Auto landing systems for large scale model airplanes

Is there any off the shelf auto landing systems for large scale model airplanes? Any info about how they work?
Merci,

It's called a large scale human pilot! <Ayem Cipteke> wrote in message
  Quoted Text Here  

Agreed, landing is a big part of the fun. Why on Earth would you want to automate the landings, even if you could?
  Quoted Text Here  

Combined with lots of practise
  Quoted Text Here  

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:40:21 +1100, <Ayem Cipteke> wrote in
  Quoted Text Here  
Not that I know of.
  Quoted Text Here  
You should look into the aerial robotics competitions: <http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/AUVS/IARCLaunchPoint.html .
I think automated takeoff and landing is part of their standard regimen. It requires supplementary GPS equipment (to give centimeter resolution), onboard data processing, and telemetry to make it work (bi-directional data communications).
Good luck with you project!
                Marty

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:53:57 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
  Quoted Text Here  
Gook luck indeed. He already has benefited from some, as it appears Ayem is in Oz. In the US he would probably need AMA to have a place to fly a large scale model. After the AMA EC adopted the Safety Committee recommended changes to the Safety Code that would allow autonomous control of R/C models (with some reasonable restrictions), President cum Dictator Brown exercised his unwritten/under-the-table veto power by ordering that a request be forwarded to the insurance company to drop models with autonomous controls from coverage.
Abel

  Quoted Text Here  
I can see that the liability for an accident could be huge--even disastrous for the AMA.
Autonomous aerial vehicles probably should be dealing with the FAA and other agencies. Maynard Hill's Atlantic crossing was a special event (Dave Brown landed the plane in Ireland) that probably had pretty slim chance of hitting anybody en route.
                    Marty

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:55:44 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
  Quoted Text Here  
The Safety Code recommendations of the Safety Committee that were incorporated included a restriction that models not be flown beyond unaided LOS, and it is clear that applies generally, no exception made for models with autonomous controls. That's a huge difference from Maynard's record Atlantic-crossing model. Other SC provisions preclude flying over unprotected people. Significant differences here are 1) DB circumvented theaction of the EC ostensibly elected to represent us to impose his paranoia as AMA policy, and 2) it imposes prior restraint on activity already proscribed by the AMA SC. Why have a Safety Code if insurance exclusions preempt any exercise of personal responsibility and judgement? IMHO, AMA policy should not be the product of manipulation of the insurance policy exclusions. I hear over and over that AMA is not an insurance company, though that denial has an increasingly hollow echo.
Abel

  Quoted Text Here  
These seem reasonable to me.
  Quoted Text Here  
I suppose if the EC thinks he overstepped his authority, they can call for his resignation. It may be that he did what they wanted him to.
Please note: I'm not defending DB. If he did something wrong, then he should be called to account. I'm just imagining a different scenario that might explain his action.
  Quoted Text Here  
From the way you describe it, the Safety Code and the insurance policy are lined up together: the AMA doesn't want us flying our planes outside the boundaries of our flying fields and our insurance policy won't cover us if we do this intentionally.
That said, I think aerial robotics is cool (apart from our enemies dropping cruise missiles on us) and I wish all civilian business people well in developing them.
  Quoted Text Here  
If the AMA didn't offer insurance, I probably wouldn't be a member. I did go on pilgrimage to Muncie and recommend it heartily as a vacation stop for anyone in the area--the museum is fabulous and it was a thrill to fly there. I met Charlie Nelson, saw his Waco in his van, watched him do two quick flights with a funny little training bipe, and got some flying tips from him.
I also met some other nice people at the flight line. It was a great afternoon.
I may get involved in competition some day--the AMA does a great job there, by and large, for the competitive types.
So, on balance, I'm not all that unhappy with the AMA as it exists today.
                    Marty

| I can see that the liability for an accident could be huge--even | disastrous for the AMA.
Why disasterous? That's what insurance policy limits are for.
A single huge claim would certainly hurt the AMA or it's insurer badly, but they must be able to absorb at least one such claim at the limit of the claim before going under ... | Autonomous aerial vehicles probably should be dealing | with the FAA and other agencies. Maynard Hill's Atlantic | crossing was a special event
If I recall my timeline properly, it also predated the `no autonomous flight' AMA policy. They crossed the Atlantic on August 11, 2003 -- was it the 2004 or 2005 AMA regulations that first prohibited autonomous flight? I'm thinking it's 2005.
| (Dave Brown landed the plane in Ireland)
Of course, it shouldn't matter who landed it, as long as they're competent to do so. (And would the AMA insurance have covered Dave if something went wrong in Ireland? :) )
| that probably had pretty slim chance of hitting anybody en route.
Probably.
Though of course the AMA regulations don't apply if you're not a member, and you can ignore them at will even if you are a member as long as you realize that they won't insure you for anything.
(Though Maynard is probably a special case, and the AMA would probably bend over backwards to accomodate any of his attempts to break world records, even if they technically break their safety rules, eespecially if he lets the AMA president play a public role.)

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:01:34 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@frenzy.com (Doug McLaren) wrote in
  Quoted Text Here  
Bad things happen in court when bad things happen out on the street. I can imagine lawyers looking for ways to sue AMA and claim more than the "policy limits" allow.
I may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. ;o)
                Marty

All of my planes have auto landing. If I fail to give the proper inputs to land they will eventually land themselves. It's usually a one-shot deal then. I have yet to leave one in thea air. :) mk
<Ayem Cipteke> wrote in message
  Quoted Text Here  

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:15:57 -0600, "Storm's Hamburgers"
  Quoted Text Here  
"All... ...planes have auto landing." It really is that simple. Very good answer.
Texas Pete

All of us "old f---s", frequently reviled by the unwashed noobs, have learned to discern between "landing" and "crash." Not too difficult once you get the hang of it ;-))

It is not too difficult to install a directional gyro for landing assist, but, as has been stated above, lots of practice with smaller models will eliminate the need for automated assistance - unless you simply want to make such a system.
Bonne chance!
Ayem Cipteke wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

You could try a ballistic parachute!
  Quoted Text Here  

Have you ever seen what they do to the structure of the airframe?
  Quoted Text Here  

Well it's still better than hitting the ground nose first from a 200' dive!
  Quoted Text Here  

I have successfully used a Futaba PA2 to "sort of" do an autoland. I set up a fairly stable trainer with the PA2 so that it flew with a slightly nose high attitude. The you just close the throttle and "steer" the model with the rudder. Like I said, "sort of" autoland. My party trick was to line it up on the runway with the rudder and put the TX on the ground. Won't work on windy days.!!
<Ayem Cipteke> wrote in message
  Quoted Text Here  

Co-Pilot landed my plane very nicely when it was out of my sight behind some trees - three point landing, not a scratch on the plane, and it (luckily I guess) avoided a flock of sheep in that paddock
David
news wrote:
  Quoted Text Here