|
Deedle posted:So why not use something like an 850 helicopter tail rotor as a lifter for a quad? Multi rotors are popular because they are simple. A multi rotor with adjustable pitch has the same complexity as a heli, but none of the benefits (better yaw control, better efficiency, autorotation).
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Wojcigitty posted:... but none of the benefits (better yaw control, better efficiency, autorotation).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Helicopters break when you just as much look them wrong. As for responsiveness, it's still nothing compared to the new high powered minis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr9YgqZMQL4
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
ickna posted:I'm not so sure about that. The Stingray 500 seems more responsive, especially in roll and turns. It can also glide down without engine power: https://youtu.be/TnGhEInTXYc?t=7m12s A couple of my friends have them. The yaw control is usable for sure but nothing like a heli. There is no yaw control at 0 pitch, but the FC is smart enough to never really allow you to enter 0 pitch. It will glide with no motor power but can not recover head speed to land safely with the motor off like in an auto. They all flew them a dozen times or so then they got sold or sat on a shelf. There were also some problems with fitment and bet life AFAIK. They also said roll and pitch were responsive but not really better than a heli. The advantages were slightly less energy in a crash versus a heli, so you might not break as much stuff, but parts were expensive and hard to get at times so that didn't help much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
I straight up just didn't know it was possible to yaw at all with such a design. That's really cool. Can that FC work in anything that's not a Stingray?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Doing an aerodynamic airframe, is not so easy. Challenge accepted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
helno posted:Challenge accepted. HOld up a bit. My flying buddy is ordering a thrust test stand. I can make some aerodynamic arms to do real testing before you commit anything to plastic and epoxy. :-) Might as well work with real data right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
THEORY CRAFTING! Intermediary results of attempting forward flight optimized ducted fans.  It's a hollowed duct, a custom ~6" propeller and some motor enclosure to redirect some airflow over it, since it's obscured by the hub. The thing weights currently 150gr, without reinforcement ribs, screw mounts and a mount of the motor to the duct. Given that Shapeways is pretty much 1gr = 1€, this experiment could cost easily upwards 750€ if I were to print 4 of these externally.   
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
Beautiful work. But I don't think they'll have the function you expect. If you look at the shapes those ducts make... those are wings. Wings with their lifting surfaces to the rear. And you'd still have a whole lot of frontal area to deal with. I.. suppose.. if you're flying fast forward enough.. you could have the ducts pointing level, in which case they're just circular wings..... That's been done. It ~does~ work, but has some funny additional effects. A duct also means making the support arms bigger. Interactions betwene aerodynamic surfaces are fairly well predictable, and to have a useful duct, you'd either need small props, or a big airframe. I think having more prop, is better. Props are lighter. Bigger props give bigger efficiency boosts than ducts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
I was looking to get into quadrotors for FPV flying and other things, and I was looking for a simple, inexpensive one to start with. I've noticed a couple of ones in the $100 range (what I was hoping to spend) which include basic FPV capability: http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=60203436 http://www.tmart.com/SKY-Hawkeye-13...CFVYTHwodnW4Iig http://www.tmart.com/JJRC-V686-5.8G-4CH-6-Axis-Gyro-Headless-FPV-RC-Quadcopter-with-4G-Memory-Card-2.0MP-Camera-Mode-2-Black_p321817.html http://www.banggood.com/JJRC-V686-5_8G-FPV-Headless-Mode-RC-Quadcopter-with-HD-Camera-Monitor-p-965561.html Do any of these look like good choices for practicing quadrotor flight? Does anyone have any recommendations for something similar?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
It was just an idea, which turns out too expensive to realize. At least for a fun project. That said, due to the discussion earlier, I've been also looking into aerodynamic airframes, i.e. building a shell around the components. Since I'm using tubes as arms, I was also considering to put bearings onto them and have a servo tilt them. Since I'm flying autolevel mostly, this would be easy to implement by just mixing pitch into a separate channel for the servo. Tilting propellers (additionally to the airframe orientation) would probably deal better with the frontal area of that shaped duct (if I were to put one on it, but it's primarily a cheap way for faster forward flight with regular props). My current shell design attempt however is basically a drat fish. I'm not too fond of it currently. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Pro-tip for anyone in Europe buying one of these 700TVLs from FatShark: Pull the jumper to put it from PAL into NTSC mode, and the white-outs stop happening. May apply to other brands, too, since I think FatShark is just rebranding these things. --edit: Apparently pulling the jumper does put it in PAL mode. I just read that FatShark hosed up exposure handling in NTSC mode, because they tested that one only inside. That said, no idea why it's in NTSC mode when sold in Europe. 
Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Trying to be aerodynamic in more than one direction really does lead to a sunfish type shape...
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:THEORY CRAFTING! Intermediary results of attempting forward flight optimized ducted fans. If you're willing to YouTube a lot, the guy who built a giant robot in the woods got a 3D printer around episode 70~ish https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL13A11662BDE6EB83 He was running into thermal warping issues, and solved the problem by redifining the interior of his structures as being centimetre-sized hexagons. A side effect of his re-engineering was that his new parts consumed less material and weighed less as well. Are you walls solid or could they maybe not be? What if they were an evacuated chamber partially filled with helium? That would probably be even more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
The 150gr quoted comes after hollowing out the duct to something 1mm ABS walls and no reinforcement ribs yet. Depending on how much other RC unrelated poo poo I'll be conjuring up, I might look into one of those 500 funbux 3D printers this spring, if they're worth anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Essentially a vertical wing? Uh huh. That's got it's own share of potential advantages. If your airframe is a lifting surface, you get "free" turning force in the corners.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Ok usually I can care less about the ads on Facebook, but this one for a $169 250 Racer caught my eye. Is this worth getting for the price, and since it comes with fpv but not a 2.4ghz receiver or a remote, all I have is a DJI Phantom 2 one still so is there a good option to pair with a racer this cheap? I also have 2 other Kickstartered quads coming soon without remotes due to their autopilot abilities, but they do have receivers and just need a remote as well so I might want a decent one to use with them too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Instead of four ducts and a bunch tube arms / frame, what if you went with a lifting body or saucer shape with ducts built in? then you get the benefits of extra lift, more rigidity and possibly less weight overall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:Ok usually I can care less about the ads on Facebook, but this one for a $169 250 Racer caught my eye. The best transmitter (bang for buck) is the Taranis 9XD. It comes with a built in frsky transmitter and has a JR module where you can plug in other TX modules. (DSM2/X, UHF, etc). Taranis RX's aren't the cheapest, but they got decent range. Cheapest RX's are OrangeRX/Lemon DSM2/X compatible receivers, but then you will also need a DSM2/X TX module. I
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
ickna posted:Instead of four ducts and a bunch tube arms / frame, what if you went with a lifting body or saucer shape with ducts built in? then you get the benefits of extra lift, more rigidity and possibly less weight overall. Beacuse in order to go forward your angle of attack would be pushing you downward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:The best transmitter (bang for buck) is the Taranis 9XD. It comes with a built in frsky transmitter and has a JR module where you can plug in other TX modules. (DSM2/X, UHF, etc). That 9XD does look like a keeper for sure. Whats the opinion on the DEVO 7 that appears to be bundled with a ton of these 250 packages for negligible cost? Obviously its nowhere near as powerful or option filled, but is it total crap or should I get it with one if the price is literally only $20 more with it vs without? Right now its a mental battle between that Eachine vs Walkera with the Walkera having a better fpv camera mount/adjustment, self tightening props, and GPS if you want to pay for it, however that Eachine can be had for $145 and only needs a transmitter to get flying. And of course I have no need for another quad of any sorts, but I also feel this would be a fun thing to fly around and get some more piloting practice without the risk of destroying something important like my P2 camera setup. Also as I am still brushing up on my remote lingo and tech, for the Hexo+ it has this under the FAQ. quote:Is it possible to fly HEXO+ with a RC? Soooo knowing that, would the 9XD need anything additional to work with the Hexo+? EdEddnEddy fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:That 9XD does look like a keeper for sure. If you're talking about that Walkera Runner 250 this guy reviewed it: http://www.droneflyers.com/2015/08/walkera-runner-250-review-part-first-impressions/ http://www.droneflyers.com/2015/09/walkera-runner-250-review-part-2-flight-testing-and-conclusion/ and also described the Devo7 in part 1. The conclusion is not great though, just ok EDIT: I think a CC3D board would be nice for a beginner because of all the wizards and setup help it gives you. Long-term you will probably replace it with a Naze board once you realize 90% of the forum posts talking about 250 racers are using them, but CC3D is fine. You can actually load the Naze firmware onto a CC3D board when you're comfortable with that sort of thing. All the little chips and sensors on the board are the same between Naze and CC3D. bring back old gbs fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
32MB OF ESRAM posted:If you're talking about that Walkera Runner 250 this guy reviewed it: Yea I was reading a few reviews that lead to that conclusion a bit.. The Eachine also does use a CC3D controller which sounds like it is a lot better too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
the eachine looks slightly less terrible, and there is a good chance you can flash the cc3d board in there with cleanflight. My frame making journey has been delayed by the company sending me the wrong carbon fiber, so I might end up just buying a krieger next week. that ashen guy is pretty cool and the black bolt xbr is still MIA (though I would have liked designing my own camera mount / hood thing at our makerspace)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Welp. Soon, tax money will be spent in great big, overstuffed bags, in order to "fight" the great "drone menace." http://sputniknews.com/science/20150916/1027051586/drone-shield-selex-uav-dsei.html I'm in the wrong business.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
I've always thought that the typical quad copter frame is built in the wrong direction, and needs to be arranged more perpendicular to the plane of the props. The bodies present little forward surface area when they are flat, but when you care most (going fast) they are tilted at steep angle. To my uneducated eye, it looks like the body would push the quad down when going forward. If the body was raked back much farther, it could probably add some lift along with having less forward surface area when at full speed. At some point it starts looking less like a quad and more like a four-propped 3D flyer though 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Is APM smart enough to be able to control altitude non-propulsively? Imagine you had a rigid shell with an air bladder inside. Have an exhaust hole and an inlet hole with solenoid valves on them, and a helium tank on the inlet. Could APM figure out: "Open this valve to go up, open this other valve to go down"? I'll bet you could get really good flight times if your drone was a zeppelin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
DreadLlama posted:Is APM smart enough to be able to control altitude non-propulsively? Not directly, I think. I do however suspect that it wouldn't be hard to get the devs interested in a project like that and rolling you a custom version.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
About RSSI on a Taranis... If I have a telemetry capable receiver (X8R), it'll transmit RSSI automagically back to the remote control, not needing loopbacks and poo poo on the drone? I'm asking because usually in relation to RSSI, people mostly talk about outputting it on a servo channel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Outputting it on a servo channel is for sending it back to the flight controller (and to an osd I guess)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
In that case I would like to add another question: I've got a big stick in the ground. I want to nail a light fixture to it and put a 250W IR bulb in the fixture. Then I want to do stuff like the irlock does, but maybe be able to track it from further away and use it at long range. Let's say I can construct an infrared spotlight, and I want my flight drone to be able to look at it and use data from a sensor to stay in one spot more accurately, but not just for landing. When I tell my dog to "stay," I expect him to remain in one location until told otherwise. If he wandered about in a 27m3 sphere, he would not get a cookie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Why not just use a GPS?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Oh my god dreadllama intel did do a lot of drones and sensing / avoidance lately though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G519KyjFE5c
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Why not just use a GPS? Because sometimes that infrared source might be moving, say at the speed of a person running for their lives?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
So you are planning a Superhero Tracking drone recon system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Has anyone using the Naza-M controller run into it not connecting to the PC? I installed the drivers successfully and the LED turns green/device shows up as USB COM port. But the actual assistant software doesn't see it so I can't do anything. Could this be because the receiver isn't connected? It really should effect it but that's the only non-standard thing I have going. Otherwise I tried to connect on two different Win7 PCs. As for why the receiver isn't connected, is the S-Bus cable the same one ones for regular receiver->controller? At this point I thought I have everything to get airborne, but nope I'm short on cables so I can't fly the drone. Also my soldering iron isn't strong enough to solder the bigass wire to the connectors to make the adapter I needed to make. And I don't have anything that properly fits the servo pushrod lock, only a flathead screwdriver kinda works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Could this be because the receiver isn't connected? It really should effect it but that's the only non-standard thing I have going. Otherwise I tried to connect on two different Win7 PCs. Not sure about the 1st question sorry, but you are powering on the naza, then plugging it in via USB? And yes, the S-Bus cable is just a regular 3 wire cable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
thepaladin4488 posted:Not sure about the 1st question sorry, but you are powering on the naza, then plugging it in via USB? Thanks. At least two shops nearby might have them so hopefully I'll be ready for the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
I just did a complete test of my first quad with everything wired up before mounting it to the frame. Somehow everything worked out pretty well and I managed to test out the different settings and calibrations of the FC and ESC, and run the motors up at a tiny amount of throttle just to see if they actually spun. To my own surprise, I didn't fry anything (yet) of importance. In my eagerness I added some LEDs to an order, and I didn't bother to check the voltage required so when I plugged a 3V LED into the system powered at 5V it burned gloriously, bright green for 2 seconds and extinguished itself never to be turning on again. Taranis and the receiver I choose was also pretty easy to set up. I know most people here recommended the Naze32, but I already had the KK 2.1.5 so I'm gonna run it with this to begin with and get used to things. I also started out buying a power distribution board from Hobby King with pre-soldered bullet connectors. But gently caress that poo poo, I sat around trying to mock up how to mount everything and it was a pain in the rear end because of the bullets sticking out of the frame-plate, and offered no significant upside to me. Ended up just stripping the bullet connectors from the ESC and buying a standard PDB and soldered everything on it. Now I just need to figure out the optimal way to mount the whole thing on the frame and do some neat wiring...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 19:33
|
|
