PatternFlyer

My Feedback: (182)

Ok, I need to send the paper works to AMA for Pittsburg, KS contest in June.

Should I allow the AS3X integrated receiver in Sportsman class?

E-Flite announced Splendor BNF Basic
http://www.e-fliterc.com/Products/De...rodId=EFL10250

Very good size for Sportman without too much $$.

For some that have not flown much of Pattern and want to try, should I allow it?

I want to have more people flying Pattern. I haven't had a chance to try the new AS3X receiver for a larger plane yet.

If someone come to the contest with one of stock Splendor and want to fly Sportman class, what would you do?
We allow sportman to fly anyplane under 20 something pounds just to encourage more to participate.
However, our rule prevents any stabilization. .
The receiver has sensitivity/gain adjustability, but can not be completely turn off the AS3X gyro.

I personally don't like the idea of plane with stabilization, but want to see more Sportman at the local contest.

What do you guys think?

I've decided not to allow AS3X equipped receiver. If anyone show up with it, I will have receiver available for them to swap out for the contest.

Ihncheol

wvr

On the other site of the world we have the same discussion going on, will we allow AS3X in pattern?
but also how to get more people starting/staying in this aerobatics flying.

The general complain from new pilots is that the have difficulty in flying the schedules (for the first year)
so if there are 'tools' that makes their plane behave more stable/predictable then that might be a great help.

General feeling (without actually having the hands on experience) is that the AS3X will not make flying the manouvres more easy, it will only feel like you fly with a better trimmed plane.

As nobody knows what will happen I think we should give this a try in the lower classes (beginner/sportsman) to gain experience.

bjr_93tz

Whoever is looking after the rules for the FIA with regard to pattern need to get on the horn to Futaba and JR and find out if they've got anything similiar in the pipeline.

F3C has been running tail gyros forever, so I can't see why JR/Futaba can't bring out a programmable 3-axis unit for F3A work (or general airplanes).

The bottom line is, without letting this technology into F3A, F3A ships will continue to drop in desirability to the average modeller. It'll be a sad day when I'm out flying in the wind watching my $6K+ F3A ship getting bounced around while some Hobbyking 60" scale foamy with stabilisation is flying locked in, steady as a rock.....

danamania

Could a creative CD allow a newcomer to fly the Sportsman schedule with said equipment with the proviso that they are not eligible for an award (due to the unfair advantage of stabilization)? A compromise here would allow the newcomer to fly the model, gain experience with the schedule and the contest environment, and provide incentive to take on the challenge of flying a regulation model in the future (while also not penalizing the pilots struggling to progress with traditional models). Win-wins like this could be managed at the local contest level to encourage participation in pattern and raise awareness of playing by the rules, a key aspect of sportsmanship in any competitive endeavor? This way a newcomer could fly, get scored, enjoy the coaching, camaraderie and feedback had in the contest environment as long as they agree that the unfair advantage of their gear disqualifies them from awards. I would think that to be very fair and fun for most newcomers (and those who want to win more than they want to just get their feet wet should be looking at other models anyway). Thoughts?

Hokie Flyer

As a CD, I would not allow flight stabilization systems in any sanctioned event I am running.  However, I think it would be fine in a separate  pre-sportsman class.  I've run a pre-sprotsman class the last two years at the Emerald Coast Beachcomber contest to try and recruit new pattern flyers -and, I've had some success.  The pre-sportsman class is not part of the official santioned event, and, since the purpose is to allow sport flyers to give pattern a try in a reduced stress and commitment event, I don't see why flight stabilization should not be allowed.

Just my $0.02.


Rob

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Just my opinion, but electronics have made helicopters one of the largest segments of the hobby. And the somewhat recent switch to 3-axis flybarless systems have made it even more popular. If pattern wants to have any chance of even retaining it's level of activity, then it better look long and hard at what it wants to do regarding these systems.

For a while the TOC allowed gyros, but what was available at the time was rather crude in comparison. There were a lot of issues to get everything working correctly with those large airplanes. Keep in mind that each axis was a separate gyro that drove the multiple servos in use on those planes. Most pilots didn't want to bother with it so eventually the organizers banned them. But going flybarless in my helicopters has actually made life far simpler. Of course, in a heli the electronics makes the model simpler mechanically. Using 3-axis stabilization in airplanes probably won't be as much of a simplification as they are in helis. I don't see us losing airframe parts. But these new systems will be far simpler to use then previously.

I was flying helicopters when gyros first started to come out. I remember how many fought their use in competition. Now no one would even think of flying one without at least a gyro on the tail. I'm not sure how the FAI addresses flybarless, but the AMA events have created separate flybar and flybarless competitions. It's hard to tell what the eventual impact will be because heli pattern type competitions have such low attendance. But in the heli 3D competitions the flybar has gone the way of the dodo.

What I see stabilization providing in airplanes is an easier path to designing and trimming. When I begin to work with a newcomer to pattern, most of the issues are not about flying. They are about getting their airplane to fly correctly. If these systems shorten that path then I think eventually they will increase participation.

dahld

@ TonyF,

Your question, " I'm not sure how the FAI addresses flybarless... "

In F3C (precision aerobatics, like F3A), the FAI allows gyro stabilization on the tail only. It's been that way for a long time. But in F3N (which is a "3D" heli format), three axis flybarless stabilization systems are allowed...and frankly, in competitive 3D helis, that's all anyone who's serious about trying to win uses anymore.

I'm too new to the pattern scene to have a valid opinion about stabilization systems on AMA / F3A type pattern planes. I was just answering Tony's question.

But, the FAI is not TOTALLY against stabilization systems on models, as they've allowed it in other formants.

(-: Dave

Ekvien

F3A contest is about pilot skills. So in my opinion any lvl above Sportsman should not allows gyros or equal stabilization system. For recruitment purpose it could have some advantage, but only in local contest and maybe also give a reduced score by 10 - 15 percent if used.

Im flying pattern, not for beeing best or given high score from the judge, but for improving my flying skills. If someone will beat me by using gyros, im still a better pilot

MTK

It's always interesting to speculate the "what ifs". Has anyone actually flown this technology in a pattern plane, Sportsman or otherwise?

The rules of Pattern expressly forbid such stabilization systems, of course. Personally, I'd prefer to try it before poopoo'ing or embracing it..... If I understand the system correctly, it auto corrects for just about anything, including not just wind gusts or turbulence, but controlled inputs as well. Having a plane fight my commands will be very strange way to fly.

I'd like to hear from Dave L on this one....

pvogel

I haven't tried AS3X in a pattern sequence, but I have tried the EagleTree Guardian in my 89" slick flying a sportsman pattern sequence first off, it's not possible to fly a sequence with the standard "2D" stabilization mode of the Guardian, it will fight you and win everytime you try to take the plane inverted other than simple loops. In the 3D mode, however, it greatly simplifies the pattern, you do still need to blend in rudder to keep a roll axial and level but in all other respects the input you give is the output you get, you are effectively changing the stick from instructions to the servos to deflect the surfaces into instructions to the stabilization system to cause the plane to rotate on the stick's axis with the speed of said rotation being set by the degree of deflection. The system takes care of corrections for things like P-factor and Gyroscopic precession as well as wind buffeting, but you still need to correct for wind on uplines and downlines, loss of lift in knife edge, etc. because the system doesn't realize it's drifting. So you still need some talent to fly a good pattern. Best guess from flying the 89" slick through a pattern sportsman sequence, my 6's would turn to at best 8s and my 8's would become 9's. With a flip to 2D mode on landing and takeoff those could easily be consistent 10s.

I think it's arguable whether it should be allowed, as the rules are written right now I wouldn't want them even in sportsman, but for a local contest in a club class or something like that, it might be interesting. The level of stabilization you get isn't that much different from what I would expect a Contra drive to get you, so I could see an argument for allowing it in the future...

Peter+

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

I'm not turning anyone away at my contest. Only something I considered dangerous would cause that to happen.
Dave

countilaw

This is my opinion and I know it doesn't count for much, but In AMA and F3A you guys can do what you like.... BUT in SPA and CPA, I think it should NOT be allowed. Big money and Corporate Sponsorships killed classic pattern in the 80s. The average pattern flyer couldn't afford the high tech equipment or afford practice flying everyday like the corporate "professional" pilots. So the average flier dropped out of pattern. I was one of them. I couldn't afford a trailer full of planes, top of the line radios, and being paid to fly everyday.

I think by bending so many rules just to attract new flyers is a mistake and will lead us right back to the 80's I don't want to compete with my Kaos 60 against another flyer with his stabilizied Dirty Birdi and his $3k radio. I work hard to make my manuevers 7s and 8s, only to lose to a mediocre flier with expensive technical equipment. I don't care if I'm a better flier.

I feel that allowing a flier in pre-novice or novice to fly what he brought is fair enough. But when he moves to Sportsman, he needs to adhere to the accepted rules.

Did I start flying pattern because it was easy? No, I started flying pattern because I wanted to become a better pilot and I love the competition.
Emphasis on Competition. If we start letting the electronics fly the plane, where is the competition?

I'm not trying to be ugly, I just think we need to think about what we are doing and where it could lead.

Frank

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I have been flying the Spektrum AS3X receiver in a sport model and also in the new Parkzone VisionAire. Keep in mind I only have a few flights so this is just an initial impression. I was not involved in any way in the development or testing of this prior to being publicly available.

The Spektrum AR635 is a combination RX/Gyro system. Everything is built in to the same box. It is really a "Sport" system, as it is ony 6-channels and you cannot use two outputs for ailerons or elevators. Every dual servo axis must use a Y-lead. So it has limitations. It is also not to be used in anything but an electric model and nothing bigger then a "90" size.

The receiver can be set up to either be a "3D" system or a "Sport" system. In 3D mode the gear channel can switch it to give higher throws on the surfaces and different gyro gains for that style of flying or to lower throws and different gains for normal flying. In Sport mode the gear channel lets you switch between two different gain settings.

The gains are adjustable but only in 10% increments. Adjusting the gains is simple once you understand the instructions. The process is a little convoluted but this is a simple, initial system.

My impressions flying it is that it in no way turns the model into a "robot" that will do everything super precisely. In fact, it is hard to feel it being any different then a nice, well set-up normal model. It doesn't fix every aero problem the model had before installing the gyros. If it needed a lot of mixing before it will still need it with the gyros. If the gains are set too high, the model can oscillate on that axis and it will reduce the control rate. Set too low there's not a lot of advantage. What it can do nicely is dampen out any turbulence or gusts you hit. It does make a small model feel bigger.

I'm going to stick it into my 62" Osiris to see what it does with something like that. It would be a better test model. But not being able to use separate dual ailerons or elevators seems to be a problem to use it at a top level. And the amount you can adjust things might be a concern.

Honestly, whether pattern allows it or not I doubt is of much concern to the manufacturer. This sort of stuff is going to take-off and migrate to nearly everyone who flies. Training someone will be easier and they will progress quicker. It will just make it more fun. There will be a learning curve both for builders and users as there is with everything. But it is progress whether some like it or not. I remember someone going to great length telling me how there was no way 2.4 was going to work for us modelers. We can see how that went.

If you are at all involved with helicopters you can see the advance of the flybarless gyro systems and what their impact has been on that area. Next will be airplanes, take it to the bank. At least the cost is very minimal and if it works out like helicopters, complex transmitters are much less necessary. And the cost of the systems themselves has been very moderate. If pattern chooses to ignore it and out law it, well, somewhere, someone is still racing chariots. We can be right next to them.

PatternFlyer

My Feedback: (182)

Frank,
I am only talking about AMA pattern Sportman which is the lowest class.
No way I would allow it to be used in the upper classes in a sanctioned event.
I sure will suggest sportman pilot to not use it, but I want those new Pattern pilots to see higher class pilots flying without it.
Only reason I am doing this is to attract more people.

Ihncheol

jgg215

One thing we have in pattern is rules specifically written to exclude auto-stabilzation systems such as this. As Tony points out, this current system is rather crude and limiting. However, if we accept it on that basis it will not be long before a stabilization system appears that will handle more channels, have a better interface, more resolution in the gains, much more sophistication in the control loops and cost a lot more.
Then later there will be systems that will allow you to do a slow roll by only moving the aileron stick, will automatically correct to a 175 meter track. You could also set up a plane with neutral stability and allow the control system to maintain tracking.

I don't see us painting ourselves into a corner by rejecting control feedback system in pattern. After all, they aren't allowed in IAC either - where there  is a lot more money, weight and space available for aerobatic stabilization systems. For pattern, I would say that these systems would kill pattern in the long run after creating a technology and cost runup.
Looking at it from the outside, I would say  the gyro systems in helicopters have expanded the scope of the possible. I see things today I thought were impossible with a helicopter and new maneuvers as well. Helicopters are inherently unstable beasties and always needed some help. Aircraft are not(or don't need to be). In pattern we would be doing the same maneuvers except computers would be handling a share of the workload.
I do see it as an excellent tool for teaching beginners. I do see it as similar to training wheels. But it should be the goal of every new pilot to wean himself off the stabilization system.  As we all know, it can get boring just flying around in a racetrack pattern at the local field and that is without a gyro system.
John

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

It would be relatively easy to create rules that would allow 3-axis stability augmentation but disallow the sort of "programmed" flight you mention. I'll bet those sort of rules are already in helicopter events.

I've flown helis since 1972. I sat back and watched the development of gyro systems in them up to today's advanced systems. I stayed away from flybarless until I thought they got to the point where they made my life easier, not more complex, with a ton of learning to do to use them. They are at that point now. BTW, it's a bit of a myth that helis are unstable, even without the electronic gyros. They are actually very neutrally stable in roll and pitch. The flybar acts like a gyro to create the stability in the rotor head. Now they have simply eliminated the mechanical gyro (flybar) with electronics. And I can most definitely tell you that going flybarless will not overnight turn you into a full blown 3D monster pilot. It certainly didn't do that with me. I couldn't do a piro flip on the deck before flybarless and I still can't do one. It just made getting a very good flying helicopter easier. You still have to know how to move the sticks.

It remains to be seen what the real impact will be on airplanes. But it they do find their way into entry level and guys grow up with them they will want to use them throughout. I already see it with electric power. Almost universally someone who starts electric stays electric. They have no desire to learn how to run those messy, vibrating, unreliable IC engines. At least that is how they see them. And why should they? I'm sure that is the same thing with helicopters. You can easily get in to helicopters now and never have a flybar on anything you ever own. Why would you want to learn how to cope with that when you already know how do it with electronics?

I'll agree that airplanes are different animals then helicopters. But if these sort of systems do somehow find a place in competition aerobatics I don't think it will be the end of the world as we know it. I think it will just be different. Countless hours on airframe designs, set-up and trimming might be reduced for time spent learning how to program your electronics. But those who have heavily invested in the current skill sets will fight tooth and nail to keep those skill sets relevant.

And I don't see these systems being allowed in AMA/F3A anytime soon. We couldn't even get some basic telemetry through the Contest Board so gyros are in for a long fight.

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

Gyro stabilized pattern? Why not just stay home and play video games instead? Saves gas, not worries about the weather.

danamania

Funny, could be what the majority of RC flyers think about us pattern guys, making the same flight over and over again? Why not just stay home, watch TV sports and have a beer instead? LOL.

Ed, from a tecnical/theoretical persepective, given a well trimmed aerobatic model, is it possible that introducing a lower resolution stabilization system may actually result in a less precise flight? Axiom of a system being only as good as the weakest link applicable? If the device being discussed is really only tunable in 10% increments and introduces "Y" connections (suitable for sport flying but not for precision aerobatics), might it introduce small but unwanted deviations in flight path due to insufficient precision? Like I said, a theoretical question only. Thoughts?

NJRCFLYER2

My Feedback: (42)

Dana, even though this particular system probably isn't any good as a Pattern flight stabilizing system,it won't be long until a system comes along that could do it. It just doesn't seem like the way to go. You're supposed to fly the airplane the entire time. It's one thing to optimize the performance of your equipment, it's quite another thing to let it fly the airplane for you at any point in the flight.

rm

My Feedback: (27)

This is the same conversation IMAC had 20 yrs ago. JR started that argument also.

danamania

Agreed Ed. Anyway, thinking about the problems that I have to solve for at my level of experience, having just progressed to Intermediate at the end of last season, it would not likely help me anyway (especially as a Futaba user LOL). For example, did I really place the aircraft in a wings-level attitude before that push/pull? Did I under/over-rotate going for that 45 deg line? Or pinch a looping segment. And then there is judging wind correction against geometry! Still quite a lot to get right for this pattern pilot despite a stable, well trimmed model to fly. Practice, practice...

bjr_93tz

Playing devils advocate, isn't ensuring the CG is ahead of the neutral point a form of "inertial stabilisation"??

Seriously though, the area I fly in treats the lowest class (Sportsmen) as a "run what you brung" to encourage participation and to be honest, I probably wouldn't turn away a flybarless heli because it's only loops, rolls, cubans and stall turns. Nothing a chopper can't do (except the 3-turn spin).

One part of me says keep the upper classes "pure", the other part of me doesn't want to see F3A relegated to a quirky, nostalgia, past-time like control line stunt. I don't want us to become a bunch of old guys walking around with t-shirts that say "Real men fly without stabilisation" to make themselves feel better..

danamania

To the question posed in the OP: If 2 or more of these show up at a contest, why not let them compete against each other for standing?  All could fly the Sportsman schedule and rounds before the judges; but the final placement would rank the AS3X pilots against each other, apart from the traditional Sportsmen who entered the class? A possible win-win at the local level which is inclusive and fair to all comers? Just a thought since the product is now on the market: thinking through contingency plans seem prudent, just in case these show up at a contest unexpected.

Muttdog

IMHO pattern suffers from unreasonable costs and whileactive flight stabilization is a problem (that I hope is not allowed)I do not think allowing it will increase the numbers in any significant way. I am a intermediate pilot who has been flying for about 2 years now. I wanted to get better at this hobby so I decided to get into precision aerobatics (just starting now). While pattern certainly is exciting, I decided to go the IMAC route. Why? well even thoughpattern is low cost to get in, if you do decide to take it to the next level the costs ramp up exponentially. Several thousand dollars for just an airframe? When I go to Imac competitions they are pretty well attended but the pattern comps I have seen are sparce or non existent. I understand these planes are very special and they do some incredible things and that the booming economy before 2008 probably spured a lot of this but this is a new economy.This is in no way a slam against pattern, Ireally have a lot of respect for the sport and the pilots who fly it. I just wanted to share an opinion from a beginner who was looking at the 2 disciplines and the reasons I decided to go one way VS the other. For me Ican spend a reasonable investment and still get a plane that will take me pretty high in IMAC and I can still use that plane to learn 3D flying as well as just everyday Sunday flying. I know that if I were flying a $5000+ airplane it would be used very sparingly and only in perfect conditions just because that would be it for me if it went back into kit form.Of course you can spend that in IMAC tobut it seems that there is more of a middle ground from dirt cheap to top of the line. I am hoping to enter my first comp in April and am still learning the basic routine.

apereira

For a new pilot flying in Sportsman it might be enough just to keep him out of competition to know that another pilot will probably beat him as it has an edge or help from his electronics, so if it is unfair, I suppose it will be bad to allow it as the outcome will be determined by the equipment, and I think that goes against what sportsman is.

regards