View Full Version : Skyryse Luna: Retrofitted autopilot to any helicopter? (R44 in video)
WillyPete
2nd Jan 2020, 17:24
https://youtu.be/X6riQG3G9z0
So Skyryse are also pitching to the greedy money to be the next aviation Uber.
The video doesn't say much about how the system works, where they are in development etc, but is interesting seeing it operating on the 44.
aa777888
2nd Jan 2020, 18:02
How is this different or better than any existing, fully coupled, 4-axis helicopter autopilot system?
Bell_ringer
3rd Jan 2020, 04:16
How is this different or better than any existing, fully coupled, 4-axis helicopter autopilot system?
it's autonomous ie flies itself, pilot optional.
This will be a relief to many Robbie pilots, they can just send it on its way without them :}
Ascend Charlie
3rd Jan 2020, 04:49
And when the idiot passenger tells the autopilot to do something that the pilot doesn't expect, it gets turned off. Back to basics.
I would never trust an autopilot that is waiting for a voice command.
"F#%K ME!"
"I don't think I can do that, Dave..."
I can read the nervousness of the pilot. His hands are closer to the controls than flying with a fresh student
Hilico
3rd Jan 2020, 07:14
I obviously missed it handling an engine failure on climb-out at 100ft. And if everyone flies over the congestion in cities...they’ll find the congestion has come up to meet them.
"I don't think I can do that, Dave..." Good use of the HAL9000 reference AC :ok: made me smile.
So how much weight will those linear and parallel actuators add to the aircraft, along with the AFCS computer to run them? Plus the FMS to enable nav route planning and activation.
Then how do you stop people in the aircraft accidentally making control inputs (remove the controls entirely perhaps) that will override the AP?
No different to other APs - hardly cutting edge.
love flying
3rd Jan 2020, 08:59
I think this is fantastic. Helicopter technology will never advance without “Elon musk” style innovation. Congratulations to these guys for working on such an ambitious project without any cost to me, the government or Robinson. There are now 150 evtol hardware projects all looking to leapfrog helicopters. Let’s now hope the regulators take an entrepreneurial approach to AP and remote control technologies.
I don’t think the negative comments are going to help. If someone has a suggestion as to how an AP will handle various edge cases, please post suggestions here. Let’s move helicopter technology forward.Well done SkyRywe
PS I operate R66 with HeliSAS
aa777888
3rd Jan 2020, 10:54
it's autonomous ie flies itself, pilot optional.Still not seeing a difference from a fully coupled, 4 axis autopilot. Does not the latter also autonomously follow a flight plan programmed into the navigator? Won't it also automatically fly an ILS? On the really expensive helicopters do they not terminate in a hover automatically?
P.S. for Crab's reference an R44 HeliSAS installation is 12 lbs. If they ever add another axis maybe it would go up to 16lbs. That ain't bad. Just don't spec air conditioning, too 😉
But is HeliSas a 4 axis AP? Or is it just as the title implies - linear actuators in the control runs providing rate damping?
A proper AP will need parallel actuators for open loop/autotrim and inputs to an AP computer for the nav kit to steer it.
And no, aa777888 - I don't think they are offering anything new that a number of 4-axis autopilots already provide.
aa777888
3rd Jan 2020, 17:16
But is HeliSas a 4 axis AP? Or is it just as the title implies - linear actuators in the control runs providing rate damping?It's a legit 2-axis autopilot, not just a SAS.
Genesys has recently started to advertise a 3-axis, SPIFR certifiable, version that is 35lbs.
Here's the video on the lightweight, 12lb, 2-axis version that people are putting into R44's and R66's at a rapid clip. Not sure if we are going to see this in the 505, or if Garmin will beat Genesys to it with their GFC600H.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQDYpjm0t-Q&t=154s
Ascend Charlie
3rd Jan 2020, 19:23
P.S. for Crab's reference an R44 HeliSAS installation is 12 lbs. If they ever add another axis maybe it would go up to 16lbs.
A bit different from the advertised model, though, which claims 4-axis control. Probably somewhat heavier again.
Do the voice commands go through the intercom, or to a cockpit mike (need some noise attenuation filters!)
It's a legit 2-axis autopilot, not just a SAS. No, it is stability ie rate damping in the VFR one with some very limited upper modes (which don't include yaw) in pitch and roll.
It's a SAS plus but not a real autopilot.
Don't get me wrong - it will add a huge amount to the handling qualities of a light single but at cost $100K according to the reports - what proportion is that of the aircraft cost?
aa777888
3rd Jan 2020, 21:55
Your definition of an autopilot and mine are quite different. If I turn on a piece of equipment, and it follows all of the directional guidance coming from my GPS, including turns, holds, and approaches, and I never have to touch the controls while it's doing all of that, then in my book it's an autopilot. A 2-axis autopilot, but an autopilot nonetheless. Yes, more axis are better but, as you point out, how much do you really need/want to spend in a VFR light single?
On the current Robinson R44 pricesheet, a base R44 Raven II with no options is $489K and the HeliSAS is $47K.
I have to say that I would love one in my Clipper II. It sure would take the tedium out of even the shortest cross countries. I suspect I'm over-appreciating its autopilot functionality and under-appreciating its SAS functionality. I'd like to try flying a HeliSAS equipped ship in order to more fully appreciate it, but I'm not buying one myself!
Bell_ringer
4th Jan 2020, 05:26
7's and 8's, an AP isn't autonomous, in other words it can't control the aircraft through all phases of flight, while dealing with exceptions within its operating envelope without human intervention or presence.
They may both have a lot in common, such as actuators etc, the difference is in the additional software, logic and telemetry needed to dispense with the human.
Hot and Hi
4th Jan 2020, 06:47
On the current Robinson R44 pricesheet, a base R44 Raven II with no options is $489K and the HeliSAS is $47K.
When you read the foot note in the price list you see that HeliSAS requires to also have the glass cockpit option. So you can almost double that additional cost.
aa777888 - how are you going to keep it in balance if you don't touch the controls - 2-axis is pitch and roll only.
It also means that although the pitch channel will hold your height in Alt mode, power will decide your speed so if you want to change it you will have to make a collective input.
Equally, trying to use it on an approach will mean constantly adjusting the collective as the AP only has the ability to use pitch changes to fly a vertical profile.
I think the SAS element is very attractive for a robbie but don't get too excited by the upper modes promised, it won't be a full hands-off experience.
Oh and I wouldn't rely on that IIMC wings level facility, especially if the speed gets low.
aa777888
4th Jan 2020, 11:48
When you read the foot note in the price list you see that HeliSAS requires to also have the glass cockpit option. So you can almost double that additional cost.Well, you can cheap out with the Aspen stuff, which would only be half again, but anyone blowing money on an autopilot is probably going to first spec. full Garmin glass for the panel anyway. The panels with the big TXi and GTN750 sure do look pretty. I heard a single rumor that Robinson was working on the development of electronic engine instrumentation as well. All glass Robinsons may not be too far in the future.
aa777888
4th Jan 2020, 12:01
Crab: yes, yes, you have to accept airspeed variations if you want to go completely hands-off with 2-axis autopilot. Set your power, set your heading/altitude and/or nav. mode, eat your sandwich and watch the airspeed wander a bit. Welcome to the wonderful world of inexpensive, 2-axis autopilots. Probably something you are not familiar with, but to those of us who dwell at the low end of the aircraft cost and performance envelope they are bread and butter.
I've experienced them in fixed wing settings, but have yet to experience it in a rotary wing setting. I suppose I may have to rest a foot on a pedal since there is no yaw trim in a 44 or 66, depending on the rigging, or just accept flying a bit sideways, too. A small price to pay for being able to eat my sandwich with two hands so to speak, which, along with the ability to get the aircraft to a defined 3-dimensional point in space, regardless of airspeed variations, is a good enough definition of an autopilot for me :ok:
And, yes, I 100% agree that the HeliSAS devolves to essentially SAS-only at low airspeed regimes, and should be managed appropriately.
aa777888 - I have flown with no SAS or AP (Army Gazelle), SAS only (RAF Gazelle),2 (Bell 412), 3 (AS 365) and 4 axis (Sea King 3A, AW 139) APs so I am reasonably aware of the limitations and advantages of each.
I would be interested to see how HeliSAS gets you to a 3 dimensional point in space hands off since it would need an altimeter feed and the ability to switch automatically from ALT hold to a VS mode for climbs and descents since I am pretty sure there isn't an ALTA (altitude acquire mode) in HeliSAS.
Do you have to have a Robinson or HeliSAS GPS unit that is hardwired into the system for the control inputs? I can't imagine it is a plug and play system with any old GPS unit.
Have you actually flown with the HeliSAS system in a helicopter to have all its capabilities demonstrated?
aa777888
4th Jan 2020, 13:44
I would be interested to see how HeliSAS gets you to a 3 dimensional point in space hands off since it would need an altimeter feed and the ability to switch automatically from ALT hold to a VS mode for climbs and descents since I am pretty sure there isn't an ALTA (altitude acquire mode) in HeliSAS.
Do you have to have a Robinson or HeliSAS GPS unit that is hardwired into the system for the control inputs? I can't imagine it is a plug and play system with any old GPS unit.No need to guess or assume. The HeliSAS POH is readily available: https://genesys-aerosystems.com/sites/default/files/files/HeliSAS%20POH_4th%20Edition.pdf. Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 5.5 through 5.7 are most specific to your questions and answer them much better than I can here, however reading the entire POH is valuable.
Have you actually flown with the HeliSAS system in a helicopter to have all its capabilities demonstrated?Already answered that question in my previous posts because I knew it would be asked.
Read the POH. Watch the video if you haven't already. It's quite a capable SAS and autopilot.
Read the POH and it seems, as I suspected, that you have to have a lot of extra kit in order to use the autopilot capabilities - just fitting the SAS alone (actuators and control panel) won't give you any upper modes.
So you need a WAAS GPS with ARINC connections hardwired in so you can use your GPS steering; you need a NAV receiver if you want to fly to VORs or fly ILS; you need at least a mechanical gyro to give you attitude information (ideally an EFIS with AHRS); you need an HSI linked to AHRS for NAV mode; and you need an air data computer (ADC) for airspeed and altitude signals.
Do you have all of that already on your Clipper? You will just get SAS if you have this installed without all the other sensors fitted (which has got to be better than an unstabilised helicopter) .
What training do they provide for those who purchase this kit? and at what cost?
There are so many ways to kill or frighten yourself getting lost in AP modes if you haven't had the appropriate training - ask any pilot who has used 2 or 3 axis APs in anger.
My other question is why would you want to fly holds and approaches in a non-IFR certified aircraft?
The HeliSAS is no better or worse than many other APs, they are just marketing it strongly in the light single owners market.
Just having SAS, even with the limited AP that the other gizmos give you, won't prevent the leans or complete disorientation following IIMC - unless you are a properly trained instrument rated pilot it will just take you longer to die.
My concern is that owners will buy this (expensive) add-on thinking it is a magic bullet for safe operations in poor weather and we will just see more statistics.
aa777888
4th Jan 2020, 17:56
No more or less additional kit required than any other autopilot. And, as I mentioned previously, those who are buying them tend to have already bought a top of the line Garmin panel first, so no fuss, no muss for those well-heeled folks.
I have crap all on the Clipper :) I said I'd love one of these, and by inference all the necessary trimmings, but I sure don't want to pay for it before I win the lottery or something like that! Why stop there? I'd really love a full-on SPIFR machine, say a 429. Not going to happen for me unless that aforementioned lottery is a big one!
Couldn't say why anyone would want to fly holds or approaches right now in the target market. And such training is not considered a special subject in the US. There is no "autopilot endorsement", just like there is no "EFIS endorsement".
AFAIK we have yet to see a HeliSAS related incident. No doubt there will be one some day. But I suspect the vast majority of their usage is to a) make VFR cross country more pleasurable, b) add a layer of safety (double edge sword there--more safety at the price of more complexity), and c) the SAS functionality. Not cheat your way through weather you shouldn't be in.
so back to your question in #2 How is this different or better than any existing, fully coupled, 4-axis helicopter autopilot system? it is only a SAS unless you add all the extra kit required to give it some upper mode AP functions and even then it is just a 2-axis AP.
If it was my money I wouldn't bother with all the extras and just reap the benefits of having stability augmentation.
However, I suspect that those with sufficient disposable income will want all the toys, whether or not they know how to use them.
aa777888
5th Jan 2020, 18:03
so back to your question in #2 it is only a SAS unless you add all the extra kit required to give it some upper mode AP functions and even then it is just a 2-axis AP.Crab, you really missed the boat on this one. My original question in post #2 referred to how the Skyryse Luna system was any different than a 4-axis, full coupled autopilot. It had nothing to do with the HeliSAS. We just got off on a massive thread drift and I suppose when you circled back around you thought that was what the original topic was.
So let's go back to the original question: how is the Skyryse Luna any different or better than a 4-axis, fully coupled, autopilot, such as you might already find in a sophisticated medium twin right now, today?
Ascend Charlie
5th Jan 2020, 18:20
how is the Skyryse Luna any different or better than a 4-axis, fully coupled, autopilot, such as you might already find in a sophisticated medium twin right now, today?
We don't know, because there isn't enough info in the advert.
But it looks like they claim to have full 4-axis authority, working via a voice command system.
Yes, aa777888, I did mix up the two systems - doh!
However, as AC points out there is little detailed information available outside the various press releases but this one says Each component of the system works in triplicate with airline-grade, fail-operational technology to ensure that automation functions remain operational at all times, even in the presence of equipment failures,” the company told the website.
Using a suite of sensors, Skyrise’s autonomous technology will help steer, stabilize, and direct the Luna, while monitoring other flight data. Meanwhile, take-off and landing are aided by ground-based sensors in the helipad that will communicate with the Luna and alert it to weather changes and low-flying objects like drones and birds. The tech won’t just be for autonomous flight, either. The company envisions it also being used to aid piloted vehicles by acting as a sort of “cruise control” and taking over aspects of flying. The ground sensors are a new element not in normal APs, nor the information on low flying birds and drones (not sure how they will do that unless they have a very good radar in the vicinity).
It will require full 4 -axis capability plus SAR- type upper modes for trans up and down and would clearly have to operate from purpose built HLS with the ground sensors to achieve the planned capability.
The voice activation sounds trendy but I suspect the reality will be a GPS route wi-fi'd or bluetoothed from a ground station into the aircraft.
The upshot is that it is obviously still a work in progress and the use of a light SE helicopter just a cheap tool to prove the system for bigger (maybe twin) aircraft. Since many still have doubts about autonomous cars and the algorithms that make their safety decisions (do you save the pedestrian or the people in the car type of thing) we are probably a long way from airborne, autonomous Uber.
Bell_ringer
6th Jan 2020, 09:37
Since many still have doubts about autonomous cars and the algorithms that make their safety decisions (do you save the pedestrian or the people in the car type of thing) we are probably a long way from airborne, autonomous Uber.
Airspace is more structured than the roads, there are other challenges, but it would be less complex getting an aircraft from A to B, there are far fewer objects to avoid and no unpredictable pedestrians or drivers staring at their phones.
We are closer than you think to a light version of autonomous air service.
It is unlikely that you will see pilotless airliners in a hurry, there is a greater probability that automation will dispense with multi-crew requirements, or mundane tasks (automated scenic tours)
Why pay for people when you can have someone remotely being another pair of eyes.
It is just a matter of time until automation changes the landscape of most industries, aviation included.
True, but any technical issues in a car would leave you stuck by the side of the road (unless the brakes fail:)) but would you be happy with an autonomous helicopter dealing with a fire, power loss, TR (or equivalent) failure, lightning strike, birdstrike etc etc?
Bell_ringer
6th Jan 2020, 10:04
It always comes down to probability and liability.
The 525 can already enter autorotation automatically, with sufficient development and testing, an autonmous system could recognise and manage most emergencies, at least well enough to make actuaries happy.
The question is, where is the crossover point when a computer becomes less risky than a person.
Eventually technology becomes so complex that it is probably safer to take a person out of the equation.
Interesting times.
We can debate the merits, but with the billions of dollars going into R&D and prototypes, it is coming.
Self loading bear
6th Jan 2020, 16:34
True, but any technical issues in a car would leave you stuck by the side of the road (unless the brakes fail:)) but would you be happy with an autonomous helicopter dealing with a fire, power loss, TR (or equivalent) failure, lightning strike, birdstrike etc etc?
What we have to fear most are faulty sensors.
If MAX MCAS would have “autonomously” recognized and corrected the faulty sensor.
Then there would have a lot less pain and fuzz in the Aviation world.
SLB - :ok::ok::ok: and the Air France crash into the Atlantic probably wouldn't have happened (notwithstanding poor actions by the crew)
Bell_ringer
7th Jan 2020, 08:06
Don't confuse automation and augmentation with fully autonomous systems. If you bolt on some tech that no one knows about, then the MCAS outcome shouldn't be a surprise.
New gen systems that are designed to work differently and to remove the human element (Air France) are a completely different beast.
Any tech is only as good as it's design(ers), QA and redundancy.
So how far do you go with redundancy since that is the issue with sensors?
Duplex is the norm for IFR certification ISTR, 2 x pitotstatic systems, 2 x ADC, 2 x NAV, 2 channel AP etc etc.
And that duplex has human back-up so another level of redundancy - how many levels will an autonomous helicopter taxi need?
Can you make your sensors environment-proof?
I am interested to know where industry has actually got with the blue-sky thinking on autonomy.