[NSRCA-discussion] Plettenberg Advance 30-10 ESC - Questions
Mike Mueller
mups53 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 13:04:53 AKDT 2020
Thanks Jim
Mike Mueller
President, F3A Unlimited and Gator-RC
mups53 at gmail.com
800-591-2875
Exclusive North American Distributor for TopRC Model, Seagull Models, BJ
Craft, CA Models and Hui Yang (Oxai)
Follow us on social media:
IG: @f3a_unlimited and @gatorrc
FB: @f3aunlimited and @gatorrc1
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:29 PM Anthony Frackowiak via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> God bless you Jim Oddino!
>
> Tony Frackowiak
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2020, at 11:46 AM, James Oddino via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> The problem with pattern is the rules.
>
> ESCs are servo mechanisms. You vary the input to control the output. You
> could decide to control the current or the temperature or power, etc., or
> the rpm.
>
> The things the RC community calls servos area also servo mechanisms. In
> our case they control control surface or throttle position. They could be
> designed to control the surface angular rate or even acceleration. At one
> time they controlled duty cycle of the control surfaces.
>
> Do you want to outlaw servo mechanisms? I don’t think so.
>
> Get rid of the rules and let people innovate.
>
> Jim O
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2020, at 6:42 AM, tim pritchett via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Dave,
> Comments in Red ( let me know if you can't read them):
>
> I see your perspective, but we differ on the application of 'model
> performance'. Anything outside of the ESC is part of the model, including
> the motor and prop, and how they perform is part of model performance.
> ********Model performance is model performance. The rule doesn’t say
> prop, motor, battery, servo, ESC, etc. It says model. The ESC has zero
> awareness of how the model is performing, or how changes made by the ESC
> affect the model performance. The ESC is only aware of the motor
> performance (and the motor battery, and the signal from the RX).
> Prop RPM is an aspect of model performance, on this we certainly
> disagree, and all the other rhetoric we're debating hinges on that.
>
> Who hasn't changed a prop or motor because they didn't like the way they
> were performing? The motor is the only component of the model the ESC
> touches, so anything it measures and controls to is clearly the target of
> this rule.
> ********Does the ESC not also “touch” the motor lipos and receiver? 😊
> tic….
> Ok, got me there.....but not germain to the conversttion...
>
> ********I was not on the rules committee at the time this rule, 4.4.2.
> Point number 3, was written. However, I was asked for input. The target
> of the rule was to prevent the inclusion of model performance data to the
> ESC (or throttle servo for that matter) such that adjustments would be made
> based on model performance (speed was the primary consideration), position
> (altitude), or attitude (climbing / diving). The rule was written
> specifically to allow the existing functions of ESCs and servos to be
> legal….I actually had a discussion with Patrick DeCastillo about what
> verbiage he felt would make an ESC illegal.
> While it may very well be the unintended consequence of the verbiage
> selected, 'data' feedback to the ESC in this case is RPM, which is most
> certainly performance data. While the other info. we discuss further below
> may be read, they are function that make the motor work, and at best
> responding to RPM while not controlling it. That's the main difference;
> the D3 controls RPM.
>
> If PWM or timing are adjusted, they too can be done open or closed loop,
> like a IC ignition system. Adding a pitot tube, altimeter, or other
> measurement device as a control variable is outside of the function of the
> ESC; the rule pertains to the 'power management system' alone, and its
> limitations.
> *******If such a device were connected to and utilized by the power
> management system, it would clearly be illegal by 4.4.2 Point 3.
> True that they would be illegal, but not by this rule. This is about the
> ESC alone; my point is that adding a sensor is outside of the normal
> function of an ESC to which the rule was written
>
> If the D3 didn't make the model perform better than other ESC's, with it's
> model performance enhancing capabilities, then why all the hype? There's
> obviously a great advantage to holding RPM constant through
> maneuvers...it's what we've all been striving for for years with brake
> systems. The loop is a great example of this. With a conventional ESC and
> no control, the prop and motor respond as you described below, and the same
> is true of all types of aerodynamic propulsion units.
> *******Negative. A conventional IC system does not respond the same.
> With the electric, the watts/horsepower (amps x volts) increases on the
> upside of the loop and decreases on the downside of the loop. With IC, the
> horsepower (RPM x torque) decreases (less RPM) on the upside of the loop
> and increases (more RPM) on the downside of the loop.
> This is not true, and basic enough that we should agree. If RPM is
> CONSTANT through a loop, in either IC or EL., the horsepower increases on
> the upside, and decreases on the downside. Both must have an increase in
> throttle (fuel or amps) to maintain this constant RPM, as the load (weight
> of the plane) shifts from the wings to the prop going up or down. With
> constant RPM, the power requirement resolves to torque, and torque
> generates thrust, coming from the delta P across the prop. Rotating to an
> upline, the incoming pressure reduces, because the speed reduces as the
> weight transitions to the prop. That additional load requires a power
> increases to maintain RPM. It would be no different than grabbing the
> spinner of a running motor/engine; the throttle would have to be increases
> to maintain RPM. - Same thing on the downline, but in the opposite
> direction. Basically; add load, rpm slows. Relieve load, RPM increases.
>
> With a D3, and THE SAME PILOT INPUTS, the ESC automatically
> increases/decreases power to hold the RPM constant, going up, or going
> down. - The pilot doesn't change anything, the ESC does the work.
>
> With that, and your assessment: " Most certainly the D3 is closed loop in
> terms of measuring RPM and adjusting power output to maintain that RPM"
> violates the rule. The Pilot does nothing, while the ESC controls RPM.
> ***********We now have 3 examples of power changing without input from the
> pilot. In all three examples, the power system has ZERO awareness of the
> models performance, position, or attitude.
> Again, we disagree on the definition of "Model Performance", so this won't
> be resolved here. Neither automatic timing or PWM result in constant
> performance of anything on the model, but picking up RPM and holding it
> constant makes this an external measurement for sure, and one that affects
> flying. If it didn't, no one would buy the ESC, as it would have no
> advantage. But it does; now I don't have to worry about variations in
> brake speed; it's controlled for me. Without it, I have to modulate the
> stick to increase/decrease brake as the prop changes speed. It can be done
> by the pilot, but it's tedious. Even with my variable brake ESC, I find
> its tough to chase the wind up of the motor/prop with increasing braking.
> But hey, I don't like driving without cruise control either, because I've
> got to keep pushing the gas to maintain the speed limit!
>
> I don't think your last comment is accurate, at least as it pertains to
> "traditional ESC's". In a governing mode, the ESC is actively “driving”
> the motor to stay at a specific RPM whether needing to add power or harvest
> power, and the ESC is never blind to the motor position. The 4-5 ESC's
> I've tried all are very much open loop as they relate to braking RPM's,
> which is why most of us fuddle around with them so much. They all
> accelerate on the downlines, because they are not controlling, or driving
> RPM. That's were the D3 differs, by closing the loop. The Graupner I'm
> running now has a brake range on the stick, like you described; lower stick
> = more brake. Still, it's open loop at the pilot's discretion. The Jeti's
> actually have a timed function, which interestingly enough, implies a
> violation of the first point,1. Preprogramming that will automatically
> perform a series of commands based on a timeline. But that's the subject
> for another debate.
> ********Yes, traditional ESCs in braking mode (drag brake) are blind to
> the motor, and the drag brake can be varied from the TX with some ESCs (and
> virtually all car ESCs have variable drag braking).
> Are we not disagreeing, or are you re-agreeing with yourself? ;)
>
> ******Yes, traditional ESCs in governor mode are not blind to the motor
> (and all were tailored for use in helis prior to the D3)…..but it was not
> until the D3 that the governor mode was tailored for use in aerobatic
> airplanes.
> The D3 is new to aerobatics, where we have these rules that strive to keep
> control of the model in the pilot's hands, not in a computer/controller.
>
> ******* regarding timing……All ESCs use a timing delay to retard throttle
> advance, and most have programming options to speed up or slow down
> throttle advance. Most ESCs also have programmable delay and “ramp” timing
> for how long it takes the brake to engage, and how long it takes the brake
> to reach full (programmed) strength. BTW…..most servos do the same thing
> with respect to how aggressively they start, stop, and hold position. Most
> transmitters also have a function allow servo speed to be changed. I would
> suggest most of the aforementioned are “rate changes” and not specific to
> actual timing. Nevertheless, there are potentially many violations to 4.4.2.
> Point number 1, and we don’t want to makes servos illegal, or make the
> operation of brushless electric propulsion systems less safe.
> Uh Oh....more infractions! - Again, another subject...
>
> ********4.4.2 Point number 1 – the intent was to disallow a preprogrammed
> series of control inputs that would do things like snap rolls with
> different control inputs starting and stopping at different times. Perhaps
> Point number 1 would be improved with an addition - “1. Preprogramming
> that will automatically perform a series of MANEUVERING commands based on a
> timeline.”
> I think you're on the right track. This will be resolved with semantics,
> and word-smithing. We know more now, and to some extent, have input to the
> rules. If a general consensus is reached, we'll just change them. I don't
> agree, but if the rule is changed, I'll probably (have to) get one.
>
> *******4.4.2 Point number 3 – the intent was to disallow changes to the
> power system based on the model performance (airspeed was certainly the
> expected metric, but I suppose there could be others), position, or
> attitude. The intent was certainly not to outlaw automatic and variable
> changes in timing and PWM and timing needed for safe operation of a
> brushless electric power propulsion system. I think it is easy enough to
> say the difference with the D3 vs other ESCs is that where a traditional
> ESC is being commanded by the pilot for a power level, the D3 is being
> commanded to an RPM. In both cases, there will be variations in the RPMs
> and power levels attributable to many factors. Perhaps Point number 3
> could be clarified by providing a specific definition of “model
> performance”.
> I'd flip the coin over and say that if RPM was not possible to control,
> what else could the ESC do, such that this rule, point, and meaning of
> 'model performance' was written? There is nothing else that an ESC could
> do by itself without the addition of specific sensors, thereby making it
> NOT an ESC anymore. Like with gyros, receivers have had circuitry added
> that is not germain to receiving inputs from the pilot, and controlling
> servos. It's a whole different thing, separate from the receiver. You can
> even turn the function on/off. The ESC is the same way; It's supposed to
> deliver power, one way, to the motor to the extent it doesn't affect the
> model's performance. Now, RPM is being monitored and controlled, taken out
> of the pilots hands, and put into a computer circuit.
> Controlling RPM has been around forever in closed loop VSC's. It seems
> odd that it wasn't included with the very first ESC's used in aerobatics,
> especially since we are the biggest benefactors. I'm sort of believing
> that somebody said "well that's closed loop control, and you can't do that
> in Pattern". They weren't wrong IMO.
>
> -Tim
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> To: tjpritchett at aol.com; 'General pattern discussion' <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; jeffryworsham at gmail.com;
> vincebrc at gmail.com
> Cc: chadnortheast at gmail.com
> Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2020 8:16 pm
> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Plettenberg Advance 30-10 ESC - Questions
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Some inserts below noted by *************
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> *On
> Behalf Of *tim pritchett via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:45 AM
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org; jeffryworsham at gmail.com;
> vincebrc at gmail.com
> *Cc:* chadnortheast at gmail.com
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Plettenberg Advance 30-10 ESC -
> Questions
>
> I see your perspective, but we differ on the application of 'model
> performance'. Anything outside of the ESC is part of the model, including
> the motor and prop, and how they perform is part of model performance.
> ********Model performance is model performance. The rule doesn’t say
> prop, motor, battery, servo, ESC, etc. It says model. The ESC has zero
> awareness of how the model is performing, or how changes made by the ESC
> affect the model performance. The ESC is only aware of the motor
> performance (and the motor battery, and the signal from the RX).
>
> Who hasn't changed a prop or motor because they didn't like the way they
> were performing? The motor is the only component of the model the ESC
> touches, so anything it measures and controls to is clearly the target of
> this rule.
> ********Does the ESC not also “touch” the motor lipos and receiver? 😊
> tic….
> ********I was not on the rules committee at the time this rule, 4.4.2.
> Point number 3, was written. However, I was asked for input. The target
> of the rule was to prevent the inclusion of model performance data to the
> ESC (or throttle servo for that matter) such that adjustments would be made
> based on model performance (speed was the primary consideration), position
> (altitude), or attitude (climbing / diving). The rule was written
> specifically to allow the existing functions of ESCs and servos to be
> legal….I actually had a discussion with Patrick DeCastillo about what
> verbiage he felt would make an ESC illegal.
>
> If PWM or timing are adjusted, they too can be done open or closed loop,
> like a IC ignition system. Adding a pitot tube, altimeter, or other
> measurement device as a control variable is outside of the function of the
> ESC; the rule pertains to the 'power management system' alone, and its
> limitations.
> *******If such a device were connected to and utilized by the power
> management system, it would clearly be illegal by 4.4.2 Point 3.
>
> If the D3 didn't make the model perform better than other ESC's, with it's
> model performance enhancing capabilities, then why all the hype? There's
> obviously a great advantage to holding RPM constant through
> maneuvers...it's what we've all been striving for for years with brake
> systems. The loop is a great example of this. With a conventional ESC and
> no control, the prop and motor respond as you described below, and the same
> is true of all types of aerodynamic propulsion units.
> *******Negative. A conventional IC system does not respond the same.
> With the electric, the watts/horsepower (amps x volts) increases on the
> upside of the loop and decreases on the downside of the loop. With IC, the
> horsepower (RPM x torque) decreases (less RPM) on the upside of the loop
> and increases (more RPM) on the downside of the loop.
>
> With a D3, and THE SAME PILOT INPUTS, the ESC automatically
> increases/decreases power to hold the RPM constant, going up, or going
> down. - The pilot doesn't change anything, the ESC does the work.
>
> With that, and your assessment: " Most certainly the D3 is closed loop in
> terms of measuring RPM and adjusting power output to maintain that RPM"
> violates the rule. The Pilot does nothing, while the ESC controls RPM.
> ***********We now have 3 examples of power changing without input from the
> pilot. In all three examples, the power system has ZERO awareness of the
> models performance, position, or attitude.
> I don't think your last comment is accurate, at least as it pertains to
> "traditional ESC's". In a governing mode, the ESC is actively “driving”
> the motor to stay at a specific RPM whether needing to add power or harvest
> power, and the ESC is never blind to the motor position. The 4-5 ESC's
> I've tried all are very much open loop as they relate to braking RPM's,
> which is why most of us fuddle around with them so much. They all
> accelerate on the downlines, because they are not controlling, or driving
> RPM. That's were the D3 differs, by closing the loop. The Graupner I'm
> running now has a brake range on the stick, like you described; lower stick
> = more brake. Still, it's open loop at the pilot's discretion. The Jeti's
> actually have a timed function, which interestingly enough, implies a
> violation of the first point,1. Preprogramming that will automatically
> perform a series of commands based on a timeline. But that's the subject
> for another debate.
> ********Yes, traditional ESCs in braking mode (drag brake) are blind to
> the motor, and the drag brake can be varied from the TX with some ESCs (and
> virtually all car ESCs have variable drag braking).
> ******Yes, traditional ESCs in governor mode are not blind to the motor
> (and all were tailored for use in helis prior to the D3)…..but it was not
> until the D3 that the governor mode was tailored for use in aerobatic
> airplanes.
>
> ******* regarding timing……All ESCs use a timing delay to retard throttle
> advance, and most have programming options to speed up or slow down
> throttle advance. Most ESCs also have programmable delay and “ramp” timing
> for how long it takes the brake to engage, and how long it takes the brake
> to reach full (programmed) strength. BTW…..most servos do the same thing
> with respect to how aggressively they start, stop, and hold position. Most
> transmitters also have a function allow servo speed to be changed. I would
> suggest most of the aforementioned are “rate changes” and not specific to
> actual timing. Nevertheless, there are potentially many violations to 4.4.2.
> Point number 1, and we don’t want to makes servos illegal, or make the
> operation of brushless electric propulsion systems less safe.
>
> ********4.4.2 Point number 1 – the intent was to disallow a preprogrammed
> series of control inputs that would do things like snap rolls with
> different control inputs starting and stopping at different times. Perhaps
> Point number 1 would be improved with an addition - “1. Preprogramming
> that will automatically perform a series of MANEUVERING commands based on a
> timeline.”
>
> *******4.4.2 Point number 3 – the intent was to disallow changes to the
> power system based on the model performance (airspeed was certainly the
> expected metric, but I suppose there could be others), position, or
> attitude. The intent was certainly not to outlaw automatic and variable
> changes in timing and PWM and timing needed for safe operation of a
> brushless electric power propulsion system. I think it is easy enough to
> say the difference with the D3 vs other ESCs is that where a traditional
> ESC is being commanded by the pilot for a power level, the D3 is being
> commanded to an RPM. In both cases, there will be variations in the RPMs
> and power levels attributable to many factors. Perhaps Point number 3
> could be clarified by providing a specific definition of “model
> performance”.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
> Thanks to all for your input....I enjoy reading the various perspectives.
> The D3 brings us a new capability, and deserves a fair review.
>
> -Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: davel322--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: 'Jeff Worsham' <jeffryworsham at gmail.com>; 'General pattern
> discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; 'Vicente Bortone' <
> vincebrc at gmail.com>
> Cc: chadnortheast at gmail.com
> Sent: Tue, Jun 9, 2020 9:40 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Plettenberg Advance 30-10 ESC - Questions
> @ Throttle Tech – it is an open loop device, so clearly not illegal. If
> the use of Throttle Tech results in not enough power, it’s a matter of
> adjusting it to not clip as much off the peak power.
>
> @ D3 with respect to AMA rules – It is legal because it is not
> specifically aware of “model performance, position or attitude”. Most
> certainly RPM does not equate to model performance. Full throttle RPM
> static operating conditions are certainly not the same as full throttle
> level flight, or full throttle uplines, and the D3 has ZERO awareness of
> the model performance, position, attitude, speed, accelerating,
> decelerating, etc. I expect the D3 is governing RPM based on actual RPM
> (or commutation rate) and not the “load” of the motor. Most certainly the
> D3 is closed loop in terms of measuring RPM and adjusting power output to
> maintain that RPM – that specific aspect is (intentionally) not addressed
> in the AMA rules. As Jeff W noted, IF the D3 were adjusting RPM based on
> airspeed, then it would be illegal. All modern ESCs look/sense “load” on
> the motor and dynamically adjust timing, and some ESCs in some modes also
> dynamically adjust PWM. I believe that is the reason why the AMA rules are
> written as they are – to allow the function of modern day brushless
> ESCs….nobody wants to go back to brushed motors and ESCs.
>
> Consider a normal loop flown from level flight at half throttle, with zero
> change in throttle input. A data log would show decreased RPM with
> increased amps during the climbing portion of the loop, and then increased
> RPM with decreased amps on the diving portion of the loop. The ESC has no
> awareness of the model performance, position or attitude….it is just the
> behavior of electric motors subjected to variable load. This is an example
> of changing RPM and motor operating conditions outside of specific model
> performance. The D3 also changes motor operating conditions without
> knowledge of specific model performance.
>
> @ Dynamic braking. I am not certain what the specific definition of
> dynamic braking might be. Traditional ESCs simply apply a short across 2
> legs such that the motor acts as a generator and the result is “drag” that
> slows the motor RPM against the driving force (forward airspeed). The
> amount of drag is generally programmed as braking percentage, and is
> generally on/off with airplane ESCs/software. Some ESCs allow variable
> braking based on the throttle stick position – notably the old Schulze ESCs
> (the expert on those being Chad N) which allowed a proportional amount of
> stick travel close to idle to adjust the braking strength – still, the
> mechanism for braking was “drag”. In the braking mode, traditional ESCs
> are basically blind to the position of the motor and the ESC needs to
> re-sync to run the motor after the brake is de-activated. In a governing
> mode, the ESC is actively “driving” the motor to stay at a specific RPM
> whether needing to add power or harvest power, and the ESC is never blind
> to the motor position.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Jeff Worsham via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 9, 2020 7:08 PM
> *To:* Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* chadnortheast at gmail.com; General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Plettenberg Advance 30-10 ESC -
> Questions
>
> Who flies pattern on a calm day without using the brake on their esc? If
> D3 is illegal, then so are all esc’s that use dynamic braking to help
> control downline speed.
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2020, at 3:36 PM, Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree. No close loop control is allowed unless the pilot close de
> loop. In essence all open control loop with fix values of control is
> allowed. Looks like is the case of this ESC. One example is the cars
> speed control. The old ones are open loop. The new ones that can maintain
> distance are close loop control. It is measuring the distance and
> adjusting constantly. I believe this ESC is open control loop so it
> should be allowed.
>
> Vicente “Vince” Bortone
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:06 PM Jeff Worsham via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Adding a pitot tube with feedback loop into the throttle channel would
> violate the rule.
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2020, at 9:38 AM, tim pritchett via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Hey Dave,
>
> I couldn't really tell whether you are saying it violates the reg. or
> not. My guess would be 'not', but you kind of make the case both ways. The
> D3 is a power management system that does make power adjustments based on
> model performance. It senses the 'load' on the motor, and increases power,
> if I understand it correctly. Since the motor is not part of the ESC, it's
> part of the model, and its performance is being read. You also said 'the
> D3 doesn't know why the change is needed.....' but actually it does. It
> knows that the motor RPM (part of the model performance) has changed, and
> corrects with a power adjustment. The difference seems to be whether or
> not you consider motor RPM to be part of the model's performance.
>
> I can see the similarity with servo's, but they are not in question
> here. The argument should be made as to why ESC's are singled out, but
> nevertheless, they are. Throttle tech acts differently, I think. It caps
> the power output to preserve battery life, if I remember correctly. All I
> remember about using one was that I didn't have enough power!
>
> If this regulation does not apply to this capability, I wonder what
> it's written for? About all an ESC, or power management system, does is
> vary the power. And the reg. says it can't do it automatically. If the
> Contest Board ultimately decides these are ok to use, I can't figure out
> what else would constitute a violation - the rule should be struck as
> superfluous. I actually hope that's the case, which is the point of this
> discussion ;)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> To: tjpritchett at aol.com; 'General pattern discussion' <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; ejhaury at comcast.net;
> chadnortheast at gmail.com
> Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2020 9:58 pm
> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Plettenberg Advance 30-10 ESC - Questions
> In order for the ESC to make power adjustments with regards to model
> performance, position, or attitude, the ESC must be aware of the model
> performance, position, or attitude. Just as the servo has an internal
> feedback loop, so do ESCs – even those without the governing function of
> the D3. Traditional ESCs and the D3 do their work without knowing the
> model performance, position, or attitude.
>
> The D3 could decrease or increase power to the motor to prevent RPM from
> increasing for a variety of reasons – the plane is diving or climbing, the
> lipos are getting warmer (more efficient) or colder (less efficient), prop
> “bite” is changing due to changing airspeed, etc. The D3 doesn’t know why
> the change is needed, and it does not know the specific result of changes
> made (other than RPM is being maintained). When Throttle Tech was being
> developed, I talked with quite a few people about the legality of the
> concept (including Ramel), and it was deemed to be legal – primarily on the
> basis that Throttle Tech received zero information about the speed,
> attitude, position, performance, etc of the plane.
>
> I flew the D3 quite a bit on a V4 Contra Drive, and detailed my final
> setup at RCU – post 1928 on this thread
> https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/electric-pattern-aircraft-385/9833118-contra-rotating-propeller-drive-f3a-2m-pattern-planes-78.html
> It is a very good ESC. Specific to the V4 vs Castle w/ Throttle Tech, the
> absolute downline braking is not improved, but the behavior is different.
> The Castle is capable of slowing the prop RPM too much in a downline
> (buffeting sound occurs, and this is possible with other ESCs as well), and
> the D3 can slow the props too much in a downline as well, and the D3 takes
> a variable amount of time (short) to “catchup” and govern properly again.
> It took me quite a few flights to get the D3 properly tuned for the V4 –
> tuning for a direct drive single prop is much easier.
>
> One additional consideration with the D3 – SAFETY!!! The throttle curves
> that work best inflight generally have a very high idle – high enough that
> landings are difficult or impossible. So the use of 2 or more throttle
> curves is needed, and if the “flight” throttle curve is inadvertently
> selected on the ground, a V4 contra is going to be “idling” fast enough to
> take off. Others have posted that inflight RPM of single prop setups is
> ~2000 RPM -which is considerably higher than the traditional ~500 RPM of
> traditional ESCs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> *On
> Behalf Of *tim pritchett via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Monday, June 8, 2020 11:23 AM
> *To:* ejhaury at comcast.net; chadnortheast at gmail.com;
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Plettenberg Advance 30-10 ESC -
> Questions
>
> Earl,
> Good analogy with servo loops. I suppose if the regulation were
> written about control surfaces, we'd all by flying control line.
> The rule as written however seems to explicitly restrict ESC's from
> self-regulating power output. With this device, when the plane changes
> attitude, the ESC adjusts power. Self regulating speed controllers had to
> be the targeted restriction; what else is there in an ESC?
>
> FYI - I asked the AMA about it and have two different perspectives so far.
> Some of those folks may be on this list as well, but I'll share their
> feedback when it's determined.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EARL HAURY <ejhaury at comcast.net>
> To: Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at gmail.com>; General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; Tjpritchett <tjpritchett at aol.com>
> Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2020 9:50 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Plettenberg Advance 30-10 ESC - Questions
> I suppose an Electronic Speed Controller might be expected to actually
> control motor speed, however most don't. They simply control the amount of
> power applied to the motor. Great to see some ESC's that now actually
> control motor speed! F3A rules don't address power management systems,
> while the AMA rule would appear to address aircraft performance rather than
> motor speed control. Possibly the latter needs some wordsmithing.
>
> Certainly the new ESC systems involve an on board feedback loop. However,
> with the exception of retract servos, all of our servos use an internal
> feedback loop to ensure that they move and hold where we command. So we've
> been flying with feedback loops in our airplanes since the exit of
> escapements and ESC's are just catching up.
>
> As has been pointed out, as long as the pilot must select the control
> input (be it surface position or motor rpm) these systems are well within
> the rules. Systems that automatically maintain aircraft attitude (gyros) or
> speed (pitot data to ESC for example) aren't.
>
> Earl
>
> On June 7, 2020 at 2:08 PM Chad Northeast via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> So many of us (myself included) flew these at the WC in 2019, and there
> were many events in Europe that allowed their use. As well the Hacker
> Sensitrol (similar function, however it uses direct rpm measurement I
> believe) was also in use at the WC in 2019, so there is some good precedent
> for legal use at least internationally. They were known to the event
> organizers/jury/judges etc. that they were being used, and no one was
> disqualified or asked to remove them that I am aware of. Personally I did
> bring along a full batch of other esc’s in case this happened as there was
> definitely “chatter” about them being illegal, however it turned out that
> was not an issue.
>
> My understanding is it would become illegal if you say used it to maintain
> airspeed, which would then in turn auto adjust the throttle input from the
> rx, essentially taking the pilot out of the “control loop”. What I
> understand in simple terms is that as long as the pilot is part of the
> control loop then its most likely legal.
>
> Maybe Mark or Derek, or someone more in the loop on the inner workings of
> the rules with the FAI can give more info.
>
> It would be a great shame to make these sorts of innovations illegal as
> ultimately it will stifle creativity and has zero bearing on the results.
> Everyone has access to them, so its a level playing field, the best pilot
> will rise to the top as usual.
>
> Chad
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Tjpritchett <tjpritchett at aol.com> wrote:
>
> As I was reading this thread, I was wondering how a self regulating speed
> control might fit within the current competition regulations. We’ve
> considered the gyro/ stabilization debate before, and that issue is pretty
> clear, since the relevant rule was written after gyro control was already
> available.
> This capability, prop rpm, was not really around until now, and may need
> to be evaluated more carefully against existing rules. The most relevant I
> could find is copied and posted below, from the 2020-2021 AMA Competition
> Regulations, 4.4.2. Point number 3 seems particularly relevant.
> What do you think?
>
> Examples of control functions not allowed:
> 1. Preprogramming that will automatically perform a series of commands
> based on a timeline.
> 2. Automatic leveling or electronic stabilization in any axis.
> 3. Power plant management systems that adjust power with regards to model
> performance, position or attitude.
> 4. Positioning systems utilizing any sensors such as air data, GPS,
> distance, etc.
> 5. Learning functions involving maneuver-to-maneuver or flight-to-flight
> analysis.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 7, 2020, at 1:11 PM, flyintexanmark via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> A slight tweak in kv and a d3 should allow use of a ys200 prop. The right
> throttle curve and it may be possible to get Bryan Hebert to fly electric
> :)
>
> Seriously it seems more possible now than ever to emulate a YS.
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Chad Northeast via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: 6/7/20 9:27 AM (GMT-06:00)
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Plettenberg Advance 30-10 ESC - Questions
>
> I will chime in my 2 cents on the Pletty. I have used the Jeti Spin 99
> and the Futaba 9100 (same as OS 1100) and the D3, all of them without
> issues so I think you are safe with those for sure. I have not used the CC
> or the Jeti Mezon, but I imagine the Mezon is like the Spin. There is no
> issue taking a Pletty Advance to 90A, and no issues for big props, in fact
> the bigger the better. I use a 22-13, which hits around 85A and 6300 RPM
> on the ground, any prop made you can run on the motor depending on what you
> like.
>
> Braking has always been an issue, even with the Jeti/Futaba ESC braking
> set I have never been able to get it “perfect” where its good in downlines
> and in 45’s etc, there always seemed to be a compromise. Propellor
> selection had some impact, I found APC’s brake better than a Falcon on
> their own so that helped to get the balance better at least for my style.
>
> This is where the D3 shines (braking/constant speed), I think blows the
> doors off every other controller made. It is a total re-learn of how you
> fly, but once you get it I don't think you would want to go back. For
> those that don't know, the D3 is produced just for pattern and is custom to
> every motor, so you order for the motor you want. There is no programming,
> no telemetry, nothing really, you just put it in the model setup your tx
> and fly. It is a governor controller so setting up your RPM is absolutely
> critical, if you get it wrong you will not have great results and likely
> struggle with it. However the ability to get constant speed is very good,
> it really turned the Pletty into a setup that has braking as good as
> anything else IMO. It manages power for you in a lot of cases, for
> instance as you pull vertical and the models starts to slow down and load
> the prop the esc will apply power to maintain rpm, so you don't need to
> throttle up much, maybe 2 clicks on the stick.
>
> Some of the adjustments you need to get used to, generally you want to
> start throttling up prior to pulling the exit radius, as the esc is always
> maintaining rpm of the motor you dont have that freewheel to help carry
> speed out of an exit. So if you don't throttle up early you will really
> lose airspeed. Mostly in looping elements you actually never need to
> really come to a full idle, as the esc is essentially braking all the time
> to maintain the rpm based on your stick position.
>
> I have also found it very efficient consumption wise, as good or better
> than the Futaba/Jeti’s that I have used prior. Some really nice side
> benefits, it is light ~70g and inexpensive.
>
> Below is a chart of rx output and motor rpm for the Pletty, personally I
> use 950 rpm for landing, 1950 rpm for normal flight (downline idle), and
> 5600 rpm at my midstick position. In case it doesn’t show up properly, one
> column is % of output, one column is us output of rx (0 - 2000 us) and last
> is motor rpm.
>
>
> 100.00%
> 2000
> 6700
> 90.00%
> 1800
> 6030
> 80.00%
> 1600
> 5360
> 70.00%
> 1400
> 4690
> 60.00%
> 1200
> 4020
> 50.00%
> 1000
> 3350
> 40.00%
> 800
> 2680
> 30.00%
> 600
> 2010
> 20.00%
> 400
> 1340
> 10.00%
> 200
> 670
> 0.00%
> 0
> 0
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> --
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20200611/79cb1811/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list