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!
Next on my list of needs is hotel power for the 500g payload. I'm planning an Axis 207MW wifi camera, with a Sherrine bidirectional amp for the camera datalink. That's about 1300 mA at 5 V for 45 minutes, or 4875 mAh of hotel power.
Gary, I think these threads bog down when we get to the "mission issue". There doesn't seem to be much consensus about what the mission spec (especially payload and endurance) should be. Some folks don't understand yet how the mission spec might affect the design. People aren't on the same page for what we should be talking about, and the conversation breaks down.
Maybe this needs to split into two threads -- one on requirements & design, and another on requirements for a consensus design (or designs).
So it seems that this entire system should be able to be modular and maybe even scalable with the ability to handle as many different tasks as possible. (I know that sounds elementary)
Some ideas I had are simple things like:
-having the wings have a main section and a tip section so that it is modular/stack-able. You could add or take away sections to account for different loads. I have done this before and the option is very useful.
-The Engine can be user selected to the job at hand.
-The electronics should be as far aft as possible to be able to survive mishaps.
-Should be Tractor design (for simplicity only)
-Fuel or Batt should be interchangeable in a set module.
-Payload bay should be a simple stack-able design to be able to handle more than one task on each flight and of course be modular and interchangeable.
Most of what I am saying has been said already but just wanted to add to the many great ideas out there.
Thats good Idea Gary, inviting some one from Multiplex or similar ( is there any one else who is more popular) into podcast :) , may b Chris can convince them to may be easystar 2X ( size) which will have UAV friendly cavities ad space inside so that we don't have dig it out.
Liabilities!! never thought of it that way.
May be some oem camera manufacturers too who will be interested to join hands
Well, I don't have many skills to bring to the table when it comes to airplane design, but I'd love to be a part of this collaboration. If you have any boring/repetitive/easy jobs that nobody wants, count me in! :P
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.
Replies
Maybe this needs to split into two threads -- one on requirements & design, and another on requirements for a consensus design (or designs).
Some ideas I had are simple things like:
-having the wings have a main section and a tip section so that it is modular/stack-able. You could add or take away sections to account for different loads. I have done this before and the option is very useful.
-The Engine can be user selected to the job at hand.
-The electronics should be as far aft as possible to be able to survive mishaps.
-Should be Tractor design (for simplicity only)
-Fuel or Batt should be interchangeable in a set module.
-Payload bay should be a simple stack-able design to be able to handle more than one task on each flight and of course be modular and interchangeable.
Most of what I am saying has been said already but just wanted to add to the many great ideas out there.
Jason in Hawaii
Liabilities!! never thought of it that way.
May be some oem camera manufacturers too who will be interested to join hands
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?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next