C/L Flight Control
Peter G
As I have heard from Igor Burger today, Kim Doherty and Pat Mackenzie
have successfully flown a control line model where flight control
surfaces have been driven by servos. For details, please check the
related thread on the Stuka Stunt Forum.
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=342356&mesg_id=342356&page=
Here is how the current FAI rule adresses the issue of flight control:
Quote:
Sporting Code Volume ABR, 2009 Edition, Sections 4A, 4B and 4C, page
60:
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 pilot 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 may be
employed during the takeoff and flight except that exercised by the
pilot through the line or lines.
End of quote
Please consider this message as an invitation to discuss the issue of
software assisted flight control in C/L in general or in F2B in
particular. I look forward to your comments and contributions.
Kind regards, Peter Germann
Bill Lee
Yes, quite an interesting application. However, this (emphasize: THIS)
implementation does not in any way seem to be at odds with the FAI rules
since the controlling mechanism is still a bellcrank attached to the
model and actuated by mechanical connection to the handle. Only the
motion of the belcrank is sensed and converted into the necessary
electronic signals to actuate the control surfaces. All is done at the
model as far as I can tell from the photos: no radio, no signal or
current on the lines, etc..
Bill
Peter G
between the bellcrank motion sensor and the actuator deflecting the
control surface. A simple wire? Or perhaps an intelligent signal
processor of any kind? Such as adding the right amount of flap to
compensate g-forces in manoeuvres? Or processing information from
gyros, altimeters, high-res Galileo gps data or such?
I believe we have come to a point where me must decide in which
direction to go; KISS or OPEN
On 1 Dec, 14:43, Bill Lee <B...@WRLee.com> wrote:
> Hello, Peter;
>
> Yes, quite an interesting application. However, this (emphasize: THIS)
> implementation does not in any way seem to be at odds with the FAI rules
> since the controlling mechanism is still a bellcrank attached to the
> model and actuated by mechanical connection to the handle. Only the
> motion of the belcrank is sensed and converted into the necessary
> electronic signals to actuate the control surfaces. All is done at the
> model as far as I can tell from the photos: no radio, no signal or
> current on the lines, etc..
>
> Bill
>
> On 12/01/2009 07:27 AM, Peter G wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Members of the F2B Group
>
> > As I have heard from Igor Burger today, Kim Doherty and Pat Mackenzie
> > have successfully flown a control line model where flight control
> > surfaces have been driven by servos. For details, please check the
> > related thread on the Stuka Stunt Forum.
>
> > Here is how the current FAI rule adresses the issue of flight control:
>
> > Quote:
> > Sporting Code Volume ABR, 2009 Edition, Sections 4A, 4B and 4C, page
> > 60:
> > 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 pilot 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 may be
> > employed during the takeoff and flight except that exercised by the
> > pilot through the line or lines.
> > End of quote
>
> > Please consider this message as an invitation to discuss the issue of
> > software assisted flight control in C/L in general or in F2B in
> > particular. I look forward to your comments and contributions.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter G
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=342415&mesg_id=342415&page=
On 1 Dec, 14:27, Peter G <peterdgerm...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> Dear Members of the F2B Group
>
> As I have heard from Igor Burger today, Kim Doherty and Pat Mackenzie
> have successfully flown a control line model where flight control
> surfaces have been driven by servos. For details, please check the
> related thread on the Stuka Stunt Forum.
>
Paul
elevator, and possibly the flaps. They are STILL controlled by the
pilot, and for the most part could be duplicated with a mechanical
system.
I also don't see a problem with electronic control of the engine
speed. Currently, there are tuned pipes which regulate the engine
speed already.
However, other control surfaces are an issue for me. This does get
into the realm of being too sophisticated. These "other" surfaces
could be used for gust allievation, roll control, etc, and I think
that is too far from the intent of the rules.
The bottom line is that I don't think they have violated any rules at
this point. I am excited to see what they finally come up with, and
implementation into a full size stunt plane! The bottom line is that
it still takes the pilot to do the flying.
Paul Walker
On 1 Dec, 05:27, Peter G <peterdgerm...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> Dear Members of the F2B Group
>
> As I have heard from Igor Burger today, Kim Doherty and Pat Mackenzie
> have successfully flown a control line model where flight control
> surfaces have been driven by servos. For details, please check the
> related thread on the Stuka Stunt Forum.
>
Brett Buck
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> I don't see the big problem with a single system controlling the
> elevator, and possibly the flaps. They are STILL controlled by the
> pilot, and for the most part could be duplicated with a mechanical
> system.
>
> I also don't see a problem with electronic control of the engine
> speed. Currently, there are tuned pipes which regulate the engine
> speed already.
Neither do I (as long as it's not controlled from the ground other
than through the lines). In fact, we allow absolutely anything on
anything else EXCEPT the engine - and the potential value of the
engine controls is minimal at best. And need I point out that
absolutely anything goes for electric motors, too - so we have singled
out IC engines for limitations while allowing virtually anything else
that might be more useful-like:
>
> However, other control surfaces are an issue for me. This does get
> into the realm of being too sophisticated. These "other" surfaces
> could be used for gust allievation, roll control, etc, and I think
> that is too far from the intent of the rules.
I don't even see a problem with that, either. We have been
allowing Rabe rudders for years, and I am sure I could come up with an
entirely mechanical system that at least would stabilize roll in some
situations. My only concern is, as above, making sure it's controlled
by the pilot through the lines, or "set and forget". The one thing I
think we can all agree on is that we don't want active control aside
from the pilot through the lines. No Formula 1-style telemetry and
active control from the pits. Or to the point here, any sort of active
guidance or "autopilots" that provide programmed maneuver shapes.
>
> The bottom line is that I don't think they have violated any rules at
> this point. I am excited to see what they finally come up with, and
> implementation into a full size stunt plane! The bottom line is that
> it still takes the pilot to do the flying.
I agree fully. The system they have is, to me, clearly permitted
by the current rules, and good for them. The system I flew back in the
80s was barely OK for straight and level - hopeless for aerobatics.
Brett
Igor Burger
I started this whole think because we are very close to troubles happened in
F3A years ago when they got to hands electronics allowing functions helping
pilots improving the flight of the model without improving of pilot quality.
What we actually can and what we cannot, is defined in Volume ABR, but in my
eyes it is very softly formulated. There are two problems, the first is that
there is very small difference between that what we want allow and that what
we do not, and second is that we cannot inspect it well.
Volume ABR says:
-----------------BEGIN---------------------------------
This is a flight during which the model aircraft is manoeuvred by control
surfaces in attitude and altitude by the pilot 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 may be employed during the takeoff and flight except
that exercised by the pilot through the line or lines.
----------------------END---------------------------------------
Beside that we have also pargraph 4.2.2 in Volume F2 specifying:
---------------------BEGIN----------------------------------------
4.2.2. Characteristics of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft
a) Maximum total flying weight (excluding fuel) ... 3.5 kg
b) Maximum wingspan (overall)........................... 2.0 m
c) Maximum length (overall) ................................ 2.0 m
d) Permitted power sources shall include any power except rocket motors.
Piston engine/s shall be
subject to a total swept volume limitation of 15 cm3. Electric power shall
be limited to a maximum
no-load voltage of 42 volts. Gas turbine engines shall be limited to 10 N
static thrust.
i A suitable silencer must be used on all piston engines.
ii The noise limit set out at paragraph 4.2.6 c) shall apply to all power
sources.
e) Wireless remote control (electrical, optical, or any other) of any
control function of, and/or of any
system in the model aircraft shall not be permitted.
f) The following exceptions to rule 1.3.2 of Section 4C of Volume ABR are
allowed.
i Other controls may include, but are not limited to: landing gear operation
and built-in engine
starters. Such functions may be controlled by the pilot only via line/lines,
or may function
completely automatically. The frequency of any electromagnetic pulses
transmitted through
wires/cables to the model aircraft shall not exceed 30 kHz.
ii For piston engines (including "Wankel" rotary types), no outside control
of the engine/s in-flight
power output shall be permitted whether or not such control is direct to the
engine/s or via
propeller/s with variable pitch. For the purposes of this paragraph, the
term "in-flight" shall
mean the time between the release of the model aircraft for the Take-off
Manoeuvre and the
end of the Landing Manoeuvre. 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. However, if not used for the purpose of active power and/or
throttle control, the
following shall be permitted:
a Passive or static devices controlling rate of fuel flow or fuel pressure
(for example "uniflow"
fuel tanks).
b Passive or static exhaust systems (for example tuned-length exhaust pipes
to control
engine rpm).
c Provided they are used only to end a flight, the use of engine/s shut-off
systems, either
operated by the pilot or functioning fully automatically, shall be
permitted, subject to the
restriction at paragraph e) above.
g) For power sources other than piston engines, engine power controlling
systems, whether pilotoperated
or automatic, shall be permitted.
h) Rule B.3.1. of Section 4B of Volume ABR does not apply to class F2B.
---------------------END-----------------------------------------
We can sort devices controlling the model to few qualitative groups. We have
to allow some of them and some of them not. I spoke to several people about
that, and their opinion will be included here. Most of them says that it is
difficult, or undoable to do what we are trying to solve here, so I will add
also some technical examples to show that it is not so difficult, it is very
doable right now. I am speaking about "maneuvering by control surfaces in
attitude and altitude"
1/ Usually we use direct linkage between lines and elevator. This is clearly
level which we want and should allow. No questions here.
2/ We often see different kinds of tricks improving linkage between lines,
flaps and elevator, adjusted on ground and not changing during flight, which
see control input and keep control surfaces according control input and
pitching rate. That can be different ratios, logo or expo functions, dead
ranges etc. I never heard any complain for such thinks.
3/ We can use device which recognize typical maneuvers, like corner and can
operate flaps and elevator according flying maneuver. It can recognize
corner and do it as preprogrammed movement of control surfaces. This can
still be interpreted as "controlled by pilot" but I think (as well as all
others I spoke) should not be legal. It can be technically a piece of
software in small chip, I do not know if it can really help, but for sure it
is relatively easy doable.
4/ We can also use device helping pilot to do what he wanted to do, for
example stabilization in controlled direction, for example by gyroscope.
Such devices are available on R/C market and connecting to the elevator is
work for 5 minutes. I heard voices that this is legal (pilot still controls)
and also voices telling that this is clear violation of ABR. Means the text
of ABR is not clear enough in this point. Mostly this type of device is not
wanted, beside one voice meaning that this is ok. My meaning is not ok.
5/ Beside maneuvers fully flown by automat, what is clear violation, we can
have device "straightening" maneuver by measuring or sensing some reference,
for example we can see horizont, or we can "remember" horizont by gyroscope
and automatic device can do low segments of square maneuvers "properly". It
is also on edge between "allowed" or "not allowed" by ABR. Such devices are
also available on R/C market.
Solution:
I would say we can make restriction without changing ABR, in paragraph 4.2.2
like this: (feel free to replace/extend/modify or repare me if I missed
something):
Auto-pilot control utilizing inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial
reference is
prohibited in closed loops of controlling in altitude and attitude.
Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing
devices are prohibited.
Example: Permitted:
1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot or by actual
position of control surfaces.
2. Sensing position or angular rate in one axis, and controlling in any
other of two axis (open loop), for example controlling the rudder on base of
pitching rate.
3. Controlling of power to propeller if not specified else.
Not permitted:
1. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a command or any type of
automatically timed inputs, independent or pilot executed.
2. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic stabilization in closed loop in one
axis, for example sensing of pitching and controlling elevator, sensing of
yaw and controlling the rudder.
3. Auto pilots controlling the propeller thrust direction.
4. Any type of learning (including self learning) function allowing to store
and recall execution of maneuvers.
May be it is complicated, but I think this can be acceptable for most of us
for long time.
OR: We can do it much simpler if we will define those restrictions for
controlling in lateral axis only:
Auto-pilot control utilizing inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial
reference or automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic
control timing devices controlling model around lateral axis or vertical
direction is prohibited.
Not permitted:
1. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a command or any type of
timed pitching inputs.
2. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic stabilization of pitching rate or
altitude.
This will be enough for me, but I know that this is not enough for some of
us (see some posts above).
The only question remains, how to make it inspectable.
aage wiberg
In my opinion we are in high risk of undermining the entire fundament of our
hobby/sport if we allow any electrically servo assisted control of our
control line models. The development of both software and hardware is so
rapid that we will be in high risk of slipping some sort of cruise control
in through the back door, and as Igor says it is or will be extremely
difficult to examine what really controls such servo mechanisms actuating
the control surfaces of our models. My opinion is that no such things at all
should be permitted.
In a world that is almost totally dependant of sophisticated electronically
devices, we have a sport which so far has been (almost) free of all these
gadgets that seem to creep in anywhere including X-Mas cards.
Ladies and gentlemen - Let us keep it this way. This world is crazy enough
in this direction.
Next possible development might be nano size electronics built into our
bodies controlling our muscles nerve control system in our right arm.
I strongly recommend that we totally prohibit any at all of such electrical
actuators. Simply because we can fly without it and more because it becomes
possible to add illegal control that will be extremely difficult to detect.
Our Danish famous guy Piet Hein who has written lots of small philosophical
"gruks" small poems made one that I like a lot. It says:
"Technique is the art of using as little technique as possible"
Friends. Let us be rigid here.
Let's keep it simple. Stunt is difficult enough in itself to be great fun.
Merry X-mas to all of you guys and girls.
Aage Wiberg
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Peter G
As laid out and well documented by Igor Burger in his post from Monday
December 7, Article 1.3.2 (Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight)
of the ABR may possibly not be sufficently clear on what is allowed to
control flight & engine and what is not permitted.
Please note that ABR rules define control line in general and bear in
mind that to reach consensus on possible changes or clarifications of
article 1.3.2. ABR, all c/l categories must be addressed.
As I do believe that the issue being brought up here is of truly
fundamental importance not only for F2B but for all c/l categories, I
will inform the F2 Subcommittee accordingly, with a copy to the F4 S/C
(F4B c/l scale), too, asking for suggestions on how to proceed. I will
publish my related inquiry with the S/C’s later on this forum.
Kind regards, Peter Germann
KDoherty
There is little need for long and tedious technical arguments to be
made with respect to the existence of the new
"Fly-by-Wire" control system or any other flight control system
available either now or in the future. No one least of all me wants to
compete against autonomously controlled models.
Should the rules be clarified? I think so. This is not however an
opportunity to stiffle innovation or send control line back to the age
of Victor Stanzel and the "G-line".
Since we have put the most research into this type of control system
you might also assume that we have given the most thought to how it
would be received and the potential for abuse. I respectfully submit
my rule wording and testing solution to render this situation moot.
Rule Wording:
"The model must not autonomously diverge from level flight at any
point during the flight. The model must not autonomously alter a given
pilot commanded Pitch Rotation. All other flight control and power
management systems are permitted."
There is no need for sophisticated testing to determine if these
criteria are being met. As the developer, I will tell you that there
is no static test that will satisfy your need to know "what is
inside?" or "what can it do?" it is truly a "Black Box".
For years the Americans have relied on the good faith statement of the
pilot that they are in compliance with the BOM (builder of the model)
rule. We need go no further than that.
Should a competitor suspect that the model does not meet the posted
flight control criteria, they may file a protest just as they would
for any other perceived infraction. To satisfy the protest, a mutually
agreed upon third party will fly the model and report on the flight
control characteristics of the model. The findings of the "Test Pilot"
will be final.
Warmest Regards,
Kim Doherty
Canada
Member FAI F2 Subcommittee
Brett Buck
On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:56 AM, Peter G wrote:
>>
>> Quote:
>> Sporting Code Volume ABR, 2009 Edition, Sections 4A, 4B and 4C, page
>> 60:
>> 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 pilot 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 may be
>> employed during the takeoff and flight except that exercised by the
>> pilot through the line or lines.
>> End of quote
>>
>> Please consider this message as an invitation to discuss the issue of
>> software assisted flight control in C/L in general or in F2B in
>> particular. I look forward to your comments and contributions.
Can we all agree that the rule as quoted above *permits* Kim's
system?
Brett
Peter G
at this point in time, the question whether Kim's system is compatible
with the current set of FAI rules does not seem of such great
importance. While I tend to find it being legal, my personal opinion
shall in no way influence the findings of an FAI-Jury being in charge
of dealing with a related protest. I do agree, however, that we need
to clarify the rules before running into problems.
Related to the FAI's reaction on the issue of of flight control ,
please take note of the following:
Adressing the FAI Subcommittees for F2 (c/l) and F4 (c/l scale), F2
Chairman Bengt-Olof Samulesson has has, on Dec. 9 2009, circulated
the following message among the members those Subcommittees being in
charge of c/l with FAI. With Bengt-Olofs authorisation, here is a
copy:
-------------------
Dear all,
in recent emails it has been shown , and discussed, that there are
possibilities to control the primary control functions of a control
line air plane without having direct mechanical connection between the
controlling lines and the control surfaces. For details, please
check:
http://groups.google.com/group/f2b-group?hl=en-GB under: C/L
Flight Control.
The Sporting Code Section 4 has now stated in several places what
"control line" shall be:
---
1.1. GENERAL DEFINITION OF MODEL AIRCRAFT
A model aircraft is an aircraft of limited dimensions, with or without
a propulsion device, not able to carry a
human being and to be used for competition, sport or recreational
purposes
............
For control line model aircraft, the pilot must physically hold the
control line handle and control the model
aircraft himself.
---
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 pilot 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 may be employed during the
takeoff and flight except that exercised by the pilot through the line
or lines.
4.2. CLASS F2B - AEROBATIC MODEL AIRCRAFT
4.2.1. Definition of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft
Powered control line aerobatic model aircraft as per Sporting Code
Volume ABR, paragraph 1.3.2 ,
in which all aerodynamic surfaces remain fixed during flight (except
for the propeller plus that/those
surface/s used to control the flight path).
control function of, and/or of any
system in the model aircraft shall not be permitted.
f) The following exceptions to rule 1.3.2 of Section 4C of Volume ABR
are allowed.
i Other controls may include, but are not limited to: landing gear
operation and built-in engine
starters. Such functions may be controlled by the pilot only via line/
lines, or may function
completely automatically. The frequency of any electromagnetic pulses
transmitted through
wires/cables to the model aircraft shall not exceed 30 kHz.
6.2. CLASS F4B - CONTROL LINE FLYING SCALE MODEL AIRCRAFT
6.2.2. Control Mechanism
a) All Control Line Flying Scale Model Aircraft must be permanently
attached to two or more nonextensible
wires or cables during flight.
b) Primary Control Function:
The model aircraft’s flight path may only be controlled by manually
activated and mechanically
linked flight control elements. This must be by a hand-held control
handle manipulated by the
pilot located on the ground at the centre of the model aircraft's
flight circle. No automatic
control of the Primary Control Function shall be permitted.
c) Secondary Control Functions:
These may include (but are not limited to) control of engine/s,
landing gear, landing flaps.
Secondary Control Functions may be controlled by the pilot via wires/
cables, or may function
completely automatically. The frequency of any electro-magnetic pulses
sent through
wires/cables shall not exceed 30 kHz
d) No control of either Primary or Secondary Control Functions other
than through wires/cables
shall be permitted.
----
With the introduction of anything else than direct mechanical links in
the control chain from the pilot's hand to the surfaces, there are
several possibilities of adding separate controlling elements:
• gyros
• attitude sensensors
• altitude sensors
• dampers
• automated flight controls etc.
Now I would like all of you to discuss this issue, which might have a
definitive impact on control line flying if not handled correctly. I
do also want you to invite discussion about this issue in the F2
subcommittee working groups.
Best regards Bengt-Olof
-----------------------
Dear members of the F2B Group, as you can see from the above, FAI
considers the issue as being of fundamental importance and has not
hesitated to initiate an opinion forming process eventually leading to
a related change of the rules.
It would be in the interest of c/l stunt our F2B Group could work
towards the goal of reaching consensus on whether the current FAI
rules defining flight control should be modified or not. And, if yes,
what should be done.
Please support this initiative by addressing your national
representative in the F2 Subcommittee, too. You may furthermore
address the entire F2 Subcommittee direct via: cia...@fai.org
On a personal level, I am of the opinion that we must remain
"mechanical" and I have therefore submitted (not in the name of the
F2B Group) a related clarification of ABR 1.3.2. to the members of the
S/C. Please check "files" for a copy of it.
Kind regards,
Peter Germann
Member F2 S/C
F2B Group Coordinator
Brett Buck
On Dec 10, 2009, at 2:18 AM, Peter G wrote:
>
> at this point in time, the question whether Kim's system is compatible
> with the current set of FAI rules does not seem of such great
> importance. While I tend to find it being legal, my personal opinion
> shall in no way influence the findings of an FAI-Jury being in charge
> of dealing with a related protest. I do agree, however, that we need
> to clarify the rules before running into problems.
Well, Peter, I would have to disagree - we should only take
action if the current rules are not correct. The first step is to
determine what the current rules actually say (not what we want them
to say, or what they might be interpreted to say). Only then should we
proceed to correct any identified shortcomings.
Brett
go_s...@comcast.net
No other means of controlling the model or the engine may be
>> employed during the takeoff and flight except that exercised by the
>> pilot through the line or lines.
If left this way, I don't know how electrics will be allowed. This needs to be changed.
Answering Brett's question below: I agree that Kim's system meets these rules.
Paul Walker
Brett Buck
On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:08 PM, go_s...@comcast.net wrote:
> No other means of controlling the model or the engine may be
> >> employed during the takeoff and flight except that exercised by the
> >> pilot through the line or lines.
> If left this way, I don't know how electrics will be allowed. This
> needs to be changed.
clarification that *any* onboard system that is "set and forget" is
specifically allowed. That also corrects the current distinction on
"engine controls" that grossly favors electric (currently, electric
propulsion can use absolutely any sort of control system, but
conventional engines can't use anything).
I know I had my say on this point quite a while ago, but I still
consider the "engine controls" rule to be grotesquely restrictive and
has no logical basis. I still say either eliminate the controls/
governors from electrics, or permit them on IC engines. I also note
that the concern over feedback control systems for the rudders/
ailerons/pitch stabilization should equally apply to electric power
systems - I can't see how one can support one, but not the other, in a
logical sense, and then turn around and not allow a feedback system on
an IC engine. I think that the electric system should clearly be
permitted, and the same reasoning applies to other feedback control
system applications such as we are discussing here.
I would point out that this entire effort is beginning to sound
very familiar - damn near identical, in fact, to what we were working
on about 10 years ago. I will dig up the old emails, but the gist was
"only active control is from the pilot via the lines, "passive" or
regulator feedback systems of any type are allowed (set and forget,
like a Rabe Rudder, tuned pipe, or engine shutoff timer), and primary
flight controls (pitch axis) must be entirely mechanical".
Brett
Igor Burger
paragraph 4.2.2 f) ii
For example pipe is equivalent of electric governor, tank behind the engine
is equivalent of longitudinal accelerometer controlling rpm, tank also acts
like a centrifugal regulator if properly adjusted in lateral axis.
However I know that some flyers prepare proposal to allow electronic
controllers also on piston motors. I agree with you and I do not have
problem with them. In past we had centrifugal regulators on piston motors
and I do not think it hurts somehow.
>>>I also note that the concern over feedback control systems for the
rudders/ ailerons/pitch stabilization should equally apply to electric power
systems - I can't see how one can support one, but not the other, in a
logical sense, and then turn around and not allow a feedback system on an IC
engine.<<<
tuning :-) I think electric motor without feedback regulation is only hard
to use seriously, so practical solution (this is not logic exercise, we
should do it as a practical solution :-) ) is to allow them, because we have
lot of troubles with noise here in Europe, we lost many fields and so we
need to make it competitive with IC. If anyone feels that it gives
advantage, then we can simply allow it for piston engines too, if that
already allowed is not enough.
But closed loop flight stabilization already changes the spirit of the game,
it gives clear advantage and I afraid it can start technology race.
Peter G
the current FAI rule allows Kim's system or not? If so, we would need
a very clear system description first.
Then, the formally correct procedure would be to submit this
description to the F2 Subcommittee, via your local representative to
the S/C, and to ask for a binding judgment whether the system is
"legal" or not. Chances are that the F2 S/C will delegate the related
decision finding process to us, the F2B Working Group. The F2 S/C will
consider our position when finally answering your representative's
request.
This may look a bit complicated, but carrying a waiver from the F2 S/
C it is the only way to avoid unpleasent difficulties possibly
waiting for a competitor entering an airplane with what I call for the
moment "Kim's System" on board in an FAI contest.
Peter
Peter G
at least as far as engine power control is concerned. The reason might
be that not so much has changed meanwhile and here is why:
Allowing automatic power control for electrics was made in order to
help electric F2B make the kind of breakthrough required to become
competitive, ore even superior, on top level. Once such a breakthrough
will be achieved and sufficiently demonstrated, the community will
gladly follow and this will then significantly reduce the loss of
flying sites due to noise problems.
In short, the electric power control rule was made for the sole
purpose of promoting the worldwide use of quiet electric drive trains
for F2B.
So far, as the vast majority of stunt flyers still uses IC engines,
the breakthrough hoped for has not happened yet. However, really
promising actvities are under way and if I look at recent forum
contents published by Igor, Erik and others, I am positive that we may
expect being able to purchase what we need within perhaps a year or
two: A plug-and-play electric drive train matching or even
outperforming today’s leading IC setups.
Only when we will have reached this stage in future, those today
finding the current rule discriminating IC users will have valid
reason to raise their voice. Once we will be there, I personally have
no problem to accept allowing the same kind of power control for IC
motors, too.
Peter
On 11 Dec, 08:39, Brett Buck <buc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Brett Buck
On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:28 AM, Peter G wrote:
> Allowing automatic power control for electrics was made in order to
> help electric F2B make the kind of breakthrough required to become
> competitive, ore even superior, on top level. Once such a breakthrough
> will be achieved and sufficiently demonstrated, the community will
> gladly follow and this will then significantly reduce the loss of
> flying sites due to noise problems.
>
> In short, the electric power control rule was made for the sole
> purpose of promoting the worldwide use of quiet electric drive trains
> for F2B.
please clarify. Why are we promoting particular technologies as a
rules feature!? Trying to drive people to particular technologies is
not at all a point of the event.
I know the engine controls discussion, per se, it off-topic for
the current issue, but this is quite a revelation - particularly since
the original reasoning (still available on Igor's site) didn't include
trying to drive people to electric for sound reasons - all the
arguments were that we didn't want to reward "special high skills" or
make it mandatory to use expensive electronics. And what did we wind
up with - very expensive electric systems with batteries that can't be
transported and restricting IC motors to nothing more than was
available and well understood in 1955. And I owe several people an
apology - I noted that the FAI rules argument for electric was based
on some sort of principle, not promoting electrics - and now I find
that it was entirely about promoting electric?
I will table this portion of the discussion for now but I find
this quite disturbing.
>
> So far, as the vast majority of stunt flyers still uses IC engines,
> the breakthrough hoped for has not happened yet. However, really
> promising actvities are under way and if I look at recent forum
> contents published by Igor, Erik and others, I am positive that we may
> expect being able to purchase what we need within perhaps a year or
> two: A plug-and-play electric drive train matching or even
> outperforming today’s leading IC setups.
>
> Only when we will have reached this stage in future, those today
> finding the current rule discriminating IC users will have valid
> reason to raise their voice. Once we will be there, I personally have
> no problem to accept allowing the same kind of power control for IC
> motors, too.
current IC engines in performance. But since when is a function of the
rules committee to coerce or force people into a particular approach
or technology? Even putting aside the unfortunate tack this has taken
into promoting specific technology over another, this, in my opinion,
is not a legitimate use of the rules process. We make rules we know
or think are temporary or intentionally advantageous to some
particular approach to the event without regard to the end goal? On
the theory that we might alter them again in the future based on what
someone comes up with? I am incredulous.
Gentlemen (and ladies if any are present), I have to express my
disappointment at this revelation and the approach taken in this case.
I find quite disturbing and essentially indefensible that a rules
steering committee has taken upon itself to promote or favor a
particular technical approach without regard to the principle of
fairness and equality to all participants. Particularly when it
appears to be geared towards problems that do not necessarily exist
for all (noise) and for which the end result is highly debatable (less
noise = more fields = more fliers is a dubious theory at best - since
most field losses I am aware of are based on LIABILITY concerns and
ENCROACHING DEVELOPMENT, using noise only as an excuse until something
else comes along).
At the very least it is grossly inconsistent to promote one
complex electronic control system (electric controls) while
simultaneously arguing that it's important to maintain the simplicity
of the event by mandating the crudest possible control systems in
other areas, and attempting to ban passive controls entirely. That was
my ORIGINAL point - the inconsistency of the approach.
Looking at this issue strictly from first principles (and
ignoring what I consider the completely inappropriate function of
promoting electric differentially), we either *want feedback controls
systems* or we *don't*. If we allow it on electric motors, we should
also allow it on any other propulsion system. If we allow it on
propulsion systems, we should permit it on flight controls as well.
The initial concern was that it permitted autonomous maneuvering,
which I think we all think is NOT in the best interest of the event
and severely alters the basic principles of the event. Gyro
stabilization DOES NOT provide autonomous maneuvering and is in no way
different from a governor on an electric motors. To be consistent, if
you allow one, you must allow the other.
Brett
Brett Buck
On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Igor Burger wrote:
>>>> conventional engines can't use anything)<<<
>
> Conventional (piston) engines can use controlling. It is specified in
> paragraph 4.2.2 f) ii
> For example pipe is equivalent of electric governor, tank behind the
> engine
> is equivalent of longitudinal accelerometer controlling rpm, tank
> also acts
> like a centrifugal regulator if properly adjusted in lateral axis.
>
> However I know that some flyers prepare proposal to allow electronic
> controllers also on piston motors. I agree with you and I do not have
> problem with them. In past we had centrifugal regulators on piston
> motors
> and I do not think it hurts somehow.
effectively. And unfortunately.
>
>
>>>> I also note that the concern over feedback control systems for the
> rudders/ ailerons/pitch stabilization should equally apply to
> electric power
> systems - I can't see how one can support one, but not the other, in a
> logical sense, and then turn around and not allow a feedback system
> on an IC
> engine.<<<
>
> In my eyes, it is very simple, F2B is about flying, not about power
> train
> tuning :-) I think electric motor without feedback regulation is
> only hard
> to use seriously, so practical solution (this is not logic exercise,
> we
> should do it as a practical solution :-) ) is to allow them, because
> we have
> lot of troubles with noise here in Europe, we lost many fields and
> so we
> need to make it competitive with IC. If anyone feels that it gives
> advantage, then we can simply allow it for piston engines too, if that
> already allowed is not enough.
>
> But closed loop flight stabilization already changes the spirit of
> the game,
> it gives clear advantage and I afraid it can start technology race.
powertrain controls? You either want electronic controls, or you
don't. We shouldn't be bending over backwards to allow one type and
then completely eliminate the other.
The only thing *I* think should be restricted is an autonomous or
programmed maneuvering system. I have no problem with gyro-
stabilization, as it's just an extension of what we have been doing
with aerodynamics for decades. That's based on the fundamental
principles, not a marketing effort. My only concern with gyro
stabilization is the difficulty of determining that its doesn't permit
autonomous maneuvering.
The event is supposed to be about what the rules say it is
supposed to be about. Already, the FAI rules watered down the original
event fairly extensively, now I find that we are trying to be electric
motor salesmen - so any further discussion about "what the event is
supposed to be about" rings rather hollow.
Brett
aage wiberg
This discussion becomes highly interesting, important and fundamental.
Unwise decisions here can lead our sport on a trail that almost nobody
wants. And force us to rewrite rules to prevent having anything except our
muscles and brains to control our models' flight in the sky.
We are close to playing "God" in this matter.
If we permit electronics to move the control surfaces of our models, we will
be doomed. After that nobody really knows who or what guides the models.
For example. The meaning of "level flight" and "straight paths" can become a
a matter of sophisticated electronics. After that any child can fly straight
and level. This is a suicide of what has been a meaningful sport for more
than 50 years.
To make a long discussion short. THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN.
Can we all agree on this?
Greetings to all of you.
Aage.
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] På vegne
Sendt: 11. december 2009 19:00
Til: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Emne: Re: C/L Flight Control
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.
Peter G
On Wednesday December 9 2009, FAI - Control Line Subcommittee Chairman
Bengt-Olof Samuelsson has asked the national representatives to the F2
committee to express their point of view related to “automatic” flight
path “assistance” for control line models of all categories. As a
member of the S/C I have, representing the swiss c/l community and NOT
the F2B Working Group, circulated my personal point of view among the
members of the F2 Subcommittee as follows:
Quote:
While the legalising of electric (or turbine-) power created the
necessity to regulate and control the basic function of the engine and
its output of power, no such need exists when it comes to control the
flight path. The availability of suitable technology to assist or
control the flight path is not nearly reason enough to leave the
principle of flying by hand. Flying by hand can in fact be quite
difficult and I believe that this is why we love it so much. Why
should we let a couple of algorithms buried in black boxes take the
real fun out of flying a control line airplane? So far, many have
searched for technical shortcuts on the way to success, particularly
in stunt flying. Some have more or less succeeded, but at the end it
always came down to actually fly the aircraft.
Today, we must understand that this may change. The potential of
robotic sciences is such that it might really help winning contests.
What this means for me is that I would prefer to beat my fellow flyer,
not his software supplier.
Therefore, I am definitely of the opinion that the organisations
governing our sport owe it to the community to keep software driven
technologies out of flight control. Here is a draft rule serving this
purpose. While it may certainly need a bit of language polishing, its
spirit preserves the principle of control line flying and thus
contributes to the ongoing success story of control line stunt flying.
--
DRAFT ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
Is a flight during which the model aircraft is permanently attached to
two or more wires or cables during the flight. The wires or cables
must be attached to a handle being manipulated by the pilot on the
ground at the centre of the flight circle.
Primary Flight Control for All Control Line Classes
No automatic flight path control, whether done on board of the model
airplane or on ground at the handle, is permitted. The model
aircraft’s flight path may only be controlled by the pilot
manipulating the handle and by mechanical signals transferred through
the wires or cables. On board of the model aircraft the mechanical
signals arriving through the wires or cables must be, directly and
mechanically, transferred to flight path controlling elements such as
aerodynamic control surfaces/brakes and/or thrust vector control
devices.
Secondary Flight Control
Permitted methods to control and/or operate secondary flight control
systems such as, for example, power sources, landing gears and such
shall be defined in the specific rules for the individual control line
classes. Where such definitions are not given, no control of secondary
flight control is permitted.
End of Quote
The issue is now up for discussion within the FAI F2 Subcommittee and
everybody is invited to contribute via their national F2
representative.
May I suggest, at the same time, that we carry forward our discussion
here by first of all trying to reach consensus whether a fundamental
definition of flight control for all c/l classes, such as “Primary
Flight Control” above, is needed or not? Please comment.
Peter Germann
Igor Burger
I think electric motor is still handicap so any development is only giving
better chance to compare with IC. But does not matter, in my eyes motor run
is not what judges judge. Both types of power train must be mastered (well
... different way, but still mastered) to allow good conditions for flying,
but I do not see too big difference what impact has every of them to flying.
And so I do not see reason why to allow them or disallow together with in
flight stabilization.
It is neat to allow or diasallow them together, but in my eyes, we have good
practical reason to keep well working electric power train and not to use in
flight electronic stabilization, just because any kind of active (closed
loop feedback) stabilization is in reality assistance of some device
controlling flying path (that is what judges judge) independently on pilots
input (doing something instead of him - something what judges judge) ...
Just my personal meaning.
igor
-----Original Message-----
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Brett Buck
Sent: 11. decembra 2009 19:00
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: C/L Flight Control
Igor Burger
The definition of "Primary Flight Control" is good idea I think. If you will
look to my second suggestion how to limit devices, it makes think much
easier.
igor
-----Original Message-----
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: 13. decembra 2009 13:04
To: F2B Group
Subject: Re: C/L Flight Control
Peter G
I have today addressed the FAI F2 Subcommittee with the following
letter:
------------
Dear Members of the F2 Subcommitee
The question of whether to allow or ban (or partially allow)
computerised flight assistance/control for c/l models of all classes
is undoubtedly instrumental for the future of our common cause.
Given the ease of availability of technology and the speed of progress
in robotics, I am of the opinion that we must reach soon consenus on
how to deal with the fly-by-wire issue in a pro-active way.
Furthermore, I do believe the time has come where we must take side
and tell the community where we stand.
Please find attached an informal draft proposal related to the issue
of computerized flight path control for all control line classes. When
reading it, please consider its content as being my personal point of
view, not necessarily reflecting the opinion of the members of the F2B
Working Group.
---------
I have uploaded the informal draft proposal under "FILES"
With my very best wishes for a Happy New Year!
Peter Germann
Peter G
Further to send my draft proposal to the F2 Subcommittee on December
29, filed here under “Draft Proposal.doc” and declaring its content
being my personal point of view not necessarily reflecting the opinion
of the members of the F2B Working Group, I have on February 10 2010
announced to the Subcommittee the intention of the Swiss Aero Club to
file a related rule change proposal of the same content.
Furthermore, I have suggested the Fly-by-wire issue to be put on the
Agenda of the 2010 Technical Meeting of the F2 Subcommittee to be held
on April 15/16 in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Peter Germann
F2B Working Group Coordinator
aage wiberg
Good work from you - as usual.
Greetings
aage
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] På vegne
af Peter G
Sendt: 12. februar 2010 12:09
Til: F2B Group
Emne: Re: C/L Flight Control
Dear members of the F2B Working Group
--
Peter Germann
Peter Germann
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] Im
Auftrag von aage wiberg
Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Februar 2010 16:30
An: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Betreff: [english 100%] SV: C/L Flight Control
go_s...@comcast.net
Good luck Peter. It could (probably will) be an exciting subject at that meeting!
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter G" <peterd...@bluewin.ch>
To: "F2B Group" <f2b-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:08:30 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: C/L Flight Control