Auto takeoff/landing for an RC plane

Is there any autopilot capable of performing auto take off and landing of fixed wing large RC plane ?

Reply to
<Sam>
Loading thread data ...

Nothing off the shelf, you'll have to make it yourself. If you want it to be fully autonomous (don't need to do special site prep above mowing the grass) then have a look at the darpa grand challenge efforts:

formatting link

Reply to
Steve Banks

Is there any autopilot capable of performing auto take off and landing of fixed wing large RC plane ? If you can't fly it, don't build it.

Dr.1

Reply to
Dr1

I have used the Futaba PA-2 to "stabilise" one of my models (it was a .40 size trainer). After a lot of fiddling I was able to get it to "Autoland". By that I mean I could close the throttle and by just using the rudder, I could steer it to line up with the runway. I had it set up so that it flew at a slightly nose high attitude. It kept that attitude till touchdown. Still needs a fair amount of experience to keep it lined up, but the landing was sort of automatic. My favorite party trick was lining up on the runway and then putting the tx on the ground.!!. Calm conditions of course.

Regards

Tom Watson Sydney Australia

Reply to
Tom Watson

I've done the autoland with the FMA CoPilot system using the rudder and throttle too. Still takes hands on control.

Reply to
Marlowe

The trick with autolanding is informing the model as to the exact location of the runway. The big boys do this with GPS and a variety of Nav Aids. And still, as a rule, they don't autoland.

Once you teach your model how to spot the runway on its own, you'll be party way there.

Reply to
Chuck Jones

Why?

Phil AMA 609

Reply to
pcoopy

Way back, about 15-25 years ago, there was an article in one of the RC modelling magazines.

They talked about using some kind of safe-to-handle radio-isotope sensor on something about the size of a dime. This was placed at each wing tip and at nose and tail of plane.

These sensors were connected to a small circuit within the RC plane. I think they even had the circuit diagram for it in the article. I am not sure, but I think it ran for 2-3 issues to fully cover the topic.

Apparently it worked very well for

- horizontal (forward) stabilization - lateral (side to side) stabilization

I am fuzzy on this, but I think the magazine was "RC Modeller" (because of the BIG "RC" in the corner).

From recollections, it was in the 1st quarter of the magazine, and the plane colour was definitely a navy blue with yellow striping.

The reason why I remember it so clearly is because, at the time, I was trying to look at the auto-stabilizing of the hydrofoil which I previously mentioned.

Good luck in finding the article. My copy is buried in storage, and I would not know where to start looking for it.

Eric

"Autoland".

Reply to
abracadabra

There is an autopilot setup somewhat similar to that which uses electrical sensors at each wingtip - pointed wires, basically. As one wing dips, a tiny voltage potential is created between the two sensors - the polarity and size of the difference can be used to stabilize the plane. I don't think radioisotopes are involved in this design, but I could be wrong.

My guess would be that the high humidity near the water would complicate things, if not make it unworkable. How about an RC helicopter gyro - seems like a good match to the problem. -Wm

Reply to
William

Problem remains as to informing the plane WHERE the runway is. And designing the whole thing to make a smooth transition from whatever altitude to the ground, lined up with and at the end of the runway. For years the big boys used radio navigation aids located around the runway.

Reply to
Chuck Jones

How big is the smallest vacuum pressure transducer that could be calibrated to a setpoint of 0 for runway altitude ?

Eric

Reply to
abracadabra

I interpreted the auto landing the pilot simply "presses a button" telling the plane to land where it can as quickly as it can. Assuming that we aren't "cheating" by installing beacons, the plane would have to "look" around and find a suitable landing spot then fly over there.

The flying from point to point part is the easy part, picking a suitable place to land is the hard part and may require a variety of sensors to determine things like how tall the grass is or how muddy is that field and certainly some computing power. Identifying collision courses with other moving objects adds another level of complexity.

If you want to simplify the problem by assuming the plane is stable and the whole world is paved and obstacle free then auto landing is throttle off and trim for a non-destructive descent speed.

Reply to
Steve Banks

I don't think you're going to find one that's accurate enough. An error of even a few feet is probably too much when landing a model plane.

Reply to
Grant Edwards

A depth finder type transducer might be more accurate and not need resetting.

Reply to
Steve Banks

Why? takeoffs and landings are fun!

Reply to
jim

Guess I should have been more wordy. I rally meant, why would you want something else to do the flying for you?

Phil

jim wrote:

Reply to
pcoopy

Perhaps the flying of the model is not the goal. Maybe they wish to utilize telemetry packages to gather data and eliminate the risk of takeoff and landings?

Ed Cregger

Reply to
Ed Cregger

I am wondering what the poster means by auto take off and landing - ie from what position does the plane have to take off, what signals will it need to rely on, what conditions need to be taken into account to delay or abort take off/

Similalry, from where in the sky does the auto have to take over? From what height? Does it have to recognise wind direction? Warn other pilots? Deal with both power on and dead stick landing?

Without this sort of information any ideas or advice may not be helpful

David

Ed Cregger wrote

Reply to
quietguy

You'll be far better off with something designed to run in air rather than water -- IIRC, the transducer design needs to be different. You used to be able to get ultrasonic ranging eval kits for the components that were used in Polaroid cameras.

Reply to
Grant Edwards

I understand, my point was that a device to measure relative altitude might be more useful than a device that measures "absolute" altitude. You don't care as much about where sea level is as you do about where the ground below you is.

Reply to
Steve Banks

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.