Variable-pitch props allow for amazing 3D performance with fixed-wing aircraft, as this video demonstrates. But they also require real skill to fly. How hard would it be to use APM to automate these sort of acrobatics? Or even just do VTOL takeoff and landings?
Hallo Jonathan, thanks for the info. It's such a cool project! Did you run into a lot of issues with the center of gravity? Having both planes and a quadcopter, I understand that they can have very different requirements.
Hi Adam! Mir geht's gut, danke!
The first version of our Wingcopter used the APM 1.0 with the old ardupiratesNG code. Now it is using the APM2.5 with the arducopter code 2.9.1b. Concerning the code, we made the motor outputs dependent on the tilt angle. The pilot simply sets the angle by using a rotary knob, the code does the rest.
A modular Wingcopter is a good idea, maybe with movable wings like a corsair so it can change the wingspan during flight... it would be very cool, yes :)
I think one APM setup for every mode would be comfortable, but that would be a challenge to pragramm of course.
Hallo Jonathan! Wie geht's?
I'm a big fan of your work and I was wondering if you might be able to share more information about how you implemented VTOL using APM 2.5 with the Wingcopter. I am curious to hear more about your implementation of ardupiratesNG and how you found or built a tilt-rotor mechanism. I am also curious to hear if the tilt-rotor mechanism actuation is from a switch or if the rotor angle is velocity-dependent?
Also, I was thinking that a modular system with removable wings and stabilizers would be really cool, as you could convert the Wingcopter into a quadcopter for flying in confined areas. Snap on a few bits and perhaps position the battery to an alternate location for CoG, and you have a VTOL plane. I imagine you'd have to have two separate APM setups, changed with a switch (quad and VTOL mode). Anyway, I'd love to hear anything you are comfortable sharing and thank you for replying.
Sebastian, those ESCs look really great. I think there are obvious implications for maneuverability. Outside of that though, I'm not sure what the practical application is...?
I very much agree with Gary's sentiments. Fixed-wing is simply more efficient for flight times or covering a distance. Plus, if you need to maintain a consistent attitude for say, imaging, VTOL is a much more practical method. There's only so much compensation to be had with a gimbal. I think the most interesting thing about the Wingcopter is the mechanism that provides thrust vectoring. I wonder where they found it or if they built it form scratch? Jonathan, if you're out there, feel free to say hello :)
Hey Sebastian, I think You've definitely got it.
A good reversing ESC that could actually cut it was always the best answer, it's just that until now all of them have required way too long to go from Max CW to Max CCW.
Clearly that problem is solved, these seem like they would work great on light foamy fixed wing 3D planes too.
What do they cost, where can you buy them and how long till the 35 Amp one is available.
I want some of these.
Well quads are never going to achieve the endurance of a wing. Yes batteries will improve, that improvement will bring a dramatic improvement for conventional platforms as well. I already know of one person that has used the work of the multi rotor world to push his conventional aircraft out to a five hour flight time. That's why I say the old 40 minutes is the new six hours for sUAS. I can see a six hour fixed wing platform cost half the cost of a one hour multirotor. Add some VTOL into the fixed wing and only make it fly for three hours and it will still win.
Why add mechanics and servos?
The ultraESC can inverse the rotation direction of an brushless motor. It includes also live monitoring of the esc
Have a look at this nice demonstration: http://vimeo.com/61127136
mwc quad // ultraesc 3d from warthox on Vimeo.
For quads was done at time ago =)
Welcome to traditional 4D VPP flying