Drones /drones /drones??

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by AVC on 11/01/2016 10:55:32:

Posted by Ben Kenobi on 08/01/2016 21:05:55:

Simply excluding technology out of some elitist ideal is crazy, I'm with the guy that says why when you say but I can do that manually - if a hi tech onboard computer can stop me putting my pride and joy into the ground I'm all for it.

Hi Ben Kenobi

This hobby is about enjoying with the challenge of being able to control an aircraft using you psychomotor abilities. If the aircraft can take off, fly, do a snap roll, hover, and lands autonomously while you look at it from the ground, where the pride and joy of that?

But this misses the point - just because it can do that, it doesn't mean that that is all it can do! This idea that most MR's fly autonomusly most of the time simply isn't true in my experience. In fact the vast majority of MRs can't fly autonomously, they do not have the necessary equipment! So lets get rid of that.

There are many comments on here that imply that those like myself are upset because some say they are not interested in MR's. That is not the case! I reiterate once again that is not my point! Of course you can hold that view - you are perfectly entitled to that view and to express it as many times as you wish. No problem.

But,...what is not acceptable to me is when that view is supported, justified or backed up via half-truths and total misconceptions, when people pass comments that are simply wrong because they don't understand what they are talking about! Have the view that MRs are boring by all means - but don't be surprised if when you justify it on misinformation someone steps in to correct you. It doesn't mean they are challenging your view that you don't like MR's or that they are challenging your right to hold that view. They are challenging your right to justify it with factually incorrect information!

If you are going to comment on what MRs can and can't do and what they are like to fly etc. then surely its not unreasonable to ask that at least those comments should be based on the actual facts - not on "hearsay" and incorrect assumptions?

BEB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Tim Kearsley on 11/01/2016 12:03:23:

As the author of the series on FPV currently running in RCM&E, can I just make a plea that you don't automatically link FPV to multi-rotors, as some seem to do?! I fly quite a lot of FPV, but it's nearly all with fixed-wing models. I think overall David does a pretty good job of keeping a good balance in the mag. Inevitably, there are bits which are of less interest to me than others (I'm not into IC engines much), but you really can't expect to follow every aspect of what is a broad hobby these days.

Tim.

Hear hear! I thought of making the same point myself Tim. In my experience the majority of FPV is flown with fixed wing! Hence why the oft repeated claim in this thread that there were "3 articles on drones" in the last edition is, once again, untrue. There were two articles - a total of just seven and a half pages out of 130+ hardly excessive - and one article on FPV - not "drones"

BEB

[Cabbage Man]

Ive personally jumped ship to Model World now as Im done with pages of electronic gadgets. Real shame that the traditional modelling that the mag so often champions is now a rarety.

A fuddy duddy, I may be but unless the thing looks like a aircraft not a coffee table , it aint a model to me.

[Robin Colbourne]

Aeromodelling will continue to evolve and diversify, and its the job of the magazines to record and share that evolution. When a field such as FPV and/or multirotors becomes so popular, publishers would be mad to ignore a new market. Spinning off a specialist magazine seems like the sensible thing to do, provided there are enough subscribers and advertisers to sustain the original magazine. Only time will tell whether the spin-off is a passing fad or here to stay. IMHO drones, autonomous flying and first person video are all here to stay, but there will always be people who get fed up with increasing expense and automation who will hanker back to the good old days of whatever was normal when they first started.

Within my aeromodelling 'career' I've seen vintage starting out as rubber powered A-frame pushers, then it went through Wakefields, and petrol engines, and now we are up to foam/fibreglass slope soarers and .60 powered pattern ships. How long before people are talking in hallowed tones when a pristine DJI Phantom, found in an attic, is bought out to fly?

[Mr.B.]

the oft repeated claim in this thread that there were "3 articles on drones" in the last edition is, once again, untrue.

BEB

Now I am confused. I try to avoid using the term drone as it lacks a proper definition. However I think we are stuck with it and some times it just slip out. But, I thought drone was not specific to MRs? After all the term probably originates from the queen bee which was based on a tiger moth. I read drone as a remotely piloted platform as opposed to a pretty looking model for flying pretty patterns in the sky? (yes I've had a bash at F/W FPV and that don't ring my bell either)

[John F]

The dictionary definition of a drone is any unmanned, remotely piloted, aircraft - which means that what we do is, technically, fly a drone.

The popularity of multi rotors has coined the term and it seems to have stuck to describe a multi rotor. You must admit the word "drone" works better than "multi rotor".

I, personally, use the terms fixed wing, rotary aircraft, multi rotor etc as it is the terms we use in work.

[MattyB]

The main thing I take from this is how hard it is going to be to sustain "general interest" printed RC magazine from now on. Many established fix wing fliers seem to take the attitude that they don't want the level of multirotor and FPV content we have seen in recent issues, yet I doubt there is enough of that content to convince someone who only flies multis and FPV to buy the magazine (as was pointed out earlier most of the MR and FPV content we are seeing in RCM&E is relatively beginner focussed at present, and wouldn't be of interest to more advanced fliers). Sure you can say "spin them off into a new mag of their own", but remember RCM&E has to remain commercially viable - with the ageing demographics of modelling overall, can it afford to look the other way?

Here's the bottom line for those of you who don't like the drone content... If total readership and ad revenues rise or even only stay level with this amount of MR/drone articles, RCM&E will keep publishing it. If readerships drop because established readers move to other publications they might change tack, but personally I doubt that will be the case - this is the kit that is shifting right now, so it's where the more and more of the ad revenues (and the highest % of any new readers they are picking up) are coming from.

[paul bainbridge 1]

Having recently returned to the hobby. I can certainly say that the wider the coverage of the magazine the better. I can remebmer back in the late 1970's the magazine had both electronic projects and "model Car" content.

Spin offs are fine but the title of this mag is Radio Controled Modeller and Electronics and not model planes.

[AVC]

BEB, I think you've misunderstood my comment to Ben Kenobi, I'm afraid

In the context of his posting, basically he said that he's for any gadget that allow "you" to "do" whatever maneuver you want, and what I said is that is not "you" who "do" it, it's your electronic gadget for which you have paid a good money. The result, taken to an end, is that the best pilot is that with the largest wallet.

John F, my view of this hobby is that it's about to improve your skills, whatever they are, and the more you improve them, the more you enjoy it. But if your "skill" is limited to go to the shop (or online) and order a BNF with the latest electronic toy to keep it flying whatever the conditions are, and whatever the ability of the "pilot" to fly it, then what is the "funny" side of it? just to sit back and look at your plane flying on its own?

I understand that if you are doing this professionally, or if you fly FPV, then these autopilots, "go-home's", GPSs etc are desirable, because the main objective of this activity is not "flying skills", but if I want to do a 4 steps roll, or a perfect looping, or a fly-by at 4 inches of the ground, then the gadget is cheat

And going back to the original topic, I understand that there's a place for everybody in this hobby, but the reality is that I don't like multirotors, so if this magazine has more and more MR content, I will simply walk away and find my source of information elsewhere. This does not mean I have anything against MRs or against the magazine, but for the same reason that I'm not subscribed to a patchwork magazine, I will not be subscribed to a magazine where the majority of the content would be MRs, if that became the case.

[Robin Colbourne]

How many of the people who buy drones are likely to be avid magazine readers? I would have thought the majority are net surfers, who would regard anything in a monthly magazine as being out of date by the time it hits the shelves.

At Christmas (pressie buying time) and when the clocks change to Summertime (flurry of sales of outdoors stuff), a twice yearly Special, containing a directory with tables listing what drones & FPV aircraft on the market, together with their attributes, would be a good idea?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[John F]

The thing is RCM&E are kinda stuck with a dilemma.

You've got new advances in technology which allows for more advanced flying machines (irrespective of whether it is called a drone or not, it doesn't matter.), which appeal to some folk.

You've got people who are buying this new kit, irrespective of whether it is a drone or an RTF, which goes on to fuel more advances and funds further development. You've not got a new aspect of flying a model.

RCM&E have noticed this and gone on to teach folk what it is about, with articles on how to build, maintain, program, whatever.

Irrespective of whether you feel that this new tech is taking over I can probably quite safely state that that is not the case, the mag would try to offer a bit for everyone's tastes without favouring one from t'other. (No, I don't work for them but do like to keep a level way of thinking)

It is progress. It is a sign of the times and an appreciation that a previously unheard of angle of the hobby has developed. People are getting on board and enjoying the new aspect of our hobby that is "flying stuff into the air".

Who is having the issue? Those who want to explore the new stuff? Those who accept the new stuff and want to know more? Those who accept the new stuff but have no interest? Those not accepting the new stuff or accepting that it is a valid angle of the hobby?

Like I said before there is an awful lot of derision over certain aspects of the hobby and, to be honest, it is pretty disappointing to see that some folk will not accept or will, quite happily, subscribe to the assumptions over what kind of person flies multi rotors etc.

You don't have to like it but open critique of the individuals' abilities, derision or just plain grumpiness that "It ain't proper flying" is just appalling to see.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I've seen a lot of posts in this thread saying that individuals don't have much interest in multi-rotor, drone or FPV flying - or various combinations of.

I've seen a lot of posts in this thread saying that attacks on individual rights and preferences are a bad thing.

I haven't seen a lot of posts in this thread attacking individual rights and preferences!

Just an observation...

Edited By Martin Harris on 11/01/2016 16:44:22

[AVC]

John, I agree with you basically in everything: RCM&E is stuck with a dilemma, this always happened each time that there's a "new kid on the block". If MR/ FPV etc become a significant part of the market and the community, then RCM&E will go for that. I accept that and I understand that, but in that case, I would be little interested on the magazine (I think this is also understandable)

I'm not opening critique to individuals' abilities, but it's a reality that if I have a model full of electronic that does aerobatic on its own, then it's the plane and not me who's showing abilities, at least abilities to fly. If I was the designer and builder of such gadget that allow the plane to fly on it's own, then the challenge was to make such gadget, and the credits should be for me. But if I simply paid for a gadget that allows my model to fly alone, then what is my ability? where is my improvement? what does has to do with my "pride and joy"?

[Pete B]

I have to declare an interest, folks, as I've recently dipped a toe in the water with a Quanum Nova from HK. That's not to say I've sold my soul - I've other F/W projects on the go - but hey, if I want to have a dabble, why not?

Easy, it ain't - be assured of that - and there's a whole lot of learning and new skills to acquire before I can decide whether I'll pursue it further. It's certainly exercising my brain in a new direction!

Huff and puff all you like but I can see a lot of narrow-minded prejudice (and not a little fear?) in this thread. The latest edition has been criticised for the 'drone' content but let's put it in perspective, shall we?

I've just run through it and, in the broadest terms, found the following editorial page totals;

Multi-rotor: 8

FPV: 4

Full-size aviation: 3

Fixed wing, including reviews, gliding, turbines, IC, building techniques, events etc: 73

That makes a total of 88 pages - and if my maths are close enough, that means multi-rotor accounted for just 9% of the content. I probably skim through that sort of content percentage in most issues as not everything in the hobby has my undivided interest - and I'm probably not alone in that.

Furthermore, one has to ask where readers think the content comes from? It's not the editor writing under numerous ghost names, that's for sure - it comes from articles submitted by regular and not-so-regular contributors. If there is a lack of copy coming in for the editor to choose, then the only way to influence the content is to put your money where your mouth is and submit the type of article you want to see in the mag.

There are plenty of great builders and excellent build-blogs here and I'm sure more than a few of you would be quite capable of writing an article. If you want to keep the elephant out of the room - and as I said in an earlier post I don't believe it is there yet - then the answer may be in your own hands.

Pete

[Martin McIntosh]

Well said Pete B. There may well not much more to say in the mag. on this subject at the moment other than maybe programming guides for the various types of flight controllers so I cannot see it taking over. There is a lot which I skip over such as helis, slope soaring, radio reviews, the latest ARTF wonder etc. but there is so much more content which makes this a `must have` every month.

It may be worth noting that many large scale models now use gyros for stability. Ever wondered where this technology came from?

As an examiner I have had a couple of requests to do an `A` test from club members for MR`s. Not happy to do these as yet because despite reading the guide and speaking to the BFMA I cannot as yet determine what level of stabilisation is acceptable. A post above says that self levelling is unacceptable yet they cannot not fly without at least something like this. Sorry to go way off thread here.

[Jez Saunders]

Have not read every contribution of this thread, I have an interest in r/c and that is why I buy RCM&E and have done for many years even before I actualy flew my own plane . Fixed wing aircraft are my main interest and this is what the magazine promotes in most of its pages. It has looked a rotary wing(heles), auto gyros have had a bit of a resurection just lately and multirotors have beens looked at a bit more regularly in the last 12 months or so. It's just a reflection of what's going on in the r/c world, l have very little interest in quads, m/rotors but the technology that is evolving around them is adding to r/c interest be it negative or positive. Variety is important, it will sell a few more magazines to the not so regular buyer. Obviously if they take over the magazine the customer base will decline, I am sure the editors of this fine publication monitor sales figures and will never let that happen.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 11/01/2016 20:01:29:

As an examiner I have had a couple of requests to do an `A` test from club members for MR`s. Not happy to do these as yet because despite reading the guide and speaking to the BFMA I cannot as yet determine what level of stabilisation is acceptable. A post above says that self levelling is unacceptable yet they cannot not fly without at least something like this. Sorry to go way off thread here.

Hi Martin,

true it depends on the FC they are using, But most do have a level "below" self leveling - sometimes called "manual". In this mode the only aid active is a single heading gyro - in other words exactly the same as a heli would have. So, no position lock, no tilt angle limit, no horizon hold and no self-leveling.

MR's are very challenging to fly in this mode - similarly difficulty to CP helis. There is absolutely no "time out" you must activly fly the MR 100% of the time - even in the hover in zero wind! This is the mode BMFA require for the A

BEB

[Mr.B.]

Martin,

I'm also a club examiner. I did MR A cert myself with a ACE as a few club members wanted to take the cert and I don't think it's fair to examine people on something I have no experience of. Like BEB says The BMFA guide tells us

"Gyros, Electronic Stabilisation and GPS.
It is acceptable to use an electro-mechanical or solid state gyro/s in a multirotor being used
to take the test although electronic stabilisation is restricted to enabling flight, at no point
should the stabilisation effect take over control from the pilot or achieve automated or self
leveled flight. This allows a range of gyros to be fitted, from simple yaw dampers to solid
state heading lock units.
The use of any autopilot and/or artificial stability features which are (or may be) designed
into such units beyond definition above is not acceptable during the test and is not allowed.
Candidates should be prepared to explain the capabilities of the system they are using and
show that it does not take over control from the pilot and that automated flight will not be
achieved during the test.
GPS must not be used during the test.

and also

"Manual
This is the only flight mode acceptable for use in the tests, as in this mode the
multirotor is not self stabilised. A continued aileron input for example will see the
model continue to rotate around the aileron axis. An easy demonstration to request
from the pilot to confirm this is the flight mode in use is to ask the pilot to apply a
small aileron input and then release the stick to centre. The model should continue
along the new aileron trajectory and not self level, requiring opposite aileron input to
stop the slide and return the model to level."

 

So it's quite clear, no self level. ie if the pilot banks the machine and then centres the stick the aircraft stays banked until it slides off into the ground (you may like let the pilot rescue it before it hits the ground)

This probably is more challenging than a F/W A where the candidate would probably be flying a trainer type aircraft which would be naturally stable. But this is requirement.  Also the F/W cert A is flown way up in the sky where a few feet deviation in height will not be apparent.  The Heli and MR test are flown close in where every inaccuracy is easy to see.  There are still boring though.

Edited By Mr.B. on 12/01/2016 09:44:20

[Martin McIntosh]

Thanks for the replies. Enlisting the aid of an ACE would seem to be a good idea and I need an `A` myself.

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 11/01/2016 17:59:17:

.............

I've just run through it and, in the broadest terms, found the following editorial page totals;

Multi-rotor: 8

FPV: 4

Full-size aviation: 3

Fixed wing, including reviews, gliding, turbines, IC, building techniques, events etc: 73

And electronics (the "E" in RCM&E) zero! As it has been for years!

I know its difficult in these highly regulated times, but back in the heyday of RCM&E (mid to late 60's) there were as many electronics articles as there were modelling articles. And in the early 60s, there was probably more electronics!

Of course, back then, you pretty much HAD to build your own equipment, unless you were exceptionally well-heeled. But even now there are plenty of opportunities for home build projects. Just look at the stuff Phil and Shaun have produced for the single-channel and retro movement. How to turn vintage reed and proportional gear into a modern 2.4 GHz system? How to revive a single channel system with modern electronics? All good fun, which is what the hobby is all about!

And since we're talking about drones, I see that a significant number of the "stabilisers" or "auto-pilots" run on open-source software. Plenty of opportunities there for some articles on the how's and why's of programming them, I would have thought.

Who knows, some of this stuff might inspire someone to take our systems in a whole new direction.

Just a thought for the editorial team!

--

Pete

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Not read the articles on drones, lots of different threads on them lately, most saying education should be used to combat the irresponsible flyers, you can't educate without engaging, but it's your money you don't like then don't buy.

John

[Area 51]

Something on electronics would be nice, build your own lighting system etc!

Lights operated with flap deployment, rotating beacons.. bit to go at there..

Whilst the craze of drones has been accepted, by some, not all want to see it month in month out.. I appreciate the challenge of providing content - but that is why salaries are drawn and we subscribed or buy the mag.. we expect to see content we want to see..

New thread on content was that I heard?

[GONZO]

**LINK**

Posted this link in the FAA thread but thought some of the readers here would like to see what will be the next big Xmas pressie

[trebor]

You wouldn't catch me in that