[NSRCA-discussion] Plettenberg Advance 30-10 ESC - Questions
Jeff Worsham
jeffryworsham at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 14:01:42 AKDT 2020
I agree with Jim. And will add that after playing with gyro receivers for that last year, I now believe that not allowing them in pattern is like a guy showing up at a contest in 1963 with a digital proportional radio and being told "sorry buddy, you have to fly reeds like the rest of us.”
Jeff
> On Jun 11, 2020, at 3:04 PM, Mike Mueller via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Jim
> Mike Mueller
> President, F3A Unlimited and Gator-RC
> mups53 at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:tjpritchett at aol.com>; 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>; jeffryworsham at gmail.com <mailto:jeffryworsham at gmail.com>; vincebrc at gmail.com <mailto:vincebrc at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: chadnortheast at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; jeffryworsham at gmail.com <mailto:jeffryworsham at gmail.com>; vincebrc at gmail.com <mailto:vincebrc at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: chadnortheast at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>>> To: 'Jeff Worsham' <jeffryworsham at gmail.com <mailto:jeffryworsham at gmail.com>>; 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>; 'Vicente Bortone' <vincebrc at gmail.com <mailto:vincebrc at gmail.com>>
>>> Cc: chadnortheast at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:vincebrc at gmail.com>>
>>> Cc: chadnortheast at gmail.com <mailto:chadnortheast at gmail.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:tjpritchett at aol.com>; 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>; ejhaury at comcast.net <mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net>; chadnortheast at gmail.com <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net>; chadnortheast at gmail.com <mailto:chadnortheast at gmail.com>; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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 <mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net>>
>>> To: Chad Northeast <chadnortheast at gmail.com <mailto:chadnortheast at gmail.com>>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>; Tjpritchett <tjpritchett at aol.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>>> Date: 6/7/20 9:27 AM (GMT-06:00)
>>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>>> --
>>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>_______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <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/20200611/08205d60/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list