AWuAV 3015E the Revolutionary Open Source drone

AWuAV 3015E the Revolutionary Open Source drone soon in a simulator game !

SPECIFICATIONS

Pixracer Autopilot

Ardupilot Arducopter 3.5

QgroundControl


WEIGHT

WL Weight (without Lipo) 900g

MTOW Maximum take-off weight 3900g

MWOL Maximum Payload+Lipo 2900g

Max Thrust 5600g

DIMENSIONS

30cm of diameter 25cm higth

MAX SPEED

50km/h Horizontal Flight

100 km/h Vertical Flight

TIME ON AIR

40mn (no payload)

25 mn (1 kg payload)

COMMUNICATION RANGE

1 km Wifi or Hf or ILLIMITED LTE 4G

MAX ALTITUDE

400 ft (122m) per FAA regulation

COMMUNICATION

Secure Wi-Fi network or LTE 3/4

RADIO FREQUENCY

2.4 Ghz And 5.8 Ghz

BATTERY

Lipo 6S3P 10.5AH 900g

BATTERY CHARGE TIME

~1.5 hours

Site : Awuav.world

Views: 1211

Comment by Mateusz Sadowski on August 14, 2017 at 12:14am

Assuming that you want to make it into a physical platform how do you compensate the torque from the single propeller?

Comment by tom hobart on August 14, 2017 at 10:51pm

By aerodynamic Torque Compensation thanks to a particular profile of the structure of the drone which is explained in the current patent.

Comment by The Sun on August 15, 2017 at 9:11am

Just FYI aerodynamic torque compensation has been around for a very long time (google "stator vanes").It is worth noting further that any static system can only compensate for torque at a single mass airflow rate, and that at all other points the system will produce yaw moments. (unless you are using a free wing system, though at that point you might as well have a more traditional monocopter control method)

Comment by Gary McCray on August 17, 2017 at 8:58pm

In order to get a monocopter to work at all you have to have 4 servo controlled vanes on the bottom (2 for a dual copter (counter rotating) in order to have any directional control and they still work like crap in any kind of windy or gusty situation, been there and gone 4 years ago.

Simply, what you are showing might work in a simulator but it will absolutely not work in any useful or satisfactory method as real hardware.

Cute simulation though, if only the real world actually worked like that - it doesn't.

Best Regards,

(I actually do know what I am talking about.)

Gary

Comment by The Sun on August 18, 2017 at 12:03pm

Actually Gary you only need three independently actuated vanes to control monocopters, of which I have built quite a few.

They work decently, in fact quite well, if you are moderately capable and can design properly in hardware and implement basic nonlinear controls. Not saying that these people nescissarily qualify...

Comment by Roman on August 28, 2017 at 12:24am

I do not understand how torque will be compensated
but why move the engine, if you can move the nozzle(casing) of the turbine?

not the gyroscope effect, less stress on the servo

Comment by Gary McCray on August 30, 2017 at 11:45am

Hi The Sun,
I can certainly see that you could make a monocopter with 3 vanes work, the ones I have seen use four because their actuation parallels that of a quadcopter.
Three independent vanes requires at least a somewhat uncommon control scheme and flying methodology.
I actually have some information on both single and Coax copters on my drones are fun website.
http://multicoptersarefun.com/MulticopterOverview.html#SingleCoaxCo...

While it is a bit dated, I have to say that from my experience they all suffer from considerable difficulty dealing with wind and gusts, because of their relatively large side profile and the fact that their control surfaces simply slightly redirect the downward air blast, the ones I have seen tend to get blown around like leaves in the wind.

Indoors or in no wind they maneuver adequately but slowly and it seems somewhat difficult to attain a forward angle of attack that permits relatively rapid forward travel.

Although their hovering performance in a windless area can be better than average, their maneuvering performance in comparison to either a multicopter or helicopter seems pretty dismal and not easily correctable.

Basically these have been reinvented and abandoned many times by now and I have seen no compelling reason that they have anything to offer that is better than the other solutions - including the one presented here.

Nice looking if not particularly realistic simulation though.

Best Regards,

Gary

Comment

You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

© 2017   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service