Has anybody tried this unit? I saw an MB339 on Youtube flying with one but that's all. A buddy of mine has had one for some time now. Just trying to gather more field testing info to help him out.

Skyknight,
If your buddy is an AMA member, have him/her check "Model Aviation" magazine, March 2013 issue, pages 65-67 for a review of the Eagle Tree Guardian. The author resides in Houston, TX and his contact info is at the end of the article. He flies at JSC also. There are other jet guys that have used this unit in jets and maybe they may chime in here.
I purchased a Guardian unit and plan to test it in an Habu EDF but have not gotten around to it. Also, my tranny is back a Horizon for routine service.
Rgds,
Art ARRO

I've had one for over a year now, and never put it in a model until yesterday. (lol) They come highly recommended, but the set-up is a little strange. But, just follow the directions and you will be fine.


I put mine in a HobbyLobby LIL' Banchee (3D Prop model) and If the weather holds out... I'll give it a test run today. If it goes well... I plan on putting it in my HotSpot for next season.

I think Barry from KingTech is flying them.

Thanx for the info Art. Yes, he is an AMA member and I'llmake sure to point him to that article. He has had his for some time now, maybe a year or so.

I'm a member of JSC also. I know of one guy buzzin around with one in his trainer. He told me there are a few guys there with it. Hopefully some jet jockeys can shed some first hand experience. I'll try to find that article too.

This whole topic is very interesting. I did a little reading this year regarding making a small Reaper, just to fly within sight and at my local field. I thought it would be a new challenge though (tech wise) to see if I could program a few laps around the field for the plane to do itself (All within sight and with a Tx in my hand not FPV.) Anyway I discovered a tremendous amount of stuff that is out there for autopilots. Granted most of us here want anything but that and enjoy flying wheels up to touchdown, but the idea is still exciting to have this other control.

I had looked at some of these things http://store.3drobotics.com/t/parts/autopilots neat stuff. I am not sure about hese versus any Guardian, I suspect the EAgle Tree stuff is simpler to roll into our systems.


Sorry if this is a little off topic but I realized in some ways how lacking some of our reciever-electronics are with respect to these features.


Good luck with your project,
Dave

I've been flying one in an EDF Panther this past season. It makes hand tossing a breeze in 2D (wing leveling) mode. In 3D mode it corrects for any wind disturbances and takes a lot of work out of flying, also helps landings.

I bought another one and put it in a turbine jet. Only flew it a few times but it worked just as well. The only drawback is that it will support only one elevator servo and one rudder servo unless they are Y-ed together. Also follow the directions to supply more amperage to the servos if using higher torque digitals.

By the way it's a 3 axis gyro stabilizer, not an auto pilot.

Joe

By the way it's a 3 axis gyro stabilizer, not an auto pilot.

>Good catch. I titled it that way hoping somebody else would point out the difference. He and I already had that discussion but in his mind it is an auuto pilot. This is teh video I was referring to earlier:

http://youtu.be/krdEJjj9pxE

We have one in a Yellow F-15 with no problems.

Dave, the Guardian is what I was flying with in my Habu at Midwest Jets. It's 3-axis stabilization, not autopilot.

Jerry

The concept is interesting, any autopilot can save a jet from being lost due to attitude seen wrong by the pilot. Or almost any reason but a flameout and stall etc. I have flown the Ardupilot for some time, and would not hesitate putting it into a jet...i fly multirotor stuff for work daily and thats basically autopilot all the time, not waypoints that much but in terms of GPS hold and stabilization.
tuomas

I've been thinking about this for awhile now. The new QX Blade quad has this feature. You set the model on the ground on startup. It locks on to a satellite and once that is done all you have to do is flip a switch and it comes back to the home position. This could EASILY be done with a model airplane. It probably already has. I think it would be a great add on if someone could perfect it.

Andy

Not to confuse topics, the guardian is different than the Ardupilot. I wont post anymore about this in this thread, we could always strat another but there is a ton of discussion about "autopilots" under drone headings here and in RC groups.

From what I understand the Ardupilot will also allow you to go to waypoints as well as "home". This wont land your plane although there are some options for "autoland" too if you get that involved. I dotn think I will personally get all of this (ardupilot) in a jet too soon, but am interested to try it in something like maybe a carbon cub?

Jerry flew this Guardian in his Habu and I think he likes it, he might be able to add more detail.

If we could just get one to fly an oval pattern at the command of a switch that would be perfect. This is technology available NOW guys. Someone should make and sell them. I would buy it.

Check out this thread started by Duke in Hawaii last year. He did some great testing of the Guardian in a jet flying in heavy winds with a notoriously difficult plane to fly in crosswords, the Skyray. The thread is http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-j...n-testing.html.

Anyones opinion in using one of these in a 20cc or 30cc gasser? I have one installed and have been flying one in a Funtana 125 with a 20cc gas engine. Have not had any problems as of yet. Your thoughts as to using it in this application.

I played with my Guardian for the first time yesterday.... and it did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do.

The 3D heading hold made my plane feel locked in. The 2D mode felt strange... but it would do a very nice, and quick recovery from any attitude. I'm going to play with it a little more... but it's going in my HotSpot for next season.

The unit works well in an electric or a jet.
I have been ground testing it in a 15cc powered gas powered biplane. The vibration causes the AHI to wander off scale. I soft mounted the engine and mounted the unit on double stick foam tape but it still drifted off.
I think there is a way to make it work but it will take some study. The trick is to isolate the vibration while still getting the AC movement to it.
I have used it on an electric AC and the 2d mode makes flying like driving a car. You have to hold the aileron over to make it turn. It wont let you roll more than 60 degrees.
Flying in 3d mode it just corrects for disturbances like wind.
If you get one remember the servo battery will go done fast as the servos are moving all the time.

I tested the Eagle tree Guardian unit on my Aeroworks 35% Yak for a day, works great..Just before I pack it up I did one more flight and forgot which switch position was 3d or 2d while in an hover. Never tried it since.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMzDU0MzfrI

Exactly my thoughts for some time..
The unit I have is called FY31AP, and I use it in a FPV plane. It`s a state of the art unit, as good as thing gets today.

This unit have several useful functions for us. It marks the GPS location at start-up and set this as "home", and if transmitter signals are lost, it comes back all by itself.
You also have 3 axis gyro stabilizer and return to home by a three-way switch set up on the transmitter. Meaning you can take it home by flipping the switch (if it`s lost in sight)
When return to home, it starts cirkling in a wide cirkle when it gets there (you are at center) waiting for your further command.
To program waypoints with Goole-Earth (up to eight) is not the part we choose of course, but it`s able to do so.
But again, the unit has to be placed at CG, and serves one servo for aileron and elevator. Y-lead is a way to go, not sure about the current capability.

This is what advanced RECEIVERS SHOULD have as standard in near future. Never a lost plane again.

I have a buddy who is into the quad copters and associated autopilots *big time* (like commercially with tens of thousands of dollars invested). You can spend thousands on an autopilot for those things and have it still fly away, *easily*. It happens to those guys all the time. They let it get out until its a dot, then hit the "home switch," and away it goes, never to be seen again.

My students and I build UAV autopilots for a living, and I have seen *every single* commercial one we've tested crash an airplane at one time or another, and I'm talking about ones that cost from $7,000 to upwards of $20,000. Our own autopilots that we build are fairly reliable, but only to a point.

We had a situation a couple of years ago, where we were using our autopilot to fly a set pattern while we tested a digital video link. The aircraft got to a waypoint about a mile away (13' ws aircraft), and instead of turning around, it kept going. I let it go for about 5 seconds and then took it over and brought it back - right at the edge of visual range. We tried it again and the same thing happened. We saved the flight path and brought the system back and put into the hardware-in-the-loop simulation. Sure enough (luckily) it happened there too. After a day or two of debugging, we traced the problem to a unique combination of longitude inputs that caused a floating point underflow in the FPU. We, of course, fixed it and never had it happen again - in that specific scenario.

A couple of days later, one of my students told me that they went back to the old version of the software and left it running after the error occured to see what would happen. Eventually, the (simulated) aircraft did turn around and came back - after traveling some 400 miles to a point over the middle of Ohio...

Software bugs like that are a big problem in low-end autopilots like we can afford and they are *very* hard to test out - so much so that I'd never put an autopilot in compete control of a model that i couldn't afford to loose.

Bob

Good story, but I think you misunderstood.. I did NOT say the FY31AP is something for us, my point was just parts of it`s capability.
One waypoint that is erased on the next start-up is all we need for a home-function. It`s easy to be confused if a unit is complex such as programming and several way-points..
Hundreds of storys about that..
And if you loose the signal, you`re lost anyway..so why not? " I'd never put an autopilot in compete control of a model that i couldn't afford to loose."
Anyway, there is a chance to loose control nomatter brand of RC we use.
Who can forget the sceptisism about 2,4? Now everyone is using it, evolution starts with ideas.

Going to multiple waypoints is not much more difficult than going to one (i.e., "going home"). Most often, the "go home" function is what causes fly-aways in the quad/hexacopter community...

Most of these types of autopilots are "flight critical" in that any failure of them, (power failure, software crash, etc.) means that the signals can not get from the regular RC RX to the servos - which renders the aircraft immediately unflyable. Our system is designed to be "fail-safe" in that *any autopilot* failure returns control to the external pilot. This is *not* the case in most of the systems out there and I have seen many of them be responsible for a crash of an otherwise flyable aircraft - either from a system failure, or simply having it in the wrong mode as in the video above of the Guardian.

If you introduce additional components into the critical path of a system, the overall reliability of the system becomes *less* than the reliability of the least-reliable component. I *guarantee* you that the least-reliable component will be the autopilot...

Bob

Well, I never thought problems and issues can stop any progress..
And luckily, there are people making things that thinks the same.

I never said anything about stopping progress - rather that one must be sure that additional "features" are progress in the sense that it improves the overall reliability of the system - in this case, the RC link between pilot and aircraft. Dual links, better antenna technology, telemetry, etc. are proving to be progress in that regard. Adding an autopilot with "go home" capability, so far based on experience in the quad/hex community, not so much...

Your milage may vary - as in the case of stab. balancing...

Bob

Perhaps it's time to look in our jets and remove all the things added to the receiver..and deny any opportunity for development..
I for mine have several things there wich I rely in that costs not so much. Things that have been developed based upon our needs.
And I'm glad we all have computer radios wich only was a reality in a fever-dream back there.
Thats why I think we both have a mileage to go