You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • 1000 views in less than 36 hours! Thank you DIYDrones!

  • Albert and others, we posted the video at the top of the blog. It is just a quick edit. The take off and landing is in fact, much slower and shorter. That footage is from the very first take off and landing, with no flaps. We have been focusing our time on testing and analysis, so we don't have much usable footage.

    We had a pixhawk mounted in the airframe with a digital airspeed sensor, and power monitor.The video only shows manual flight. Optimal airframe airspeed is approximately 18-21m/s (according to computer simulations). This flight was at approximately 5kg with just over 16a of 3s. With more weight, the airframe will cruise slightly faster (more in its optimal range).
  • Hello Hans,

    First off I want to say thanks for the support. We really appreciate first hand suggestions and ideas, after all, these airframes need to work for the end user!

    As far as the fuselage dimensions go, it is a rather difficult figure to provide due to its shape. However, the being said, there is up to 200mm side to side in the widest part of the fuselage, and plenty of space for more than an estimated 30 amps of 6s, near CG range. Regarding the strength of the fuselage, there should be no problem making cut outs to allow for multiple camera platforms or sensors. For the Pro model we plan on accommodating these without further modification.

    You are right, carbon fiber tow is used in many high stress areas, however it is utilized efficiently to ensure minimum RF interference, and maximum strength. (there should really be no more RF interference than there would be with any other use of carbon wing spars, etc.)

    Regarding radio equipment, we took this into account long ago. The airframe consists of two compartments (100mm, x 60mm, x 20mm) in the outer edge of the center wing. This allows for approximately 1 meter of space between the two compartments. However, this being said, it does not limit the end user on antenna placement, and antennas can easily be mounted in the outer wings, or wherever the end user finds suits him/her best. Sufficient cable routing will be provided for most autopilot, vtx, or telemetry units. (IE, plenty of space for larger wire bundles)

    Thanks again for the support! We will continue to keep our sights on providing useful, and mission oriented products in the near future!

  • Hi Justin,

    I'm one of those people that will probably wait for the "Pro" version, if it still your intention to produce one and end up buying a few if it works for me.

    Please allow me to ask some questions and/or make some suggestions from the viewpoint of someone who has built a few work-oriented UAVs based on COTS airframes and is acutely aware of some of the issues of converting them into working machines.

    What are the inner dimensions of the fuselage?

    How are the stresses routed through the fuselage? (Will making opening/s in the bottom of the fuselage be a problem?)

    Am I right in thinking carbon fiber is used in the construction of your aircraft? If so, How is RF transparency dealt with? May I humbly suggest that you pay extra attention to this detail as users may want to mount approximately 3 receivers and two transmitters on the aircraft. If you are still considering retractable gear for the Pro version, one way of dealing with this would be to make the fairings for the main gears out of GRP and provide sufficient space in the overwing part of the fairing for a gps/RC receiver respectively.

    And lastly, how is the cable routing in the wings dealt with? Would it be possible to provide for expansion in this area? People will want to separate RF equipment as much as possible, so routing extra cabling through the wings seems like a foregone conclusion.

    Lastly, thank you for making an impressive effort to contribute to our hobby and industry, your creativity and professional attitude are very much appreciated.


    P.S. Martin Dynamics had a much nicer ring to it, but I guess your investors must have say too.

  • Guy, thank you very much for the suggestions.

    So far we have tested landing on rough desert terrain, with rocks approximately .5"-1.25" and small weeds/bushes approximately 3" in volume. Thus far they have held up and spring right back into place. Currently the aircraft is equipped with 80mm+ wheels, which seem to tackle fairly rough terrain fairly well.

    As mentioned, we are still testing the prototypes, and we are putting them through their paces. We plan on testing as many scenarios as possible in our effort to produce a complete product.

  • Well done Justin !
    Looks good.
    Could you post a video for us please ?
  • I'm ready to buy now! :-)

  • Thanks for all the Support guys!

    For more information, please refer the the original blog post. It contains many calculated estimates and predictions:

    We are extremely happy with the flight and performance characteristics. We are currently testing and optimizing different power systems. This being said, we are not yet ready to release any definitive results.

    Regarding landing gear, this is just a prototype. We did originally look at carbon landing gear, however to do so, it requires adding more weight in reinforcement, with little added benefit. The current steel sprung landing gear utilize pre-existing reinforced structure.

  • Shut up and take my money!

  • wow, what is the flight time of this aircraft? :)

This reply was deleted.