AutoPilot Glider(no motor) Released at 5000 Feet 2 miles from landing location...

AutoPilot Glider(no motor) Released at 5000 Feet 2 miles from landing location...

How would you setup the glider to land at this location such that it maximizes it's glide slope?

This is the glider that is planned to be used

http://www.carlgoldbergproducts.com/airplanes/gpma1959.html

Views: 548

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi,

With that floater and the 2 to 1 glide ratio, I'd say that the APM will fly slow and straight to the destination. A not so windy day will help.

Do you need to tell the APM there is no motor?

I have also wondered this. How the APM would react if its not getting to were it needs to be. But by controlling the decent rate of the airplane and controlling the airspeed. I wonder what would actually happen. I have a airplane that is chomping at the bit to try this. I just have a bad feeling about what would happen. I don't mind crashing a couple planes, but I would like to keep my electronics.

The real goal is to drop the glider from 100,000 feet from a range of almost 100 miles to return to launch site.

The reason for this is to test it in a vacuum and confirm it can mange the low pressure and strong wind sheers. 

There are several pretty good discussions on the v2.67 thread that are relevant.  One part discusses airspeed control and that the code isn't really flexible enough now to handle gliders.  My observation here is that there's a flag in defines.h that covers what attitude.pde does for pitch control, but instead of fully testing this I just changed attitude.pde to ONLY do airspeed control and set gains accordingly.  I've progressed past my current UAV testing to set gains for my next flight.  In other words, I think it's hard wired right now not to do airspeed control. But, look at the code and the 2.67 release thread on the forum.  The other big elephant is also discussed in the 2.67 thread related to temperature compensation for the accelerometers.  Personally I don't see several degrees of misalignment as an issue since we're closed loop, but I'm more worried about temperature compensation for the gyros and/or how the DCM aiding reacts to observed drift rates of 30 deg/sec.  I saw drift rates grow to 30 degrees/sec in freezer testing, but luckily attitudes were still good.  Who knows what happens when dynamics are introduced.   I have also noted that current methods in AP_aprs.dcm are simplified.  Not to get into too much detail here, but there may be issues if the plane is suspended from the tail.  Don't quite know yet.  What I do know is that there is an assumption that the body attitude is co-incident with the velocity vector for GPS aiding; and, this is done when the ground speed goes over a fairly small threshold.  In a HAB flight velocity vector and body attitude are not aligned while under the balloon.  This part is fairly easily fixed in SW.  My current code only uses GPS aiding (in AP_APRS.cpp) after the drop occurs. 

I have information and post flight root cause and corrective action + flight data posted on my blog for NTNS-2.   My progress to NTNS-3 is going fairly well and I'm doing HIL with Flight Gear to verify recent changes.   Almost forgot.  If you're using the UBLOX LEA-6 GPS v2.67 has a bug that "sometimes" initializes such that HAB altitudes are not supported.  Best to wait until this is fixed before attempting a flight.

Regards,

Larry G

Hey Larry,

Want to just send up a unit we can track on a test bed and see what it does via the log?  We don't have to have a plane to test the electronics I'll add my GPS tracker and we will know where it lands and recover it and see how it behaves.  

No risk of destroying anything be we can learn what works and what does not.  Maybe on a test with a plane we should add a drogue chute, so it can't crash?

Hi Larry and Darren,

Any updates on deploying APM 2.5 in motor-less gliders?

Regards

Vik

RSS

© 2014   Created by Chris Anderson.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service