This week the Raptor 140 completed a 30km (18.6mi) fully autonomous flight! It only used 58% of it's 8.8Ah batteries, giving it a potential ability to cover 51.2km (31.8mi) on a single charge, the whole time flying at 75kph (47mph) for 40+ minutes! Impressive...
Some additional metrics to consider: is average amp draw was 12.8amps, or 21% of the 60amp esc, also it had a 5.8km/Ah (3.6mi/Ah) efficiency, meaning that if I added an additional amp hour of battery life, it could cover an additional 5.8km or 3.6mi. The original Raptor did an average of 5.5km/Ah.
Next week I'll start pushing the speed limit, seeing how fast and far the 140 can go. My end goal is to be able to cruise at 100kph (62mph) and still have a reasonable efficiency.
Also, I've been asked by dozens of people if I'd make a 140 for them, so I will! Starting in November I'll start selling Raptor 140 kits on my website: MyGeekShow.com. I plan on shipping worldwide and will have kits available starting at $89.99.
See you next week!
-Trent
Raptor 140 Stats:
Weight: 1653g
Max Flight Time: 60min
Max Range: 50km
Stall Speed: 25kph
Cruise Speed: 75kph
Max Speed: 127kph
Radio Range: 1.5km
The equipment on it:
Autopilot: APM2.6 https://store.3drobotics.com/products/apm-2-6-kit-1
FPV/Onboard Camera: http://www.foxtechfpv.com/horyzonhd-full-hd-1080p-fpv-camera-v3-p-877.html
Radio Tx: ParkeFlyer Turnigy 9x Tx: http://parkeflyer.com/
Reciever: 6ch FlySky http://www.hobbypartz.com/79p-r6b-receiver.html
Telemtry: 915mhz 100mW 3DR http://store.3drobotics.com/products/3dr-radio-telemetry-kit-915-mhz
Battery: 4.4Ah 30C Sky Lipo: http://www.hobbypartz.com/77p-sl4400-3s1p-30c-3333.html
ESC: 60A Brushless http://www.hobbypartz.com/proton60aair.html
Motor: 3542 1450kv brushless http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=38700
Prop: 10x6 Carbon Fiber Folding http://www.hobby-lobby.com/10x6_carbon_fiber_cam_blade_797_prd1.htm
Servos: 11g digital http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=42620
UBEC (for FPV camera): 3A http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=4319
Learn More:
Raptor Details: http://www.mygeekshow.com/theairplanes/Raptor.html
USA Trip Details: http://www.mygeekshow.com/usatrip/
Follow the Show:
Website: http://www.mygeekshow.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/MyGeekShow
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mygeekshow
Google+:http://plus.google.com/116950154481685699344
Skype: MyGeekShow
UStream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/mygeekshow
Filmed, Edited, Produced and Published by Trent in Arkansas, USA
Comments
Thank you for the response Trent. You have a misunderstanding of the guidelines, please read AC 91-57 Issued June 9th, 1981 - point 3c, which clearly states RC aircraft should never be flown over 400' AGL. If you are within 3 miles of an airport you need to contact the airport operator or if they have a tower, the tower, or flight service station. Bottom line you should never be over 400' AGL and personally if I were you, I would consider taking the video down. If you want to discuss this in more detail please send me an e-mail.
good work.
I am confused. you say the flight was 30 km @ 75 km/h but was 40+ minutes. @75km/h it should be around 24 minutes?
from 75km/h to 100km/h there should not be any significant change of the drag coefficient ( at "high speed" induced drag has a low impact on the total drag and @ 75km/h the reynolds number is already in the 300K range so the drag coefficient reduction of the airfoil will be minimum ). so to have a rough idea we can consider that neither the drag coefficient nor the prolusion efficiency will change significantly. in that case power consumed changes with the 3rd power of the speed change. here (100/75)^3 is around 2.4. so if your amp draw is 12.8A @ 75km/h you should see an amp draw of around 30A at 100km/h
from your numbers it seems that the overall efficiency is very low: an equivalent overall drag coeficient ( including propulsion efficiency ) of around 0.09 which seems very high. it is likely that the main area of optimization is the propulsion. a propeller with a larger diameter at lower rpm is usually a good first step
Mark: Thank you for your comment. I too strongly believe safety is a priority, and am happy to see there are others out there as passionate about it as I am. A few things:
RD: Thank you! It is a little different, I'm still deciding on whether or not I like it. Glad you do!
Vegas: Yes, 900mhz 3DR radios were used for the telemetry.
Trent, your video work has improved quite a bit and congratulations with your results. I need to point out a few safety issues though. You were flying at 180m (590') and with the heavy fog you had no visual eyes on the aircraft or even worse the airspace that you're operating in. As you know you need to stay below 400', maintain line-of-sight, and clearly watch/listen to your airspace or your intention of doing good, could potentially be detrimental to our hobby.
Your video is all the evidence the FAA would need to shut you and the rest of us down. In your next video please talk about safety and show everyone the right way to do this.
great!!!!!! u did it with 3dr radios???
Great post and video Trent. Your editing has significantly improved and the pacing of the information is great.
-=Doug
Thank you for your support Adam! I think the biggest accomplishment is this community, it had endlessly supported me throughout my many, many mistakes : )
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next