OK looks like the truth about this design is finally coming to the surface. What a relief. So when it finally gets scrapped and the next feasible design gets built instead, will the successful design finally get the prize money it deserves?
I don't think this is a bunch of kids giving it there first shot straight out of school, the manufacturer (PACI?) seems like it's been around for a couple of years. I'm just really puzzled about their build and test process.
Actually I feel sorry for these kids, they are a long way from the big leagues and I cant see how they will make it work without a good experienced team. Chris got involved in this project a few weeks ago, helping them connecting the motors and stuff, but basically this is not helping them making this design airworthy.
And the and the expected help from ''the community'' has yet to come, and this situation is somehow uncomfortable for most of us. We are always willing to help, but it requires two steps : First, someone's has to ask and Second, be opened minded to suggestions, like discarding the winner and replacing with the second place...
In May 2015, Airbus Group announced a plan to establish its Silicon Valley operations with a fully independent venture capital fund and an innovation center branded A3. With an initial capital of $150 million, Airbus Ventures's main mission is to identify and invest in the most visionary entrepreneurs in the global aerospace ecosystem.
My boy's gonna play in the big league My boy's gonna turn some heads My boy's gonna play in the big league My boy's gonna knock 'em dead
Oh dear. How can you be having COG issues with an empty cargo drone prototype? Is that not just a very basic hurdle. I seem to recall this was mentioned in previous postings. So Airbus engineere are going to build this thing when these guys are done?
If they are having structural problems now, just imagine if they decide to also include the bent wing structure as in the original concept.
But what really gets me is that the entire thing is like reading the happy adventures of your typical DIY amateur starting from scratch with no prior knowledge about what works and how to build drones, happily ignoring any and all advice from the community in the process. Something that is very puzzling when you consider the companies involved.
If they were running Ardupilot, the vehicle would be able to hover even with a CG like that. We demonstrated that years ago. So, while the CG offset is a failure of the mechanical engineering guys, this also demonstrated that PX4 Flight Stack is underdeveloped. As we all know.
You know, this is over 4 YEARS ago. (skip ahead to 4:20) And this is, as always with Ardupilot, real world performance. Not laboratory conditions which PX4 demo videos are typically operating.
The rest of this, have these guys ever built any RC aircraft before? What is with the attachment of the control surfaces? Why does the surface look like elephant skin? Why does the body look like blocks of foam, loosely assembled and bridged with packing tape, all spray painted red?
Why does the vehicle look nothing like the rendering that won the competition, other than the fact it's red?
Fastening the motors to the landing gear with string? How did they get all the way out to the test field, without having run up the motors to find out the structure was hugely deficient? What are the lift motor support arms made from? Is that plastic tube?
And whenever they do get it off the ground, then they realize that PX4 is just not capable of flying a system that big. Why haven't they already tested this with a mock-up? Has anybody EVER seen PX4 flying a multirotor with props bigger than 15"? Let alone a multirotor with wings attached? The control algorithm is just not there.
I feel a little bit bad even commenting anymore at this point. But I just am shocked at where money moves in this industry.
Comments
OK looks like the truth about this design is finally coming to the surface. What a relief. So when it finally gets scrapped and the next feasible design gets built instead, will the successful design finally get the prize money it deserves?
I don't think this is a bunch of kids giving it there first shot straight out of school, the manufacturer (PACI?) seems like it's been around for a couple of years. I'm just really puzzled about their build and test process.
Actually I feel sorry for these kids, they are a long way from the big leagues and I cant see how they will make it work without a good experienced team. Chris got involved in this project a few weeks ago, helping them connecting the motors and stuff, but basically this is not helping them making this design airworthy.
And the and the expected help from ''the community'' has yet to come, and this situation is somehow uncomfortable for most of us. We are always willing to help, but it requires two steps : First, someone's has to ask and Second, be opened minded to suggestions, like discarding the winner and replacing with the second place...
Partnering with the future
In May 2015, Airbus Group announced a plan to establish its Silicon Valley operations with a fully independent venture capital fund and an innovation center branded A3. With an initial capital of $150 million, Airbus Ventures's main mission is to identify and invest in the most visionary entrepreneurs in the global aerospace ecosystem.
My boy's gonna play in the big league
My boy's gonna turn some heads
My boy's gonna play in the big league
My boy's gonna knock 'em dead
SongWriter: Tom Cochrane
So what happened to the smaller test-bed? Did they ever get that flying?
If they are having structural problems now, just imagine if they decide to also include the bent wing structure as in the original concept.
But what really gets me is that the entire thing is like reading the happy adventures of your typical DIY amateur starting from scratch with no prior knowledge about what works and how to build drones, happily ignoring any and all advice from the community in the process. Something that is very puzzling when you consider the companies involved.
Actually, I was going to mention that.
If they were running Ardupilot, the vehicle would be able to hover even with a CG like that. We demonstrated that years ago. So, while the CG offset is a failure of the mechanical engineering guys, this also demonstrated that PX4 Flight Stack is underdeveloped. As we all know.
You know, this is over 4 YEARS ago. (skip ahead to 4:20) And this is, as always with Ardupilot, real world performance. Not laboratory conditions which PX4 demo videos are typically operating.
The rest of this, have these guys ever built any RC aircraft before? What is with the attachment of the control surfaces? Why does the surface look like elephant skin? Why does the body look like blocks of foam, loosely assembled and bridged with packing tape, all spray painted red?
Why does the vehicle look nothing like the rendering that won the competition, other than the fact it's red?
Fastening the motors to the landing gear with string? How did they get all the way out to the test field, without having run up the motors to find out the structure was hugely deficient? What are the lift motor support arms made from? Is that plastic tube?
And whenever they do get it off the ground, then they realize that PX4 is just not capable of flying a system that big. Why haven't they already tested this with a mock-up? Has anybody EVER seen PX4 flying a multirotor with props bigger than 15"? Let alone a multirotor with wings attached? The control algorithm is just not there.
I feel a little bit bad even commenting anymore at this point. But I just am shocked at where money moves in this industry.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next