This is a forum to discuss the creation of a community-designed UAV airframe that can be put into production. Once the basic scope and core participants of the projects have been decided on, we can move the project to a Huddle workspace for the actual design, planning and collaboration.
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
I think that before we all start throwing ideas, we need to figure out what we are working towards. No one plane is perfect for everyone, but I'm sure we can split the basic community needs into two or three categories of plane (i.e. small, medium, large) or something along those lines. We should probably first be discussing what we need from the plane, before we discuss what designs can fulfill those needs.
I'm going to put my two cents in for foam and against CF. Carbon fiber has its uses, but too often I see airframes covered in it, and the users wondering why they can't get any range out of their radios. I think its important too that the design be buildable from plans, even if a production run is ultimately done. Chris, I'd like to be in the dev team.
I would be very tempted to push upto 7kg Sarel that seems to be the first step point. There are plenty of platforms below 3kg that you could use off the shelf. I would also ignore the USA rules as they are not going to have anything sensible in place soon. Chances are they will follow whatever the rest of the world has done.
Where did you get the GCS above 400' requirement from, thats a new one on me. I had heard about the multiple GCS for BLOS in RSA from the CAA as I say forget the FAA and USA they need COA. I just can't think of any more.......
I tent to lean towards a single boom setup however it does not really make much difference. The key thing to start with is to choose a base electronics package based upon the mission requirement, ie choose battery class, engine class, esc that would best match mission profile.
I think the biggest problem with this is that we all want an aircraft that has everything for everyone which is not possible. We should perhaps lay out a few different key design specification options and put them on a poll. For an example we should post a poll asking different questions such as single/twin boom, high wing/low wing, pusher/puller , foam/balsa/composite. I think it will also be important to list the pro's and con's of each design choice so we have a fair vote. After this we will all have a focused design specification that will not be final as we might go along and find that one of the key choices will change, but it a good way to start in my opinion, otherwise we might have a year long discussion with nothing ever getting done.
I think the boom is attached with a twist-lock that is spring loaded. The block is the battery.
Regarding deep stall and the wing coming off. If the wing were to need to slide into the mount from the front then wouldn't it require forward inertia to be able to come off. The forward motion of the deep stall would keep the wing seated. I think that a good rare earth magnet would keep it secure.
I think that size and type/configuration mainly depends on type of mission. the first step must be defining mission type and we should be precise and clear on choosing one.
Replies
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/assets_c/2009/0...
High wing
pusher motor
single tail boom
optional undercarriage
massive room inside for payload
Where did you get the GCS above 400' requirement from, thats a new one on me. I had heard about the multiple GCS for BLOS in RSA from the CAA as I say forget the FAA and USA they need COA. I just can't think of any more.......
I think the biggest problem with this is that we all want an aircraft that has everything for everyone which is not possible. We should perhaps lay out a few different key design specification options and put them on a poll. For an example we should post a poll asking different questions such as single/twin boom, high wing/low wing, pusher/puller , foam/balsa/composite. I think it will also be important to list the pro's and con's of each design choice so we have a fair vote. After this we will all have a focused design specification that will not be final as we might go along and find that one of the key choices will change, but it a good way to start in my opinion, otherwise we might have a year long discussion with nothing ever getting done.
I can volunteer to do this over the week?
Regarding deep stall and the wing coming off. If the wing were to need to slide into the mount from the front then wouldn't it require forward inertia to be able to come off. The forward motion of the deep stall would keep the wing seated. I think that a good rare earth magnet would keep it secure.
I think that size and type/configuration mainly depends on type of mission. the first step must be defining mission type and we should be precise and clear on choosing one.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next