Anyone else out there prefer to not have any stabilization??

[VOODOO]

Perhaps being in the hobby before the introduction of on board gyro stabilizers, I feel as it is almost "cheating" to fly with automatic stabilization after one becomes a competent flyer. Am I a dinosaur to feel this way? To me, the fun derives from using my pilot skills to offset the effects of high wind, gusty conditions, up or downdrafts, etc. I fly in strong winds, gusty conditions, and do sometimes make a less than graceful approach and landing, but in my mind, I tell myself I need to get better. I am not putting down those who choose to use this aid, I just wonder how many feel the same as I do.

[fhhuber]

Real pilots use wing warping and hand make their own gasoline engines.

*****************

All technology tends to get opposed by people who learned without it...

[crxmanpat]

I've never flown with a gyro before, except for the bare bones system that came on my first plane, the HobbyZone Firebird Commander II.

Sure, a gyro might save a plane or two from dumb thumbs, but how will I ever learn if it's always correcting me?

[Tom603]

Havent flown a gyro either, My, yet to fly, Carbon Z Cub has a gyro and I have to figure out how to disable it. I can fly a Cub just fine without any help or surprises....

[VOODOO]

Real pilots use wing warping and hand make their own gasoline engines.

*****************

All technology tends to get opposed by people who learned without it...

I get the impression that this response was not given in the non offensive manner I hoped I had expressed.

[farmflyer]

The only planes I have them in came with it and are um's with as3x. It really doesn't bother me they have it but I choose to not use them in all my other planes. It's just a choice I prefer to fly without them for some of the reasons you stated I want to try and perfect my skills which sometimes require you to anticipate the controls you input not just react to what the plane does. That being said I've thought about using some type of stabilizer/gyro that I could turn on or off in flight for those windy days especially those strong cross winds that I don't fly in now because I'm not comfortable with trying the landings.

[Capt. Crunch]

I used to think using a gyro was kinda cheating, but after having to replace retracts and having to touch up my wing tips after cross wind landings, I finally gave in and put gyros in. Its not the wind that bothers me, its the gusts. I have become fairly good at cross wind landings when the wind is steady, but the dang gusts get me every time. When I'm in the air the gyro usually gets shut off. I think they put a lot of wear and tear on the servos. But for gusty cross wind landings, they are worth their weight in gold!

[xviper]

I get the impression that this response was not given in the non offensive manner I hoped I had expressed.

Whether or not you took it in a good way or a bad way, that was your choice. I happen to agree with him.
Most of my planes, I fly without stabilizers. However, there are a few where a gyro makes for a more enjoyable experience. (Isn't that why we do it?) Remember when transmitters had no ability to set "rates" and "expo"? I suppose when those new fangled TXs came along, there were those who thought that was "cheating". How about mixing in ELE with Flaps? Cheating? And what about some "old fogies" who still hate electric and think foam should be restricted to beer coolers? They think that's "cheating".
What about today's new cars? Stability control, ABS, variable ratio power steering, gas/oil filled valved shock absorbers? Cheating? Did you know that the government (with NHTSA) is in the process of making self braking systems mandatory on all cars one of these days? Cheating? I'll bet there are lots of people who hate that idea. It's "cheating" because it takes away from developing "real" skill and attention.
I have a self lighting BBQ. Some may consider not having to strike a match is "cheating". But wait! There are those who think it's cheating unless you use charcoal briquettes. But wait again! There are those who say even that is cheating. They burn wood until the glowing embers are just right for cooking.
This is a hobby, with a multitude of choices for available technology. Think it's "cheating"? Then don't use them. Don't put in a gyro. Don't use rates or expo. Don't use mixing. Don't use suspension on the gear. Go as far back into the stone age as you like. It's all a matter of choice and there's really no "best" way to do it and the fact that we all stand there and remotely control an unmanned vehicle is "cheating". We should have "lines" attached to them.

[fhhuber]

Actually... RC was developed before CL.

Strange, but true.

[doctormike]

I used to think it was cheating, 'till I tried gyros in my three souped up Art-Tech Pitts. They are much easyer to fly, land, and, for some reason, are more aerobatic. I believe stabilization is mostly useful in smaller planes. Doc

[fhhuber]

More noticeable in the small ones because they tend to get bounced more by lighter gusts.

[retiredflyer]

I figure that the ENTIRE reason I fly R/C is to have FUN! If I'm enjoying myself, and relaxing, then I've succeeded in having a great day. So that being said, who really cares if I use a gyro or not, if anyone, including myself thinks it's cheating or not, it only matters that I had a great day flying. I think gyros are terrific, and I do know how to fly without them. However, it opens the window of more flying days where I might consider it a bit too breezy. If I'm "fighting" with my plane to keep it level and stable then I'm not having fun. The gyro gives me that back and that's the whole reason to be out there in the first place.

[xviper]

Actually... RC was developed before CL.

Strange, but true.

I just flipped my wig! :p But does running under a light paper airplane with a big sheet of cardboard count as "RC"? :idea: (Saw it on a magician's show.)

BTW, I "cheat" every time I watch TV. Instead of heaving back to recline my chair, there's this little handle that does it for me and I also don't have to get up and turn some knob on the TV itself.

PS. I just realized that I never answered the original question as posed by the title of this thread. Sorry. But the "terms" cheating was used and I digressed.
Answer ........................... Yes and No - kinda depends on the plane.

[VOODOO]

Perhaps cheating was a poor choice of words, since my point is really that allowing an artificial stabilization system to smooth out all the roughness or excursions from the desired flightpath does not optimize learning how to fix those events on your own. I am not adverse to innovation or advances in technology, and eagerly jumped at the chance to use them in my 30 year airline career. However, most of the most accomplished pilots used lots of opportunities to hand fly the aircraft, and can do a superior job of managing a turbulent or crosswind approach than the highly advanced autopilot.

I'm really disappointed that my original question ruffled feathers, and started rants that have no connection to rc flying. I merely wondered if the community at large felt similarly as my local club of older guys, that most prefer to use their skills rather than artificial help.

[xviper]

I'm an "older" retired guy and I love technology. The planes that have stabilizers on them, I appreciate them more with the gyros working. In fact, I just came back from the field with 3 such planes. 2 of them have been flown lots without gyros and are now with gyros. Tweaking them was immensely fun and very satisfying when it's all dialed in. Had a fairly stiff breeze this morning and the planes flew like on rails with the gyros turned on. I would not have them any other way now.
I don't see why I have to learn to fly them as some would consider that they should be flown. Been there, done that. It's no "badge of honor". Rather, it's a personal choice and some may even say it's just plain being grumpy and obstinate, typical of being an old coot if you outright reject what might be of help and enhance the experience. It's a matter of perspective and choice. Some see advancements as a crutch, while others see them as marvels. Fill your boots ............. or not.
You say you've been an airline pilot for 30 years. Your last airliners you flew were all computerized and possibly even "fly by wire", no? Isn't that taking the easy way out? I don't see them building such aircraft with cable controls just so the pilots can learn to fly better. As a passenger, I'd much prefer all the high tech stuff on a plane. If I ever saw a commercial passenger plane with cables linking the yolk to the control surfaces, I'll find another company.

[VOODOO]

I'm an "older" retired guy and I love technology. The planes that have stabilizers on them, I appreciate them more with the gyros working. In fact, I just came back from the field with 3 such planes. 2 of them have been flown lots without gyros and are now with gyros. Tweaking them was immensely fun and very satisfying when it's all dialed in. Had a fairly stiff breeze this morning and the planes flew like on rails with the gyros turned on. I would not have them any other way now.
I don't see why I have to learn to fly them as some would consider that they should be flown. Been there, done that. It's no "badge of honor". Rather, it's a personal choice and some may even say it's just plain being grumpy and obstinate, typical of being an old coot if you outright reject what might be of help and enhance the experience. It's a matter of perspective and choice. Some see advancements as a crutch, while others see them as marvels. Fill your boots ............. or not.
You say you've been an airline pilot for 30 years. Your last airliners you flew were all computerized and possibly even "fly by wire", no? Isn't that taking the easy way out? I don't see them building such aircraft with cable controls just so the pilots can learn to fly better. As a passenger, I'd much prefer all the high tech stuff on a plane. If I ever saw a commercial passenger plane with cables linking the yolk to the control surfaces, I'll find another company.

Please read the original post completely and you will see I hold no grudge against anyone who chooses to use help. In fact, it is a badge of honor to be able to fly "in the raw" as well as the other guy flying stabilized. I am not the one being grumpy, even though I am an old coot. Flying a B767 to a successful landing when the weather is "zero-Zero" and the runway only becomes visible as the nose is lowered to the runway automatically is in no way taking the easy way out. By the way, zero-zero means the cloud ceiling is on the ground and you can see less than 1/8th of a mile. That 1/8th of a mile is covered in less than 10 seconds. And lastly, all yolks usually are in the galley, we normally hold on to the YOKE. I am mystified why you have taken such an affront to a simple, non threatening question. One last thing, better not fly on any of those Canadian commuter planes, or you might become "cable tied"

[xviper]

This is my last post here and my last thought on the matter. I think you were right in that the term "cheat" got some folks riled up. I'm not taking an affront. It's just my "grumpy old man" way. Sometimes, as in this case, it's perceived as being confrontational, so I'll stop now while I'm still behind. I hope to be less so in our next conversation.

[doctormike]

What I really like about gyros is that I can fly in higher winds, which means I CAN FLY MORE!!! WHOOO HOOOO!! Doc

[JFandL]

Not much for fixed wing Gyro's myself,

John

[F106DeltaDart]

Really depends on the airplane. Most of my airplanes are flown without gyros, all except 2 in fact. In these cases, the planes just aren't fun to fly without a gyro. One of these planes is my LX F-35, and I consider a gyro to be "scale" in that anyways.