Turbine to RC transition

[B4RT]

Some friends bought me a really spiffy coaxial RC helicopter for my
birthday. Holy canoli these things are a stinkin blast! A little humbling at
first too, it took me a while to figure out the trim hickamajobs, and flying
one without it being trimmed is damn near impossible. I crashed pretty badly
once and it cost me a set of rotor blades, truly embarassing.

I've seen some comments that they fly like the bigger ones, and to a
limited extent I agree, but mostly its its own animal and my more general
knowledge only helped a little. I mostly have to follow the thing around and
stay behind it so that I don't get confused with the controls. Trying to
visulize being inside is still very confusing for my old synapses if its
tail is anywhere between 9 and 3 o'clock.

The whole reversed sensing / control thing led to a really simple circuit
idea that could make it so that the controls were always oriented for the
observer/controller. If you put an ADF circuit and a slightly more
complicated antenna on the helicopter so that it listened to the phase and
doppler from the transmitter's frequency, you could pretty simply make it so
the helicopter always knew where it was relative its controller, and mix it
in to the servo controls. This way left is always left, and right is always
right. The circuit would be pretty dirt cheap. Anyone know if this has
already been done?

I know the rc purists will say bah , and poo poo the whole idea, but truth
is youre cheating anyways with that lil yaw gyro keeping the tail in place
automagically. Besides, my idea isnt just applicable to these lil choppers,
it would work for every ROV that is controlled by an observer physically
watching it.

Bart

[jim.blakely]

"B4RT" > wrote in message
...
> Some friends bought me a really spiffy coaxial RC helicopter for my
> birthday.

I suspect you don't realize this is not a radio control NG.

[JohnO]

jim.blakely wrote:
> "B4RT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Some friends bought me a really spiffy coaxial RC helicopter for my
> > birthday.
>
> I suspect you don't realize this is not a radio control NG.

I suspect you are an idiot.

[Steve R]

Insults from full sized pilots who don't care about RC aside, that's an
interesting idea about the ADF and antenna circuit. As an RC helicopter
pilot, I'm not sure how it's going to help you. You still need to direct
the model to where you want it to go, relative to where it is and it's
orientation to you. I guess I'm missing the point, but it seems to me that,
as hard as RC helicopter are to "learn" to fly (they're really not that bad
once you know how. You full size pilots should understand that statement!
;-) ), that if what you're suggesting would work, someone would have tried
it by now!

By the way, I'm glad you're enjoying the coaxial model, and I don't mean to
burst your bubble but, of the folks I know that have tried them, most say
the new electric coaxials are dirt simple to control relative to the
standard configuration (main and tail rotor) style models. If you think
what you have is challenging, try a standard model. ;-) You're right
though, they are a stinkin blast! :-D

Fly Safe,
Steve R.


"B4RT" > wrote in message
...
> Some friends bought me a really spiffy coaxial RC helicopter for my
> birthday. Holy canoli these things are a stinkin blast! A little humbling
> at first too, it took me a while to figure out the trim hickamajobs, and
> flying one without it being trimmed is damn near impossible. I crashed
> pretty badly once and it cost me a set of rotor blades, truly embarassing.
>
> I've seen some comments that they fly like the bigger ones, and to a
> limited extent I agree, but mostly its its own animal and my more general
> knowledge only helped a little. I mostly have to follow the thing around
> and stay behind it so that I don't get confused with the controls. Trying
> to visulize being inside is still very confusing for my old synapses if
> its tail is anywhere between 9 and 3 o'clock.
>
> The whole reversed sensing / control thing led to a really simple circuit
> idea that could make it so that the controls were always oriented for the
> observer/controller. If you put an ADF circuit and a slightly more
> complicated antenna on the helicopter so that it listened to the phase and
> doppler from the transmitter's frequency, you could pretty simply make it
> so the helicopter always knew where it was relative its controller, and
> mix it in to the servo controls. This way left is always left, and right
> is always right. The circuit would be pretty dirt cheap. Anyone know if
> this has already been done?
>
> I know the rc purists will say bah , and poo poo the whole idea, but truth
> is youre cheating anyways with that lil yaw gyro keeping the tail in place
> automagically. Besides, my idea isnt just applicable to these lil
> choppers, it would work for every ROV that is controlled by an observer
> physically watching it.
>
> Bart
>

[B4RT]

"jim.blakely" > wrote in message
news:75U9g.4970$Sh3.4657@trnddc05..

> I suspect you don't realize this is not a radio control NG.

Yes, I know that. I also know that theres some very loyal readers in here
who fly them. I was commenting on the differences between my 3000lb
helicopter and three 3ounce one, hence the title.

Bart

[jim.blakely]

"JohnO" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> jim.blakely wrote:
> > "B4RT" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Some friends bought me a really spiffy coaxial RC helicopter for my
> > > birthday.
> >
> > I suspect you don't realize this is not a radio control NG.
>
> I suspect you are an idiot.

Have a bad day there JohnO? Don't over-read my post.

I've been called worse than that by better than you. Stay focused on the
discussion.

[[email protected]]

which coax RC model did they give you, and are real kamov style twin
rotors easier to fly?

Steve Roberts

[JohnO]

jim.blakely wrote:
> "JohnO" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > jim.blakely wrote:
> > > "B4RT" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Some friends bought me a really spiffy coaxial RC helicopter for my
> > > > birthday.
> > >
> > > I suspect you don't realize this is not a radio control NG.
> >
> > I suspect you are an idiot.
>
> Have a bad day there JohnO?

Nah, pretty good day actually. Why?

> Don't over-read my post.
>
> I've been called worse than that by better than you.

I'm sure you have!

> Stay focused on the
> discussion.

Thanks for the tip.

[B4RT]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 01:03:41 -0400, "B4RT" >
> wrote:
Practice, practice, practice...
>
> Which coax didja get? Blade CX. Hirobo Lama??
>

The Hirobo Lama. It must have a pretty smart lil computer in there. I
notice it adjusting
things for me at start up.

I'm not really complaining about the reverse sensing thing, its kinda like
flying a backward ILS on steam guages. Its just that I can envision that
things could be made a little less confusing with it. Afterall, modern glass
systems can flip that thing around.

Bart

[Steve R]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:10:15 -0400, "B4RT" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The Hirobo Lama. It must have a pretty smart lil computer in there. I
>>notice it adjusting
>>things for me at start up.
>
> It's got a nifty rate gain "gyro" in it...
>
>>I'm not really complaining about the reverse sensing thing, its kinda like
>>flying a backward ILS on steam guages. Its just that I can envision that
>>things could be made a little less confusing with it. Afterall, modern
>>glass
>>systems can flip that thing around.
>
> Practice nose out hovering, then start 45 degrees to either side..
> then 90 degrees to either side, then 135 degrees and then nose in. I
> still can't do the 135 degree stuff, but nose in is coming along
> nicely. Funny, but I can hover inverted better than nose-in. :)
>

I had the same problem when I was at your stage. Straight nose-in wasn't an
issue. That 135 degree point was a total PITA. About the best explanation
I can give is that the model is oriented right at that point where your
brain is trying to decide whether to control it's in normal or nose-in mode.
I remember when I first learned nose-in, I figured that I could start doing
smooth pirouettes now because that was I skill I always wanted to master.
Only to find out that, while I could comfortably fly tail or nose-in,
transitioning between the two, smoothly, was another matter.

Hang in there, it will come! :-)

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[B4RT]

I'm not really having a problem with it, I just posted originally because I
saw an easy cheap way to make the lil buggers easier to fly. The other
reason I mentioned my circuit is because there was that fella in here with
helicopter controls rigged to the remote control device. Now that I have a
little experience with the RC thing I can honestly say that his device would
be of little practical value in learning to fly a real one because of the
reversed control issue.

The reason I say that is that unless you totally disconnect the yaw gyro of
the RC and keep the helicopter's tail pointed at the pilot the experience
would share very little in common with a real helicopter, and might even
give you some pretty bad habits that would have to be unlearned. If you used
a circuit like I describe, and disconnect the yaw gyro it would be a lot
more like flying a real one.

The only thing I dont think can really be fixed about the
heli-seat-controller is the fact that the mass of an RC ship is so much less
and the controls are so much more quick and forgiving in the RC. It's much
harder to get behind the power-plant and rotor system in the little RC, if
you behaved similarly in a big chopper you'd overtorque it or get a mast
bump. You might be able to remedy this by putting some fancy software
between the controller and the RC machine though.

One thing about it that just can't be replicated no matter how hard you
tried is that a good portion of hovering flight is done through your
proprioceptive system (aka your ass). I can feel tiny lil G's in my body
that I use unconciously use to correct drift, yaw, and height. The reason I
know this is that I have a damn hard time hovering IGE in Bell's flight
training device when I go for recurrency. The only thing unrealistic about
their simulator is that its not full motion, and you have to fly totally
with your eyes. Because its not a full motion sim, the things its best
suited at training are systems failures and IFR/IMC stuff. They don't ever
try to teach any flight technique in theirs.

Bart

"Steve R" > wrote in message
news:EBGag.33475> I had the same problem when I was at your stage. Straight
nose-in wasn't an
> issue. That 135 degree point was a total PITA. About the best
> explanation I can give is that the model is oriented right at that point
> where your brain is trying to decide whether to control it's in normal or
> nose-in mode. I remember when I first learned nose-in, I figured that I
> could start doing smooth pirouettes now because that was I skill I always
> wanted to master. Only to find out that, while I could comfortably fly
> tail or nose-in, transitioning between the two, smoothly, was another
> matter.
>
> Hang in there, it will come! :-)
>
> Fly Safe,
> Steve R.
>

[Steve R]

Thanks for the feed back guys. It definitely puts things in a different
perspective!


"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 18:49:54 -0400, "B4RT" >
> wrote:
>
>>I'm not really having a problem with it, I just posted originally because
>>I
>>saw an easy cheap way to make the lil buggers easier to fly. The other
>>reason I mentioned my circuit is because there was that fella in here with
>>helicopter controls rigged to the remote control device. Now that I have a
>>little experience with the RC thing I can honestly say that his device
>>would
>>be of little practical value in learning to fly a real one because of the
>>reversed control issue.
>
> That's my argument as well - also if you wad up the RC heli, you're
> down until you can set the thing up again and it's not as easy as
> bolting on new parts and going flying.
>
>>The reason I say that is that unless you totally disconnect the yaw gyro
>>of
>>the RC and keep the helicopter's tail pointed at the pilot the experience
>>would share very little in common with a real helicopter, and might even
>>give you some pretty bad habits that would have to be unlearned. If you
>>used
>>a circuit like I describe, and disconnect the yaw gyro it would be a lot
>>more like flying a real one.
>>
>>The only thing I dont think can really be fixed about the
>>heli-seat-controller is the fact that the mass of an RC ship is so much
>>less
>>and the controls are so much more quick and forgiving in the RC. It's
>>much
>>harder to get behind the power-plant and rotor system in the little RC, if
>>you behaved similarly in a big chopper you'd overtorque it or get a mast
>>bump. You might be able to remedy this by putting some fancy software
>>between the controller and the RC machine though.
>
> Yep. The power to weight ratios of the models FAR exceed any real
> ship. Even my little Blade CP will absolutely ROCKET skyward if I
> just firewall the throttle. No way a real ship could hope to
> duplicate it's performance.
>
>>One thing about it that just can't be replicated no matter how hard you
>>tried is that a good portion of hovering flight is done through your
>>proprioceptive system (aka your ass). I can feel tiny lil G's in my body
>>that I use unconciously use to correct drift, yaw, and height. The reason
>>I
>>know this is that I have a damn hard time hovering IGE in Bell's flight
>>training device when I go for recurrency. The only thing unrealistic about
>>their simulator is that its not full motion, and you have to fly totally
>>with your eyes. Because its not a full motion sim, the things its best
>>suited at training are systems failures and IFR/IMC stuff. They don't ever
>>try to teach any flight technique in theirs.
>
> Yep. I give demos in ours and one thing I keep having to drill into
> prospective customers is that's it's NOT a flight simulator. It's a
> training device best used for IFR procedures training and learning the
> correlations between the controls. I strongly urge them not to use it
> to teach autos, quick stops etc.. It's not accurate enough for that.
> It's not of much use for hover training (IMO) either. Like you said,
> you don't get "ass feedback" sitting in the thing.
>

[[email protected]]

I've often thought about some orientation aid for RC aircraft, but I
think it would cost too much to make something that was accurate. You
don't really need it for helis anyway, since you can fly in any
direction. I guess I'm saying "bah".

And we're not cheating with the heading-hold gyros! :) It is possible
to fly an RC heli without a gyro, but it's a lot of work. Esspecially
in the wind. There is an inbetween option; most hobby-grade gyros have
a "rate" mode, where it simply slows rotation to sane speeds, rather
than holding it in one direction.

Those cheap coaxials look like fun. If you want something that will fly
a bit more like a real heli and will do aerobatics, the T-rex is a
really good little machine. All the fun of a "real" RC heli, but not
quite as expensive.

RC helis will have to do for me untill I can afford lessons in a
full-scale.

[Steve R]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've often thought about some orientation aid for RC aircraft, but I
> think it would cost too much to make something that was accurate. You
> don't really need it for helis anyway, since you can fly in any
> direction. I guess I'm saying "bah".
>
I don't have a clue how something like that would work. It's just a matter
of learning the reflexes for the different positions. Flying backwards or
sideways only adds other control requirements that aren't necessarily
intuitive. There's also the added fact that all the right side up forward,
backwards, and sideways stuff can be done while flying inverted which
scrambles the required control inputs yet again. In the long run, I firmly
believe that by the time you get some kind of electronic aid working for all
of this, you would probably have worked it out in your head and be able to
fly it more smoothly to boot!

> And we're not cheating with the heading-hold gyros! :) It is possible
> to fly an RC heli without a gyro, but it's a lot of work. Esspecially
> in the wind. There is an inbetween option; most hobby-grade gyros have
> a "rate" mode, where it simply slows rotation to sane speeds, rather
> than holding it in one direction.
>
As someone who did his initial hover training without the benefit of a gyro,
they were just becoming popular back in 1982 and I didn't know they existed
for the first few months that I tried to learn to hover, it's a lot easier
to fly the model in a modest (10 mph or so) breeze. The model wants to
weather vane into the wind which becomes a natural yaw damper. The gyros we
had back then were mechanical. A couple of brass fly weights attached to
the output shaft of an electric motor that was mounted on a gimble with a
potentiometer like those used on the control sticks of the RC transmitter.
All it was, was a yaw damper and, by todays standards, not a very good one!
The modern "gyro" is all solid state and all of them that have heading hold
capability also have what we call a "normal" mode which behaves essentially
like the old mechanical units did 20 years ago, albeit with much better
precision.

> Those cheap coaxials look like fun. If you want something that will fly
> a bit more like a real heli and will do aerobatics, the T-rex is a
> really good little machine. All the fun of a "real" RC heli, but not
> quite as expensive.
>
Generally true although you have to be careful with models like the T-Rex.
They offer this model in a fully upgraded version with all the bells and
whistles. It sells in the neighborhood of $500 or so, give or take a little
depending on which hobby shop's advertisement you read. Then you get to buy
batteries, RC flight control servos, receiver, gyro, etc. You can build and
fly a "nice" IC (internal combustion) powered model for that kind of money!
Even those who buy the base version of the model eventually start upgrading
it as the stock plastics parts don't handle a crash as well and over time,
they've got all the metal upgrades on there, only they've paid for them one
at a time so now that $500 model turns out to be a $650 model. They can get
you, one way or the other!

> RC helis will have to do for me untill I can afford lessons in a
> full-scale.
>
That's one area that you and I definitely have in common! :-(

Good luck & Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[[email protected]]

> Even those who buy the base version of the model eventually start upgrading
> it as the stock plastics parts don't handle a crash as well and over time

Yeah, but, when you compare the price of the plastic spare parts of a
T-rex, it becomes obvious why I said it's cheaper than a bigger heli.
All my crashes have cost under $50 to fix. A few times I've just had to
straighten the blades and put the canopy back on.

The stock heli flies just fine unless you're doing hardcore 3D. The
people who end up spending lots of cash on bling/upgrades are usually
more committed to the hobby, or don't mind spending the $. You don't
need to upgrade if you're just flying around not doing anything
special.

I got the a stock kit, batteries, charger, all RC gear -- everything
you need to get started -- for ~$700. You can get a nitro kit for that
price, sure, but you still have to spend another $150 or so on
accessories if you don't already have them. And you have to keep paying
for nitro.

Once you get into the bigger nitro helis, it's more of a serious
commitment to the hobby as you should only fly at an RC field. With the
T-rex, you can just find a person-less outdoor spot, a gym, or even a
hanger :D

If you want a more serious toy, but don't really want to get into the
hobby, then the T-rex is the top-of-the-line heli to get. My point is
that more people here are in that mindset, rather than the guys in RC
heli groups/forums (like you and me) who are obviously a bit more
commited.

One thing for sure, it's certinaly much easier to get started today
than it was 20 years ago. Now kids, or even full-scale pilots, can get
a kit up and flying without too much trouble ;)