Can This Be True.....Lets hope the DOTS dont connect.......

As a reporter in the industry you hear thing day in and day out but this one I found concerning.  As a hobbyist and reporter in the industry, I have found to like the direction of Chris Anderson and his views on what the DIY Drone is suppose to be and with elegant articulation and wonderful presentations he has built a company from nothing and added jobs in California not a few but hundreds.  This was why it was such a surprise this week when everyone was talking that Sir Richard Branson purchase interest in 3dRobotics.  To many this would be great but hold on not so fast.  No one is talking about the Purchase of a UAV company in Maine by close affiliates of Branson some 3 weeks ago.  You might be saying why does this matter well anyone that has been covering DRONES has been paying attention to VikingUAS which is based in Maine and to many is a sleeper company on the other side of the country.  These guys have been developing sUASs such as mulitrotors for US Special Forces since 2004 and developed high tech tactical solutions  for security firms around the world....these guys are covert to say the least they provided aircraft of which I flew in covert conservation operation in Africa.   The other Chris is also known as the "Prodigy" and compared to that of Burt Rutan for development of small tactical UAVs.  Many of you know Burt Rutan has a relationship with that of Sir Richard Branson so could there be a connection????????.  So what does this mean in the inner circle of aviation reporting what we are seeing is the demise of 3dR?  time will tell.  It was reported that VikingUAS developed multirotors for the National Association of Technical Investigators in San Diego a few months ago of which they outfitted with 3dRobotics flight controllers,  it is obvious they have insiders in 3dR. or a very friendly relationship...WHY.....well they had 3dR employees go over and work on aircraft for them at the convention with the likes of federal governments elite to name a few right under the nose of Mr. Anderson...... I hope.......  It was so crazy that my close friend and reporter on law enforcement deploying Drones sent me a photo via his iPhone of them working on a controller for VikingUAS at the symposium.   To make it even worse last month it was reported on the wire that VikingUAS had developed in advance of 3dR a android based flight system off of Andropilot of which has recently met initial FAA Compliance by the FAA and the worse thing is the individual that developed it for them was hired by 3dR .....can you say RED FLAG....Chris.....  So lets put the dots together.  Sir Richard Brandson buys VikingUAS "We Assume" and the "Prodigy" and his engineering team, the FAA Compliance, their Section 333 Air Worthiness exemption  that has been posted everywhere for both fixed and multirotor and now he buys a significant interest in 3dRobotics that makes electronics but doesn't have military and or have anything FAA Compliant?  I would say based on that the next article everyone will be reading it that the other Chris is now replacing the existing Chris and well all our pricing we have been able to enjoy will be gone.......this is only my thoughts and opinions and I hope for all of us it isn't true.........

This is what sucks about big business, how a guy can start something from the ground up and be taken out at the knees.  Sir Richard Branson is like Elon Musk they are billionaires and the sky and space to some would be the limit but it isn't for these guys they have the world and a bunch of little guys like 3dR don't have a chance its all about the dollar and nothing more.  I would send and e-mail to Mr. Anderson asking him not to sell out....on all us..........checking out......TheReporter

Views: 2700

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well...you asked...

Well, I'm struggling to see what part of this frame is "awesome", as I suspect many are here. While there is some innovation in your design - or particular your ethos - you have to remember most here have seen state of the art carbon frames, modular frames, foldable transportable frames, fully waterproof frames, *real* heavy lift frames. Many have even built a frame not a million miles from your design, often years ago.

I understand you're looking for advice on heavy lift design, but many here are commercial designers, and have learned the hard way what makes a good heavy lift frame. Some will be reluctant to divulge this information freely. I wouldn't be too offended by this.

Thanks for taking the time. 

Carbon breaks, aluminum bends back. Its great, more solid than the things you mentioned. Best airflow, no repairs, no wasting parts. My current quad is almost 2 meters wide, each arm is almost a meter itself.  It would be great to get a real discussion going (why has nobody commented on my actual post yet?) Ready for commercial collaboration!

There are no torque issues like I am sure caused others to give up on big.

It would be great to start or join a startup. I guess you commercials fear your jobs, which is the wrong sentiment. collaboration is the future don't miss out.

Chrisa,

Looked at your instructables. This would deserve a blog post instead of posting hidden inside this stupid post.

I liked your design, a nice diy project using APM.

Collaboration only works when both parties mutually benefit.

To an established frame builder, who may already has heavy lift frame experience, precision machining or even heavy lift frames on the market, what value are you adding?
Not trying to be negative - you genuinely need to answer that question truthfully before approaching others in commercial collaboration.

I just tried to make a new discussion about heavy lifting technology and tips, and it is waiting approval. I think my other post might have been deleted which is suspicious.

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/heavy-lifting-vtol-technology-f...

I think I provided a huge amount of value just in providing the design files. And theory including airflow, weigh, and vibration management. There are more things I did not mention for the specific reason that people like to take the idea, and give no credit, such as you telling me that it has no value, when obviously this is the strongest, lightest, frame on the site.

You don't think I would give it all away would you? Not trying to be negative, just need to find some good people..

Chris, sorry, but that frame design is a real non-starter.  You cannot use flat bar for arms.

And you cannot simply bend 6061-T6 back into shape reliably.  Once it's bent, throw it out. Unless the bend is very very mild.  And then if it was only bend that mildly, CF wouldn't have budged in the first place.

I'm actually a fan of aluminum frames.  But not like this.

There is a reason we don't use flat arms like this Chrisa, especially in heavy lift applications - horizontal torque transfer. Those anti-vibe mounts will make it even worse. I'm surprised you haven't had horrific horizontal oscillations already.

There is no torque transfer it goes around the outer edge because of the wire.

I am glad to get the scrutiny but not because of mistakes. I will put more emphasis on the balancing wire. Not sure what to call it. But it completely eliminates vibrations.

Can we move to my blog post please. It will be a great resource if the energy is focused there.

The key is you have taken the time to read my conspiracy theory....... I can tell you..... I am sure those that were intended to see this have seen it.  Like Makerbot my point was to let people know that it is just too bad that this shit can happen.  There will be those that will be happy and those that will not and those like Chrisa that should not be building multirotors and I hope that all of you can help advise him that his multirotor is shit ......thus the reason no one has responded.  With that, I am no builder and I admire anyone that tries so with that good job..... Chrisa keep working on perfecting your skills and maybe some day you will have something worth sharing to the group.  I like writing on forums because its late at night and I don't need to be formal because formal is boring and I have an audience like you right now reading this.  In my last post I wasted at least 15 minutes of your time with my Conspiracy Theory but you kept reading and reading and I know this because your responses we articulated in a method of which you had to think about it.   So understand this because it will happen with money comes authority before you know it your going to try to log onto this site and it wont be there this is just how it works....The Reporter

The key is you have taken the time to read my conspiracy theory....... I can tell you..... I am sure those that were intended to see this have seen it.  Like Makerbot my point was to let people know that it is just too bad that this shit can happen.  There will be those that will be happy and those that will not and those like Chrisa that should not be building multirotors and I hope that all of you can help advise him that his multirotor is shit ......thus the reason no one has responded.  With that, I am no builder and I admire anyone that tries so with that good job..... Chrisa keep working on perfecting your skills and maybe some day you will have something worth sharing to the group.  I like writing on forums because its late at night and I don't need to be formal because formal is boring and I have an audience like you right now reading this.  In my last post I wasted at least 15 minutes of your time with my Conspiracy Theory but you kept reading and reading and I know this because your responses we articulated in a method of which you had to think about it.   So understand this because it will happen with money comes authority before you know it your going to try to log onto this site and it wont be there this is just how it works....The Reporter

Marc- wow.

Chrisa- I see some genius in your design. The trick when choosing materials is making the best use of the unique properties inherent to the material.
Carbon fiber is best used in strips on the top of a wing because it has incredible tensile strength.
I totally get your idea re: the wire to stabilize the arms. I like using flat stock to eliminate some of the drag caused by pushing lift air past a thick boom.
So here's a couple of ideas in the spirit of not being an uAv-hole.
An "H" configuration using flat stock with carbon fiber rods to stabilize instead of wire.
Wire needs tension to get the job done, CF doesn't need to be preloaded....
Also, think about mounting the motors UNDER the booms and mount the props BELOW the arms.
No prop wash drag.
Also, you could use the CF for skids mounted on the outside booms, like heli skids. Keeping them out of the line of site of your cam.
And if your looking for a place to sling a payload, a light platform could be mounted between the skids.
Since no one here seems to be interested PM me and we can work on a napkin together as it may be a little difficult to visualize all this and I have no interested in being torn apart by the design nazis.
By the way, I've been flying my Nano QX "upside down" since the day I got it. Having the props below the booms works great. And it looks pretty awesome too. Kind of like a spider...
And the best part is, the booms don't split on hard landings.
Like the guys did who told me it was a stupid idea because it wasn't designed to fly like that....
Marc- wow x 2.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service