Airplane Automatically Returning Home?

[swbluto]

Now let's imagine, you're flying an airplane and it loses your radio signal. What usually happens? I don't really know but I can imagine it'd either keep flying off into the distance or crash land and those outcomes don't sound favorable. So why not program an electric aircraft to automatically return home? You'd just need a GPS chip and an onboard processor to control the airplane's direction and such.

Anyways, this is just a real concern of my mine so I was wondering if something like this already exists(And isn't ungodly expensive). I wanted to get into electric aircraft to do some Virtual Reality flying so I can explore what things look like from above like an eagle but I can imagine the above scenario would be a real possibility if I'm venturing far from home.

[AndyOne]

swbluto,

It's been done and it's usually referred to as RRH, Rudder Return to Home. Just look at this thread...

http://www.rcgroups.com/video-piloting-fpv-rpv-469/

It's all there, somewhere.

A.

[dmccormick001]

Don't know if you're a member of the AMA or not, but if you are, be careful. Since the introduction of devices like wireless cameras/transmitters, and their use in FPV R/C aircraft, the AMA has had certain restrictions on this kind of thing. At one time just a year or so ago, they completely prohibited it. As of this year, 2009, the modified Rule #10 basically says that if you use a device that makes your model capable of flying beyond visual range of the pilot, as a camera and/or a GPS device does, you must have a buddy box and another pilot, to act as the primary pilot, who is required to keep the model within his visual range, even when you're flying via the camera. Additionally, you must keep the model within the boundaries of your club's normal flying area. In other words, even though it's possible to fly well beyond what would normally be your visual range if you were flying normally looking up from the ground, you are not supposed to do so. And you are supposed to have a buddy box connected any time you are flying FPV, with the other pilot acting as the master pilot, capable of taking control any time the model begins to get too far away for him to be able to see it and fly it. Part of the reason for the restrictions has supposedly been concerns voiced by Department of Homeland Security after the attacks of 9/11, and the potential that this type of UAV might be used as a weapon. The AMA has evidentally sorted it all out now and has granted AMA members permission to fly FPV within the stated guidelines. Fly as high and as wide an area as your buddy box partner can see and maintain visual reference, but if you go beyond that and get in trouble you'll probably be on your own if an insurance issue arises.

[gkamysz]

There used to be a product made by BTA sold by Maxx Products in the US that did just this. I have one and it works just fine. I don't see them on the website now, I'm not sure of the status. They were released in 2004 or so.

Greg

[swbluto]

Don't know if you're a member of the AMA or not, but if you are, be careful. Since the introduction of devices like wireless cameras/transmitters, and their use in FPV R/C aircraft, the AMA has had certain restrictions on this kind of thing. At one time just a year or so ago, they completely prohibited it. As of this year, 2009, the modified Rule #10 basically says that if you use a device that makes your model capable of flying beyond visual range of the pilot, as a camera and/or a GPS device does, you must have a buddy box and another pilot, to act as the primary pilot, who is required to keep the model within his visual range, even when you're flying via the camera. Additionally, you must keep the model within the boundaries of your club's normal flying area. In other words, even though it's possible to fly well beyond what would normally be your visual range if you were flying normally looking up from the ground, you are not supposed to do so. And you are supposed to have a buddy box connected any time you are flying FPV, with the other pilot acting as the master pilot, capable of taking control any time the model begins to get too far away for him to be able to see it and fly it. Part of the reason for the restrictions has supposedly been concerns voiced by Department of Homeland Security after the attacks of 9/11, and the potential that this type of UAV might be used as a weapon. The AMA has evidentally sorted it all out now and has granted AMA members permission to fly FPV within the stated guidelines. Fly as high and as wide an area as your buddy box partner can see and maintain visual reference, but if you go beyond that and get in trouble you'll probably be on your own if an insurance issue arises.

AMA? I'm a member of the U.S.

[tune by tito]

Don't know if you're a member of the AMA or not, but if you are, be careful. Since the introduction of devices like wireless cameras/transmitters, and their use in FPV R/C aircraft, the AMA has had certain restrictions on this kind of thing. At one time just a year or so ago, they completely prohibited it. As of this year, 2009, the modified Rule #10 basically says that if you use a device that makes your model capable of flying beyond visual range of the pilot, as a camera and/or a GPS device does, you must have a buddy box and another pilot, to act as the primary pilot, who is required to keep the model within his visual range, even when you're flying via the camera. Additionally, you must keep the model within the boundaries of your club's normal flying area. In other words, even though it's possible to fly well beyond what would normally be your visual range if you were flying normally looking up from the ground, you are not supposed to do so. And you are supposed to have a buddy box connected any time you are flying FPV, with the other pilot acting as the master pilot, capable of taking control any time the model begins to get too far away for him to be able to see it and fly it. Part of the reason for the restrictions has supposedly been concerns voiced by Department of Homeland Security after the attacks of 9/11, and the potential that this type of UAV might be used as a weapon. The AMA has evidentally sorted it all out now and has granted AMA members permission to fly FPV within the stated guidelines. Fly as high and as wide an area as your buddy box partner can see and maintain visual reference, but if you go beyond that and get in trouble you'll probably be on your own if an insurance issue arises.

Which one?????????
American Medical Association
American Motorcyclist Association circa 1924
American Management Association
American Marketing Association
Alabama Motorcoach Association
American Muslim Alliance
Analytical Mechanics Associates
Arizona Multihousing Association
Advanced Mobile Association
Association of Mining Analysts
American Automobile Association
Augusta Military Academy
American Music Awards
And the most Special of all them:
American Mothers Association
If you Are not in a Competition you are better paying Personal Liability Insurance!!!!!!!
To me I Don't think you have to Join a "Union" to be able to fly you R/C here in The United States of America
And if you do!!!!!!!! check "General Motors" for the Result of such Action!!!!!
Best Regards

[dmccormick001]

Which one?????????
......If you Are not in a Competition you are better paying Personal Liability Insurance!!!!!!!
To me I Don't think you have to Join a "Union" to be able to fly you R/C here in The United States of America
And if you do!!!!!!!! check "General Motors" for the Result of such Action!!!!!
Best Regards

It never ceases to amaze me how there's always somebody on these forums looking for an argument. You must have spent hours coming up with all those "AMA's". (American Mothers Association??!? good grief!)

Did I say that" you have to join a "Union"...blah blah blah... ? No , I didn't. I simply said that if you are an AMA member, be careful with regard to this particular issue. If you don't belong to the Academy of Model Aeronautics, then don't worry about it. Go fly where ever you want, whenever you want, however you want. But don't start beating some drum with me. It's not about "rights", it's about reality here in 2009. You don't "have " to do anything to fly R/C in the US, but property owners don't "have" to agree to allow you to fly on their property either, unless you have sufficient insurance to satisfy them. Now go talk to your insurance agent and see what $58/year will get you in the way of liability insurance. Not even close.

[tune by tito]

It never ceases to amaze me how there's always somebody on these forums looking for an argument. You must have spent hours coming up with all those "AMA's". (American Mothers Association??!? good grief!)

Did I say that" you have to join a "Union"...blah blah blah... ? No , I didn't. I simply said that if you are an AMA member, be careful with regard to this particular issue. If you don't belong to the Academy of Model Aeronautics, then don't worry about it. Go fly where ever you want, whenever you want, however you want. But don't start beating some drum with me. It's not about "rights", it's about reality here in 2009. You don't "have " to do anything to fly R/C in the US, but property owners don't "have" to agree to allow you to fly on their property either, unless you have sufficient insurance to satisfy them. Now go talk to your insurance agent and see what $58/year will get you in the way of liability insurance. Not even close.

for an argument you need two person, you can ignore me!!!!!!!!!,That is they way you can save you matrimony(marriage) or a bad relationship with you parents!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must have spent hours coming up with all those "AMA's". nope few minutes with google using copy and paste(and every body hate Bill Gates for windows)!!!!!!!!!!! you can try if you want, not hate Bill Gates I'm talking about copy and paste.
Best regards tito

[Darth_Elevator]

Anyways, this is just a real concern of my mine so I was wondering if something like this already exists(And isn't ungodly expensive).I have the Ardupilot, which is a relatively inexpensive GPS-based auto return to home: http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A44814. In addition to return to home, it can also do waypoint navigation. In addition to tons of info at the link above, there's a thread about it here on RC Groups: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=979372

[KatanaGuy]

Off thread topic.....
Hey Darth, I'm looking into getting into the Ardu, I'm Stephen Carlson on diydrones. Do you come down here to PG often?

-Steve

Now back to the regularly scheduled thread topic......

[Darth_Elevator]

Steve, I just sent you a pm.

[rich smith]

Most low cost 72mhz RX stop motor when out of range which causes plane to spiral safely down if properly trimmed. One exception is 4ch Corona synth which has a fatal design flaw that keeps motor on causing plane to fly away. More expensive RX like Berg and 2.4ghz also have this problem unless re-programmed properly.

RTL stands for Return-To-Launch (not Rudder-To-launch or Rudder-Return-Home etc.) uses GPS and microprocessor to bring plane back on signal loss. DIY type can be built for less than $200 using RCAP or Ardupilot with Sparkfun GPS or about $50 using AVR micro with Ebay GPS. Few hundred bucks for commercial versions.

Now let's imagine, you're flying an airplane and it loses your radio signal. What usually happens? I don't really know but I can imagine it'd either keep flying off into the distance or crash land and those outcomes don't sound favorable. So why not program an electric aircraft to automatically return home? You'd just need a GPS chip and an onboard processor to control the airplane's direction and such.

Anyways, this is just a real concern of my mine so I was wondering if something like this already exists(And isn't ungodly expensive). I wanted to get into electric aircraft to do some Virtual Reality flying so I can explore what things look like from above like an eagle but I can imagine the above scenario would be a real possibility if I'm venturing far from home.