I can't understand how a foam wing with a simple RTL autopilot (not including GoPro) costs $1,250, but that's what Lehmann Aviation from France is now offering. What am I missing?
From Gizmag:
Like the Swinglet CAM UAV, the LA100 follows a pre-programmed flight path, but unlike the Swinglet, the LA100's flight path can't be customized or overridden by remote control. This is because the aircraft is targeted specifically at users with no piloting background. After a few minutes of capturing footage from a height of 80 to 100 meters (262 – 328 ft) with no input from the user on the ground, the hand-launched LA100 returns to the launch site for a horizontal landing.
With the ability to fly at speeds of 20 to 80 km/h (12 – 50 mph) for periods of up to five minutes, the LA100 has a range of up to 0.5 km (0.3 miles). It can also fly in winds of up to 45 km/h (28 mph) and in temperatures from -25° C to 60° C (-13° F to 140° F). The UAV has a wingspan of 92 cm (36 in) and length of 45 cm (18 in). Made mostly of foam and carbon fiber, the LA100 weighs around 850 g (30 oz), including a mounted GoPro camera.
A camera can be mounted on top of the wing to capture oblique images or at the bottom of the wing for vertical images. It can also fly with two GoPros on board at the same time. However, buyers will have to supply their GoPros as they aren't included in the purchase price.
The LA100 is priced at €990 (US$1,275) and will come ready to fly from December, 2012. Lehmann Aviation says it plans to roll out hardware and software upgrades for the LA100 on a regular basis.
The video below shows the LA100 and some of the aerial images captured with it.
LA100 UAV from Lehmann Aviation on Vimeo.
Comments
Once I bother to fly my Slinger, I'll add one of the new APM2.5's. It should go for at least $2000 since it's prettier. If only I could limit it to 1 way point, then I could charge $500 for each additional way point like DJI does (actually I don't know how much they charge, I'm just boggled by the utter absurdity of it all). Who used to say: There's a sucker born every minute?
Ramboky,
I'm bagging this product because they are making a very bold claim with no support for it, at least in the marketing materials that we see. It is either too expensive because it's disposable, or too cheap because it is a remarkable product that breaks open the mass market of foolproof aerial imaging for the layperson.
I have just expanded the definition of vaporware to also include hardware that makes a promise to bring a revolutionary new capability to market in a few weeks and then ...
Maybe you have had extraordinary luck with your bots and never had an anomalous event, but I have seen more than one of my birds have a terrible crash because of things like wind gusts, component failure, operator error etc. No injuries or explosions yet, however.
Helicopters don't behave like regular air traffic. The air ambulance in my town goes out at least every other day. They could be going anywhere, they don't notify me or ask my permission. The military does training flight around here at random times, they don't notify me or ask my permission. Search and Rescue was flying fixed wings and helos searching for a lost women yesterday, all low level atypical paths. Crop dusters randomly fly around here as well, they are always crazy low and fast. The killer is, that all these random hazards can take place in the most isolated and otherwise perfect flying areas! If one isn't keeping these kind of possibilities in your mission planning then one shouldn't be operating a flying robot : /
And I have to admit, I LOLed a little at the baby carriages and gasoline trucks comment. Lighten up a little. ;)
Ramboky, my comments aren't directed at Chris, but at everybody. I'm not trying to shame people, but sometimes I get the feeling there's a distinct lack of consideration for the work that goes into this stuff. The code isn't made my elves in Santa's workshop. There are real people devoting their lives to this, and everybody else benefits.
I'm not trying to shame anybody into anything, or declare a new international APM Developers Appreciation Holiday. I'm just pointing out that when people look at these other systems and declare them expensive, I think it's completely missing out on a really important point.
Er you are only allowed to fly UA in Europe if you are able to intervene and take control.
Ramboky, Of course my senses and experience as a pilot add an enormous level of safety to the mission! Is the wind changing, do I hear a helicopter approaching, do I see my UAV doing something that I did not intend it to? If some new information comes in, I can change modes and direct the craft accordingly.
You are misunderstanding the baby carriage comment entirely, as I stated above, that is an extreme worst case scenario, that would most likely never happen, but it is useful to consider worst case events to keep ones decision making professional and adult-like. I think it's funny to talk in extremes, sorry if you don't get it.
Vaporware in the sense that a person with no pilot experience would spend $1275 plus a couple of hundred dollars worth of camera, and then watch it all disappear in flames when it auto-lands onto a street full of gasoline tankers and baby carriages. People who have not gone through the trials of building and flying UAVs won't realize how hard it is to throw a robot up in the air and get it to do exactly what you want. We are coming into another great tech boom, much like the Internet boom of the nineties, only it's hardware this time. Just like the last one, there will be many great promises made and realities known.
Ramboky, The APM has fully autonomous flight with RC control a flip of the switch away. Whenever ever I switch into autonomous mode there is a bit of apprehension and awareness, this is a vital component to "piloting" a UAV. The baby carriage is the worst case scenario that I use to guide my mission planning. Sure it's an extreme "what if", but it's something I never want to happen when I'm pilot in command on the ground.
Lehmann says- "the aircraft is targeted specifically at users with no piloting background". To me that is a huge leap in the tech, and if it can do that safely then it probably needs to cost a lot more than $1275!
As for the the remark about landing on ones camera, I'm just poking fun at the lack of details on Lehmann's web page. lot's of claims while conveniently omitting any useful details, in my opinion. Smells like vaporware.
Every customer must sign a pledge to only use this above open fields away from any development! No RC control at all demands a very sophisticated sense and avoid capability, especially with autonomous only landings. Does this craft know which way the wind is blowing, can it see trees, power lines, and baby carriages?! As a bonus you can mount your camera on the bottom of the wing so you can autonomously land on it!
I guess the price is OK and very good for most of people except DIY community.
I didnt understand why people reacting like "it is expensive!!!"
Why? If you dont want to buy it, it is not for you. that's all.
This price is better than %99 of working systems. Ok, Ardupilot is 200$. But who paid only 200$ for flying since started to building something like that?. For me, I paid more than 2000$ to only batteries and ESCs since 10 years. And already I dont have the device something like that :)
It is very very good offer for plug and play guys.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next