Hi the idea here is to come up with a new UAV specific airframe design for the DIY community. Seeing that the AP's are rapidly improving and are cost effective for DIY we have no Airframe to match. We need something with Ailerons to start with, its the only way to fly properly and prevent nasties. A Pod design may be the most flexible as they can be interchanged, also if positioned at the CG it will help to keep the airframe light and reduce CG problems with differing Pods/Payloads.We need some new standards for form factor for the AP and Payload to ease the pain of design and prevent the issues with adapting other designs. To start the ball rolling a few ideas below:UAV specific design, long term platformCost effective, not cheapAirframe with Rx, AP, BattPod for payload/AP (Interchangeable for different missions/payloads) with own powerPod design to form factor & Volume (maybe different Pod designs for same Airframe)New AP form factor (standardization) for mounting and space utilizationRequirements:Max PayloadMax weight to conform to legislation, also max speedDuration, batt size & motorAirframe weight (lower means more payload)SturdinessCGStabilityPod vibration isolationSensor vibration isolationSensor mounting points on airframe with wire pathways to ease installation & attachmentPod electrical connector or means to electrically connect to AirframePitot tube and/or AoA sensor build in, baro sensor positionWheeled or notLand and stall speedGimball for camera and other sensorsRgrdsSarel
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
I guess that Lockheed design goes faster to stay up, its probably a turboprop and is just a proof of concept released yesterday. It does look cool thats for sure.
Ok. So after much thought and research i've come to the conclusion that going the spad route may not be a bad idea. for the following reasons:
Quick build time
Super strong
Minimal bracing in the fuz(no obstructions)
Fairly light
Availability
Cost effective
Easy building technique
Easy to modify
Large wingspan, low weight but very strong and sturdy.
ect.
The designs i have been looking at weigh 1kg and can then still take a 500gram payload.
AVIstar, spadet .ect.
We will just need to come up with our own design for a pusher config if wanted.
I would suggest a twinboom or raven clone.
Exactly why a synopses was posted here. Also why the 2kg and 9kg limits for take off weight was set. In an earlier post I mentioned that we need to design the small Cat II bird first. Its the most relevant to what the community is doing here.
my 2 cents worth
< 2 kg
up to 10 k flight distance
2 km range (telemetry, etc)
electric engine
foam and carbon/fiberglass
rough design:
a foam based body with carbon or fiberglass boom to foam V tail
tail servos in body
body to include wing roots
carbon wing spar. no dihedral. possible wing fins.
servos in wing with wing as separate section.
all foam with smooth finish. spray finish
location of pilot parts pre determined and built into mould
Manufacturing
polyurethane expanding foam or polystyrene beads etc unless someone knows how to DIY EPP
2 part mould
Wings could be off the shelf or moulded also.
Sarel Wagner and Mark Shekleton are right about the need for modularity. Others contributing to this thread have hit very important features summarized as affordability, availability (is it too windy to fly?), capability, transportability, durability and repairability (nice if the average Joe Flyer can repair the dings on his kitchen table in the apartment) affecting the selection of materials and the configuration's design approach.
I am very new to DIY but considered a very high timer in the UAV industry. I have been professionally manufacturing R/C and UAV airframe products for 25 years. In that time, I have designed and manufactured nine different R/C models from Trainers to Pattern and Funfly (selling over 30,000 units) and twenty-three different customer driven UAV platforms, delivering over 200 production units (who said there is one, two, or three design(s) that meets everyone's diverse mission requirements?). Based on this experience, I have found that our modular P5, P10, and P20 airframes have more than ably filled the bill for universities and commercial clients for over two decades. They are very affordable (there is a P20 WASP on Ebay, search under "DIY Drone") and can carry meaningful payloads.
For what it is worth, I can commit some of our resources toward the desire for a modular airframe to support DIY's intent - affordability and expanding telepresence activity. For example, we could easily adapt or scale down from our existing product line RTF, ARF, Kit, and even Plan packages that would yield very capable and repairable airframes with superior handling qualities at affordable costs that will keep the family home economics sensible. We also have a very large windtunnel that could be used by members of the community should other platform development efforts be considered. You would be surprised how tethered flight tests in a windtunnel improves the development process. I would also be happy to help with a teleconference node should others in this string want to have a venue to discuss these various ideas and help "gel the concept." It's amazing how fast things can be accomplished when you talk live with each other with immediate feedback.
If anyone would like to discuss this great opportunity further, feel free to call me at 480.355.2435 or drop me an email at thorpe@seeop.com.
The payload module should be a standard enclosure size. What do you think about making the payload compartment the size of a Radio Shack plastic project box? The main advantage would be abundant/ inexpensive supply... easy for anyone to purchase and modify. I've been messing with a design that has a 1.5 meter wingspan. Foam wing are an excellent choice because they are light, strong, inexpensive, and replaceable.
I think a more important measurement than range is airborne time. Sending your drone 50km away doesn't make much sense and the radio equipment needed to do that is impractical for this budget. Most UAS missions are local- drones fly in circles or raster pattern. I would like to shoot for an airborne time of about 2 hours. This is not impossible with a very small nitro engine. It is, however, nearly impossible with electric motors due to the size and cost of the battery pack.
Replies
Rgrds
Sarel
Showing the downwash
RgrdsSarel
Have a look here http://www.spadtothebone.com/
I guess that Lockheed design goes faster to stay up, its probably a turboprop and is just a proof of concept released yesterday. It does look cool thats for sure.
What do you guys think, Rave/easystar copy wth the right mods?
Ok. So after much thought and research i've come to the conclusion that going the spad route may not be a bad idea. for the following reasons:
Quick build time
Super strong
Minimal bracing in the fuz(no obstructions)
Fairly light
Availability
Cost effective
Easy building technique
Easy to modify
Large wingspan, low weight but very strong and sturdy.
ect.
The designs i have been looking at weigh 1kg and can then still take a 500gram payload.
AVIstar, spadet .ect.
We will just need to come up with our own design for a pusher config if wanted.
I would suggest a twinboom or raven clone.
Exactly why a synopses was posted here. Also why the 2kg and 9kg limits for take off weight was set. In an earlier post I mentioned that we need to design the small Cat II bird first. Its the most relevant to what the community is doing here.
Rgrds
Sarel Wagner
< 2 kg
up to 10 k flight distance
2 km range (telemetry, etc)
electric engine
foam and carbon/fiberglass
rough design:
a foam based body with carbon or fiberglass boom to foam V tail
tail servos in body
body to include wing roots
carbon wing spar. no dihedral. possible wing fins.
servos in wing with wing as separate section.
all foam with smooth finish. spray finish
location of pilot parts pre determined and built into mould
Manufacturing
polyurethane expanding foam or polystyrene beads etc unless someone knows how to DIY EPP
2 part mould
Wings could be off the shelf or moulded also.
I am very new to DIY but considered a very high timer in the UAV industry. I have been professionally manufacturing R/C and UAV airframe products for 25 years. In that time, I have designed and manufactured nine different R/C models from Trainers to Pattern and Funfly (selling over 30,000 units) and twenty-three different customer driven UAV platforms, delivering over 200 production units (who said there is one, two, or three design(s) that meets everyone's diverse mission requirements?). Based on this experience, I have found that our modular P5, P10, and P20 airframes have more than ably filled the bill for universities and commercial clients for over two decades. They are very affordable (there is a P20 WASP on Ebay, search under "DIY Drone") and can carry meaningful payloads.
Like most things with 25 years of hard work on them, our website (www.seeop.com) is in for a major facelift and upgrade. The new site will be completed in a few more days. Until then, previous material can be viewed at http://web.archive.org/web/20071115140202/http://www.seeop.com/
For what it is worth, I can commit some of our resources toward the desire for a modular airframe to support DIY's intent - affordability and expanding telepresence activity. For example, we could easily adapt or scale down from our existing product line RTF, ARF, Kit, and even Plan packages that would yield very capable and repairable airframes with superior handling qualities at affordable costs that will keep the family home economics sensible. We also have a very large windtunnel that could be used by members of the community should other platform development efforts be considered. You would be surprised how tethered flight tests in a windtunnel improves the development process. I would also be happy to help with a teleconference node should others in this string want to have a venue to discuss these various ideas and help "gel the concept." It's amazing how fast things can be accomplished when you talk live with each other with immediate feedback.
If anyone would like to discuss this great opportunity further, feel free to call me at 480.355.2435 or drop me an email at thorpe@seeop.com.
Happy Landings,
Douglas
I think a more important measurement than range is airborne time. Sending your drone 50km away doesn't make much sense and the radio equipment needed to do that is impractical for this budget. Most UAS missions are local- drones fly in circles or raster pattern. I would like to shoot for an airborne time of about 2 hours. This is not impossible with a very small nitro engine. It is, however, nearly impossible with electric motors due to the size and cost of the battery pack.
-Mark
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next