3689572542?profile=original

I've been working on a new helicopter platform the last few months. Based on an MSH Protos heli which I chose because it's an extremely light weight platform, weighing in at only ~1200g without battery. It has a full belt drive which I much prefer to gears as it's quieter, lower vibration and more reliable. I've had a few problems with it because the belt drive makes a really awesome Van deGraaf generator... not a good thing on a UAV. But I solved that, and am conducting test flights now.


The flight controller is a modified PX4v1. I replaced the switching regulator with a MIC29300, so that I can run it on 2S direct with the servos. Main motor power is 4S 5000, typically this heli would run on 6S 3300. Using the MSH stretch kit and 465mm Spinblade Asymmetric blades. In otherwise standard form, this heli flew for 17 minutes on an old crusty battery, in -10C temperatures.

I have now added a subframe to hold an extra battery, FPV gear with a camera in the nose, and a vibration damped NADIR camera mount to be used for aerial mapping. The idea is to develop a mapping UAV that is superior to a multirotor, offering a valid alternative to a fixed wing for short to medium range missions. The VTOL capabilities would eliminate all the nastiness of catapults, and controlled-crash landings with onboard cameras in rugged areas.  Even the price is attractive at about $400 for the basic kit with motor and ESC (no servos).

Specifications show the advantage of a heli platform. This machine has an AUW including the batteries and camera of only ~3kg. It is 80m long, and about 15cm wide not including the extended legs, and 30cm high. The blades fold for easy transport, without requiring any lose wires or vibration-prone electrical connectors as a folding multirotor does. It actually looks much bigger on the table than it really is. This seems to be very good compared to multirotors I've seen with the same performance. (payload and duration)

Vibrations are always a problem with helis, but manageable with the right design and construction techniques.

3689572574?profile=original

Arducopter really makes helis worthwhile. You could buy two entire heli systems including a Tx for the price of a single DJI Ace One non-waypoint controller.  Or 7 for the cost of a single Ace One waypoint enabled controller.  I strongly prefer the PX4 controller over the APM and Pixhawk, because it offers 32-bit performance in a small package that is easier to mount in a heli frame.

So does it work? I took it up for it's first photo tests yesterday, and it worked beautifully. Better than 80% photos are usable. It flies for 20 minutes in a hover with old, cold batteries (-5C). I'm hoping for closer to 30 minutes while actually moving (helis are more efficient moving than hovering), in warmer weather with new batteries.  It should have an easy cruising speed of 15 m/s with little or no reduction in flight time.  At 20 minutes, this would offer an 18km range, and 27 if it can do 30 minutes.  If you wanted to do FPV and not mapping, you could configure it with a 3rd battery in place of the SX260 and fly for... 30-45 minutes, and a range of up to 36km.  Top airspeed is still TBD, but probably 20-25 m/s.  

Wind penetration and stability is excellent compared to both multirotors and fixed-wing.  You could do a mapping mission in winds up to 40 km/h with little effect on stability or duration.

3689572438?profile=original

If the success continues, I'm going to consider building a large gasser heli.  This would allow flight times up to 2 hours, or payloads on the order of 10 lbs for 30 minutes.  So you could map large areas, or even perform light duty spraying operations.  I'm thinking about local application of a herbicide for things like Giant Hogweed elimination, that sort of thing. Such a large heli does pose significant danger and should only be used in industrial, agricultural or remote areas.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Gokay,  You may want to post this on the Arducopter support forum under the firmware version you are using. Be prepared to post your parameter list. Usually plane mode is the way to go IMO.

    Regards

    David Boulanger

  • Hello,

    I have a Trex 550 Clone and APM 2.5 with Radio Turnigy 9X with er9x Firmware.

    I have tried to use APM on my helicopter. But i'm still not success. 

    If I use my radio in Plane mode. Swashplate and tail servos works well in stablize mode but change to other any mode swashplate changes to a negative pitch and locked, don't move, and do not stablization.I can't control swashplate.

    If I try to use my radio on Helicopter mode. I can't control anything and system does not stabilize swashplate.
    I'm doing something wrong? Which is correct radio mode to use? Helicopter or Plane?

    Anyone uses with ER9X ? I need your help. 

    Thank you 

    Gokay.

     

  • Jim:  Yes, the plan for auto-rotation would be to use a rotor speed sensor, and set a descent rate that would achieve a target rotor speed.  Then flare as we approach the ground.  How can we be sure where the ground is?  Well, that's a great question.  Sonar has been used in the past but is difficult to get it right.  

    At the end of the day, even skipping the flair, and having nothing more than a controlled crash would be a major improvement over the blade-stop fall that the autopilot will give us now!

    One day we'll get to the point of having really fantastic auto-rotation with airspeed and a beautiful flare, but might be a while, as long as this project remains a part-time endeavor. ;)

  • Mike, I'm not sure I understand the question?  Arducopter does run on Pixhawk.

    Doug:  I didn't mean to take anything away from the builder.  I just don't like it at all, except for very limited use-cases.  I've actually been looking at building a mini UAV heli intended to push the limits of speed... OK, I'd like to be able to do 40 m/s autonomously for the AVC   :D  Anyway, based on the ALZRC Devil 480 Fast.  It is DFC, but given the intended flight profile, maybe it would be better to have a full rigid head.

    Manufacturing custom rotor blades should not be taken lightly. ;)

  • Yaw control in all flight modes has been an issue with coaxials. The rotodyne model used "flappers" at the tips to induce drag and was effective. The Kamov series uses a sliding cam internal to the mast and increases/decreases pitch on one or the other rotor (to induce drag). There is "null" in this system though, hence the large and numerous vertical tails.  Loved the autorotation clip. I hope the developers know that it's not just a matter of dropping the pitch, and that an airspeed and wind direction indicator would be most beneficial. Not even birds land downwind.

  • Oh...tandem rotor?  Saw several of those from the 70's also while going through the archives.

    The same column regarding the electric heli (above) also had a 'training/trimming stand' almost identical to the unit I have linked to by Night Flyer Dave -as seen on YouTube.

    Completely new ideas are rare. Relativity was one of them.

    -=Doug

  • To be fair to the co-ax builder, he did state that most of the parts were for another project that was cancelled. He had them available and thought..'Why not?'.

    The ease of flying a coax heli, I think, would seem make a larger, 'industrial'  version a good next step. Out of the box, the Blade coax birds unit fly well. The issue, as with all small helis - CP included, is plastic components. The tolerances are just shy of criminal and they wear out quickly. Those are two parameters that make the material unsuitable for anything other than a learning tool/toy.

    Coax helis have been around military use for decades. I have been reviewing most of collection of old model magazines and found, from 1976, mention of an early electric heli, traditional rotor. The builder used a tail rotor motor because driving it with the main Astro Flight motor (of the day) robbed too much power from the head rotor and prevented lift off. This was in Model Builder magazine.

    As they are now out of print, I think I may scan the article and either post sections here or a link to it on one of my sites.

    Lack of parts - opposite rotation blades? All we need to do is make them!

    -=Doug

  • Question about autonomous operation of a helicopter:  I don't really see a mode for PixHawk, etc. to control a chopper, how do you plan to do this?  Thanks

  • That's kind of interesting but... DFC heads... blech!  Anybody building something with a DFC head is instant fail IMO.

    It would make a really neat looking UAV to have a coaxial with just a round body and no tail at all.  Probably much easier to use 3-blade heads because you could simply pass the cyclic control up with extra links to the bottom of a swash plate.  But again, the lack of availability of opposite rotation asym blades COTS really kills the idea. And even if you could get this, a tandem rotor heli would be more efficient.  Though I guess the frame would weight quite a lot more wouldn't it?  Hmm....

  • Speaking of coaxials... did anyone notice this build?

    RCGroups Coaxial Build

    -=Doug

This reply was deleted.