Hello people, this is POLLUX my first BIG uav airframe, (it has a twin named CASTOR)...
Wingspan 4.2 meters.
Lengnt: 3 meters
TOW: 55 kg aprox
Engine 100cc twin cilinder.
what do you think??????
Going to be ready really soon (i hope)
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
Nice work, Diego,.
What material and what dimensions(diameter) are of this two booms?
With APM be very carefull. Last week i lost the airframe even if there was installed APM - i guess the Rx failure, because i had set the fail-safe but after switching of the radioTx the fail-safe didn't start ;o(. I switched on the radio and set the mode to RTL - didn't help. So from this i conclude the Rx went frozen (btw it was Futaba R319DPS).
Thus the airframe flew away (throttle last at 100%).
From this you can see even if the APM would work 100% safe other items can fail.
Looks great
What engines and props are you using?
Krzysztof, i would really like to add people to my team, but, it seems that i am alone in my country, it means that no one in this comunity is close to me... is there some one interested in comming to help? you will like VENEZUELA!!!
Frederic, i sent you a PM...
I am taking things to a level far away from what it´s done in this comunity, the difference between my airframes and foam planes are really big, i am testing hardware with this airframe:
I installed APM and began tuning with APM planner, everything worked awesome, only one thing we didn´t acomplish, it was the failsafe when we turn off the transmitter, when we had the ardupilot (legacy) installed, we just turned off the Tx, the Rx went into failsafe mode changing channel 5 (control) into RTL.
We tried to do the same with APM and it sayd RTL mode on the planner screen, but the airframe only went into a deep dive to the ground (testing made a few mistakes high )
Can someone tell me how to make a simple failsafe setup with APM, i want is to activate RTL when radio link is lost....
<</body>
the problem with the diameter of the booms is potential flutter. a quick calculation shows that your max speed should be around 180Km/h ( at CL around 0.2 ). at that speed with the tail in the direct wind of the propeller and a physical link through something thin and rigid you are likely to have a lot of vibrations in the tail.
@diego, I think you really need either: get somebody that is a 'notorious contributor' to APM and get him in the team and adjust the code to the project and find your time to integrate APM with similarly shaped platforms.
You have at least 3 dimensions to explore:
-mission specific, telemetry, long distance operational experience (test on easystar your own version of APM for special code)
-weight-specific plus landing and safety procedures (learn the pilot fly overheavy and fast plane with APM, with landing gear, might be the airframe itself in RC mode, assume easily 50% chances you will crash the original one)
-airframe layout and propulsion specific (tests on smaller twin boom with small gas engine, fuel monitoring, mission planing)
having experience with those 3 dimensions you could merge your experience into this project.
There is old WW2 rule, you don't invent a figter airframe and engine in the same project or you will fail.
Here it translates to 3, not 2 parallel projects.
A simple assumption that this plane is just not for your overgrown ego, 55kg TOW means huge payload and huge payload tends to mean extraordinary complexity (or else you need just endurance for what easyglider is enough) hence the need for custom or very versatile autopilot, even then some changes woudl be necessary. For me it looks like a 4-10 person project.
And the last thing is that you dont make what is already done.
Penguin UAV is from Latvia (smaller, but I believe better tested) what means they are not US nor USSR nor China. This may be helpful (for different reasons) if you plan to sell the result. Also whatever you do, Penguin will be less expensive since it is smaller: if you are just doing serious national research or anything, if you find that Penguin is enough in payload just get it as it is not to make it much cheaper if you want reasonnable chance to get the quality to last in each flight for hours. (BTW I am not connected to them in any way).
diego
you say your TOW is around 55Kg. what part of that is the payload? what part of that is gas?
Krzysztof, i would really apretiate any suggestions on the overall testing that you are mentioning, any guide? any step by step planned tests?
The airframe is made of fiberglass, the tail booms are made in aluminium and covered in fiberglass.
Main landing gear is made in carbon fiber.
Krzysztof isn't trying to scare anyone - I agree that it is fine as long as you have a reliable backup (like manual mode) and don't fly to close to populated areas, but at the same time, the level of detailed testing and verification that commercial fly-by-wire software and hardware systems would undergo to be determine a certain level of reliability is way beyond the APM. For example, those systems aren't flown without understanding the probability of failure of every component, and how that contributes to the failure rate of the entire board, and testing every possible software state after any updates are made. It's not so much a question of what APM is capable of (it certainly can control any aircraft when operating normally), but knowing under what conditions it can fail and how likely that is.
Diego
Those tail booms look quite thin. Do give them a good ground test at all power settings just incase you get a resonance !!! Don't forget to check for flutter in the air. Otherwise it looks great.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next