

�

Please comment, Peter Germann

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/IiHICj5mlvAJ.

[Peter G]

Thanks for a very good question, Bill.

As the sending of electric control signals via the lines is currently legal, I do assume that Kim's and Joan's suggestion does not intend to ban such control signal transfer. Could you perhaps comment, Kim?

Peter

[Kim Doherty]

Peter, All,

 

There is no reason to even contemplate a change to the rule allowing control signals over the lines. It should stand as is.

 

As far as using 2.4 GHz is concerned it might be important that the actual “flavour” of such a system be specified as it would be quite possible to make a transmitter and receiver which did not comply with one of the two industry accepted methods. I am not sure it is as simple as saying “just allow 2.4GHz”. Perhaps I could get Pat MacKenzie to comment.

2.4GHz implementations:

1. Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS). Where the transmitter and receiver stay within a fixed part of the 2.4GHz spectrum.

2. Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS). Where the transmitter and receiver are constantly changing their operating frequency within the allowed limits of the 2.4GHz band.

To my knowledge only Futaba (FASST) and Airtronics use FHSS, the remainder using DSSS. The Futaba FASST system has the benefit of using both FHSS and DSSS.

I see no problem in allowing its use for shut off only. I see no problem in having it in the general section if activated by the pilot. I.E. an F2C pilot could shut down via this means rather than jerk the lines. How to deal with the logistics of implementing such a system would be up to the competitor.

 

Kim.

 

 

 

From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: July-14-11 4:36 AM
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 2011; Future Power Control for F2B Motors

 

Thanks for a very good question, Bill.

As the sending of electric control signals via the lines is currently legal, I do assume that Kim's and Joan's suggestion does not intend to ban such control signal transfer. Could you perhaps comment, Kim?

Peter

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/rNvtIksMuHUJ.