how to select an airframe

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

how to select an airframe

alonso acuña
Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better for use with paparazzi. 

Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a new airframe. 

Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users and give feedback.

Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Alonso Acuña

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Hector Garcia de Marina

In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more flights of more than one hour.

On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acuña" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better for use with paparazzi. 

Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a new airframe. 

Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users and give feedback.

Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Alonso Acuña

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Chris Gough-2
I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
crashes. For example:

 * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
 * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.

It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
still probably a good idea.

In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
"conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.

Chris Gough


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
> flights of more than one hour.
>
> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acuña" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better for
>> use with paparazzi.
>>
>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>> new airframe.
>>
>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>> and give feedback.
>>
>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Alonso Acuña
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>



--
.

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Reto Büttner
There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate advice we would need some more information:
 
- How heavy is your payload (camera)?
- How large is your payload (camera)?
- Do you need vertical view only?
- Do you have experience in RC planes?
- Do you have experience in model gas engines?
- Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
- Do you have a runway available?
 
Regards, Reto
 


2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>
I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
crashes. For example:

 * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
 * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.

It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
still probably a good idea.

In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
"conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.

Chris Gough


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
> flights of more than one hour.
>
> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acuña" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better for
>> use with paparazzi.
>>
>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>> new airframe.
>>
>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>> and give feedback.
>>
>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Alonso Acuña
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>



--
.

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Cédric Marzer (privé)

I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less vibrations, better reliability, less noise.

50+ minutes flight isn’t difficult to achieve with the right plane and enough batteries.

 

De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email] [mailto:paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]] De la part de Reto Büttner
Envoyé : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24
À : [hidden email]
Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe

 

There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate advice we would need some more information:

 

- How heavy is your payload (camera)?

- How large is your payload (camera)?

- Do you need vertical view only?

- Do you have experience in RC planes?

- Do you have experience in model gas engines?

- Do you have experience in Paparazzi?

- Do you have a runway available?

 

Regards, Reto

 

 

2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>

I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
crashes. For example:

 * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
 * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.

It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
still probably a good idea.

In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
"conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.

Chris Gough



On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
<[hidden email]> wrote:


> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
> flights of more than one hour.
>
> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acuña" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better for
>> use with paparazzi.
>>
>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>> new airframe.
>>
>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>> and give feedback.
>>
>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Alonso Acuña
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>


--

.

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

 


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Hector Garcia de Marina
Hi Cédric,

would you mind to show such setup? I am curious about the flight autonomy, payload, total size and weight of the plane etc.

Reto also points out a good remark, it seems that you will need a runway for this kind of airplane (or at least, a nice big launcher :P).


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Cédric Marzer (privé) <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less vibrations, better reliability, less noise.

50+ minutes flight isn’t difficult to achieve with the right plane and enough batteries.

 

De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de Reto Büttner
Envoyé : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24
À : [hidden email]
Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe

 

There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate advice we would need some more information:

 

- How heavy is your payload (camera)?

- How large is your payload (camera)?

- Do you need vertical view only?

- Do you have experience in RC planes?

- Do you have experience in model gas engines?

- Do you have experience in Paparazzi?

- Do you have a runway available?

 

Regards, Reto

 

 

2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>

I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
crashes. For example:

 * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
 * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.

It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
still probably a good idea.

In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
"conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.

Chris Gough



On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
> flights of more than one hour.
>
> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acuña" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better for
>> use with paparazzi.
>>
>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>> new airframe.
>>
>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>> and give feedback.
>>
>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Alonso Acuña
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>


--

.

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

 


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel




--

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Cédric Marzer (privé)

The question about the runway is very relevant indeed as you can achieve a long flight duration either by having a relatively high wing load, for instance with a 2 m plane with a landing gear packed with batteries or if you don’t have a runway you will need a plane with a nice aerodynamic and less wing load (I am thinking for instance of f3j gliders) but you will have more problems with wind…

 

De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email] [mailto:paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]] De la part de Hector Garcia de Marina
Envoyé : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:53
À : [hidden email]
Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe

 

Hi Cédric,

 

would you mind to show such setup? I am curious about the flight autonomy, payload, total size and weight of the plane etc.

 

Reto also points out a good remark, it seems that you will need a runway for this kind of airplane (or at least, a nice big launcher :P).

 

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Cédric Marzer (privé) <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less vibrations, better reliability, less noise.

50+ minutes flight isn’t difficult to achieve with the right plane and enough batteries.

 

De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de Reto Büttner
Envoyé : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24
À : [hidden email]
Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe

 

There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate advice we would need some more information:

 

- How heavy is your payload (camera)?

- How large is your payload (camera)?

- Do you need vertical view only?

- Do you have experience in RC planes?

- Do you have experience in model gas engines?

- Do you have experience in Paparazzi?

- Do you have a runway available?

 

Regards, Reto

 

 

2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>

I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
crashes. For example:

 * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
 * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.

It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
still probably a good idea.

In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
"conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.

Chris Gough



On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
<[hidden email]> wrote:


> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
> flights of more than one hour.
>
> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acuña" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better for
>> use with paparazzi.
>>
>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>> new airframe.
>>
>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>> and give feedback.
>>
>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Alonso Acuña
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>

--

.

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

 


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel



 

--


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Ben Laurie
On 23 July 2013 11:02, Cédric Marzer (privé) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The question about the runway is very relevant indeed as you can achieve a
> long flight duration either by having a relatively high wing load, for
> instance with a 2 m plane with a landing gear packed with batteries

I am curious how long a runway you need - and also if paparazzi
handles landing or whether that's something that has to be done by
hand? (I'm still very much a paparazzi noob!)

> or if
> you don’t have a runway you will need a plane with a nice aerodynamic and
> less wing load (I am thinking for instance of f3j gliders) but you will have
> more problems with wind…
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Hector Garcia de Marina
> Envoyé : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:53
>
>
> À : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> Hi Cédric,
>
>
>
> would you mind to show such setup? I am curious about the flight autonomy,
> payload, total size and weight of the plane etc.
>
>
>
> Reto also points out a good remark, it seems that you will need a runway for
> this kind of airplane (or at least, a nice big launcher :P).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Cédric Marzer (privé) <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less vibrations,
> better reliability, less noise.
>
> 50+ minutes flight isn’t difficult to achieve with the right plane and
> enough batteries.
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Reto Büttner
> Envoyé : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24
> À : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate
> advice we would need some more information:
>
>
>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
>
> - How large is your payload (camera)?
>
> - Do you need vertical view only?
>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?
>
> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?
>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
> - Do you have a runway available?
>
>
>
> Regards, Reto
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>
>
> I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
> endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
> endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
> longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
> crashes. For example:
>
>  * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
>  * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.
>
> It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
> still probably a good idea.
>
> In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
> "conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
> certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.
>
> Chris Gough
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
>> flights of more than one hour.
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acuña" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better
>>> for
>>> use with paparazzi.
>>>
>>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>>> new airframe.
>>>
>>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>>> and give feedback.
>>>
>>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Alonso Acuña
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>
> --
>
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Héctor
>
> Webpage: http://mathtronics.wordpress.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

alonso acuña
In reply to this post by alonso acuña
Thanks to all the people that have responded, this is a great discussion.


>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
> - How large is your payload (camera)?

We have 3 cameras: a multispectral, a Canon Powershot ELPH 320 and a  DSLR. The first 2 are small and weight is less than 150g. The other one is bigger and could go over 600g.  Primary goal is to use the first 2 and the other one would be bonus or would be served later by a different plane.

>
> - Do you need vertical view only?

Initially yes but oblique photo would be a bonus (would be done with the heavier camera and perhaps with a different plane).

>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?
> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?

I am working with very experienced people in building planes, electric and gas, and flying them manually. I think I would prefer electric.

>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
I am working with people experienced in programming (including me) and electronics. We will be investing whatever time it takes to be able to answer yes to this question. We are just starting.
We might use a smaller cheaper plane with no camera for flight testing and learning and then move to the primary plane when we feel confident.

> - Do you have a runway available?
>
For testing yes. For real work we will be taking photos at multiple locations all over our small country so perhaps a dirt road or a grass field is all we'll find. I would like to know how big is the space needed to takeoff and land and whether designs can be adapted to do shorter landings. We might consider parachutes or nets or whatever.


50 minute flight would be OK.  The Bormatec Maja is advertised with 50 min endurance with 3S/6000mAh and 500W motor with 1,5kg payload inclusive of batteries. As seen on http://conservationdrones.org/hardware/
My plan is to build our own airframe as these are too expensive to buy and we have the guys who can build planes from scratch if necessary. They don't have experience with this kind of application or automated flying, so we are unsure about the design to use.

Thanks again for all the help.

Alonso Acuna


On 23 July 2013 11:02, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The question about the runway is very relevant indeed as you can achieve a
> long flight duration either by having a relatively high wing load, for
> instance with a 2 m plane with a landing gear packed with batteries

I am curious how long a runway you need - and also if paparazzi
handles landing or whether that's something that has to be done by
hand? (I'm still very much a paparazzi noob!)

> or if
> you don?t have a runway you will need a plane with a nice aerodynamic and
> less wing load (I am thinking for instance of f3j gliders) but you will have
> more problems with wind?
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Hector Garcia de Marina
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:53
>
>
> ? : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> Hi C?dric,
>
>
>
> would you mind to show such setup? I am curious about the flight autonomy,
> payload, total size and weight of the plane etc.
>
>
>
> Reto also points out a good remark, it seems that you will need a runway for
> this kind of airplane (or at least, a nice big launcher :P).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less vibrations,
> better reliability, less noise.
>
> 50+ minutes flight isn?t difficult to achieve with the right plane and
> enough batteries.
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Reto B?ttner
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24
> ? : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate
> advice we would need some more information:
>
>
>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
>
> - How large is your payload (camera)?
>
> - Do you need vertical view only?
>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?
>
> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?
>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
> - Do you have a runway available?
>
>
>
> Regards, Reto
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>
>
> I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
> endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
> endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
> longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
> crashes. For example:
>
>  * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
>  * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.
>
> It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
> still probably a good idea.
>
> In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
> "conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
> certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.
>
> Chris Gough
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
>> flights of more than one hour.
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acu?a" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better
>>> for
>>> use with paparazzi.
>>>
>>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>>> new airframe.
>>>
>>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>>> and give feedback.
>>>
>>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Alonso Acu?a

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Gerard Toonstra

If you're starting out, I recommend you start out as simple as possible and then scale up. Going for the "final" solution is just going to cost more.


I worked with the Maja but was never really happy with it. Issues with thrust angle, unfavourable weight distribution (hogging) and just
how the equipment is suspended by 4 plastic bits that go into the cells of coroplast. It always held, but I didn't reacquire the Maja since.


Nowadays it should be pretty easy to increase your 50min limit. Of course it's always important to choose correct shape and finish, but if you use 6s with
relatively large props on a 370kV motor for example you're going a very long way already. The TechPod can do 3 hrs of flight on 15000mAh / 6s
this way. I think the builder flew 4 hours on this setup. So if you take this back a couple of notches you should still be able to get 60+ minutes
out of your setu


Once you have an efficient plane, the difficulty is landing it. More efficient planes pick up more speed when diving for approach and getting rid of
energy becomes difficult. Wayne making the TP is looking at a pitch-variable prop to further increase efficiency
and also to allow the prop to reverse near the landing area. It's something else to look at beyond a parachute.


For design you can look at XFLR5 and the airfoil database. Wings with flat bottoms are seen as interesting because they're easier to build, but not as efficient.
The choice of airfoil is of course very specific to your application.


Rgds,

G>


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:57 PM, alonso acuña <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks to all the people that have responded, this is a great discussion.


>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
> - How large is your payload (camera)?

We have 3 cameras: a multispectral, a Canon Powershot ELPH 320 and a  DSLR. The first 2 are small and weight is less than 150g. The other one is bigger and could go over 600g.  Primary goal is to use the first 2 and the other one would be bonus or would be served later by a different plane.

>
> - Do you need vertical view only?

Initially yes but oblique photo would be a bonus (would be done with the heavier camera and perhaps with a different plane).

>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?
> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?

I am working with very experienced people in building planes, electric and gas, and flying them manually. I think I would prefer electric.

>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
I am working with people experienced in programming (including me) and electronics. We will be investing whatever time it takes to be able to answer yes to this question. We are just starting.
We might use a smaller cheaper plane with no camera for flight testing and learning and then move to the primary plane when we feel confident.

> - Do you have a runway available?
>
For testing yes. For real work we will be taking photos at multiple locations all over our small country so perhaps a dirt road or a grass field is all we'll find. I would like to know how big is the space needed to takeoff and land and whether designs can be adapted to do shorter landings. We might consider parachutes or nets or whatever.


50 minute flight would be OK.  The Bormatec Maja is advertised with 50 min endurance with 3S/6000mAh and 500W motor with 1,5kg payload inclusive of batteries. As seen on http://conservationdrones.org/hardware/
My plan is to build our own airframe as these are too expensive to buy and we have the guys who can build planes from scratch if necessary. They don't have experience with this kind of application or automated flying, so we are unsure about the design to use.

Thanks again for all the help.

Alonso Acuna


On 23 July 2013 11:02, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The question about the runway is very relevant indeed as you can achieve a
> long flight duration either by having a relatively high wing load, for
> instance with a 2 m plane with a landing gear packed with batteries

I am curious how long a runway you need - and also if paparazzi
handles landing or whether that's something that has to be done by
hand? (I'm still very much a paparazzi noob!)

> or if
> you don?t have a runway you will need a plane with a nice aerodynamic and
> less wing load (I am thinking for instance of f3j gliders) but you will have
> more problems with wind?
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Hector Garcia de Marina
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:53
>
>
> ? : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> Hi C?dric,
>
>
>
> would you mind to show such setup? I am curious about the flight autonomy,
> payload, total size and weight of the plane etc.
>
>
>
> Reto also points out a good remark, it seems that you will need a runway for
> this kind of airplane (or at least, a nice big launcher :P).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less vibrations,
> better reliability, less noise.
>
> 50+ minutes flight isn?t difficult to achieve with the right plane and
> enough batteries.
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Reto B?ttner
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24
> ? : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate
> advice we would need some more information:
>
>
>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
>
> - How large is your payload (camera)?
>
> - Do you need vertical view only?
>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?
>
> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?
>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
> - Do you have a runway available?
>
>
>
> Regards, Reto
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>
>
> I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
> endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
> endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
> longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
> crashes. For example:
>
>  * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
>  * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.
>
> It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
> still probably a good idea.
>
> In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
> "conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
> certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.
>
> Chris Gough
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
>> flights of more than one hour.
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acu?a" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better
>>> for
>>> use with paparazzi.
>>>
>>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>>> new airframe.
>>>
>>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>>> and give feedback.
>>>
>>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Alonso Acu?a

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

agressiva
Wow ... 15000mha / 6s = 3kg of battery.
Are you sure the techpod can fly 4hrs ?

With 15amp / 4s i only fly 1:20 with my planes.


Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:27:41 -0300
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe


If you're starting out, I recommend you start out as simple as possible and then scale up. Going for the "final" solution is just going to cost more.


I worked with the Maja but was never really happy with it. Issues with thrust angle, unfavourable weight distribution (hogging) and just
how the equipment is suspended by 4 plastic bits that go into the cells of coroplast. It always held, but I didn't reacquire the Maja since.


Nowadays it should be pretty easy to increase your 50min limit. Of course it's always important to choose correct shape and finish, but if you use 6s with
relatively large props on a 370kV motor for example you're going a very long way already. The TechPod can do 3 hrs of flight on 15000mAh / 6s
this way. I think the builder flew 4 hours on this setup. So if you take this back a couple of notches you should still be able to get 60+ minutes
out of your setu


Once you have an efficient plane, the difficulty is landing it. More efficient planes pick up more speed when diving for approach and getting rid of
energy becomes difficult. Wayne making the TP is looking at a pitch-variable prop to further increase efficiency
and also to allow the prop to reverse near the landing area. It's something else to look at beyond a parachute.


For design you can look at XFLR5 and the airfoil database. Wings with flat bottoms are seen as interesting because they're easier to build, but not as efficient.
The choice of airfoil is of course very specific to your application.


Rgds,

G>


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:57 PM, alonso acuña <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks to all the people that have responded, this is a great discussion.


>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
> - How large is your payload (camera)?

We have 3 cameras: a multispectral, a Canon Powershot ELPH 320 and a  DSLR. The first 2 are small and weight is less than 150g. The other one is bigger and could go over 600g.  Primary goal is to use the first 2 and the other one would be bonus or would be served later by a different plane.

>
> - Do you need vertical view only?

Initially yes but oblique photo would be a bonus (would be done with the heavier camera and perhaps with a different plane).

>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?
> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?

I am working with very experienced people in building planes, electric and gas, and flying them manually. I think I would prefer electric.

>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
I am working with people experienced in programming (including me) and electronics. We will be investing whatever time it takes to be able to answer yes to this question. We are just starting.
We might use a smaller cheaper plane with no camera for flight testing and learning and then move to the primary plane when we feel confident.

> - Do you have a runway available?
>
For testing yes. For real work we will be taking photos at multiple locations all over our small country so perhaps a dirt road or a grass field is all we'll find. I would like to know how big is the space needed to takeoff and land and whether designs can be adapted to do shorter landings. We might consider parachutes or nets or whatever.


50 minute flight would be OK.  The Bormatec Maja is advertised with 50 min endurance with 3S/6000mAh and 500W motor with 1,5kg payload inclusive of batteries. As seen on http://conservationdrones.org/hardware/
My plan is to build our own airframe as these are too expensive to buy and we have the guys who can build planes from scratch if necessary. They don't have experience with this kind of application or automated flying, so we are unsure about the design to use.

Thanks again for all the help.

Alonso Acuna


On 23 July 2013 11:02, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The question about the runway is very relevant indeed as you can achieve a
> long flight duration either by having a relatively high wing load, for
> instance with a 2 m plane with a landing gear packed with batteries

I am curious how long a runway you need - and also if paparazzi
handles landing or whether that's something that has to be done by
hand? (I'm still very much a paparazzi noob!)

> or if
> you don?t have a runway you will need a plane with a nice aerodynamic and
> less wing load (I am thinking for instance of f3j gliders) but you will have
> more problems with wind?
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Hector Garcia de Marina
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:53
>
>
> ? : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> Hi C?dric,
>
>
>
> would you mind to show such setup? I am curious about the flight autonomy,
> payload, total size and weight of the plane etc.
>
>
>
> Reto also points out a good remark, it seems that you will need a runway for
> this kind of airplane (or at least, a nice big launcher :P).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less vibrations,
> better reliability, less noise.
>
> 50+ minutes flight isn?t difficult to achieve with the right plane and
> enough batteries.
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Reto B?ttner
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24
> ? : [hidden email]
> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate
> advice we would need some more information:
>
>
>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
>
> - How large is your payload (camera)?
>
> - Do you need vertical view only?
>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?
>
> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?
>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
> - Do you have a runway available?
>
>
>
> Regards, Reto
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>
>
> I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
> endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
> endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
> longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
> crashes. For example:
>
>  * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
>  * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.
>
> It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
> still probably a good idea.
>
> In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
> "conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
> certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.
>
> Chris Gough
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
>> flights of more than one hour.
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acu?a" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better
>>> for
>>> use with paparazzi.
>>>
>>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>>> new airframe.
>>>
>>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>>> and give feedback.
>>>
>>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Alonso Acu?a

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel



_______________________________________________ Paparazzi-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Gerard Toonstra

The TP was designed for efficiency.

I was wrong on the reported capacity, it was 10000mAh / 6s. Using the 370kV motor, 6s and 12" prop and embedding cables,
it burns 750mAh in 18 minutes with AUW of 3.17kg / 7 lbs. 10000mAh. This *theoretically* gives around 4 hrs, but practical
flight times are probably closer to 3-3.4hrs, assuming the batteries actually have the capacity and it's flown until dead.

In any case, 2.5hrs is well within range that way and for the majority of people, 1-1.5hrs is more than enough.

The actual batteries used also make a difference both in terms of how much power it can deliver and how power
disappears on half-capacity. I've used some Thunderpower ones recently and they are really good (and expensive!)

The forum with the claims and more info is here:

http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?7870-The-Techpod!!!/page35


Do you have a photo of your setup?

Rgds,

G>


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Eduardo lavratti <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wow ... 15000mha / 6s = 3kg of battery.
Are you sure the techpod can fly 4hrs ?

With 15amp / 4s i only fly 1:20 with my planes.


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Reto Büttner
In reply to this post by alonso acuña
Hi Alonso

I recommend a three step approach:

1. Test plane to learn Paparazzi

Take a simple generic plane, focus on good manners. That is achieved by average size (between 1m and 2m wing span) and in standard puller configuration (propeller on the nose). Choose electric propulsion for simplicity. Multiplex EasyGlider or a Multiplex TwinStar might be good choices.

2. Plane for 150g vertical camera with 50min endurance

I recommend electric propulsion for simplicity and reliability. As already stated one hour flight time is easily achieved. If you have very experienced people in model gas engines in your team, you can try that as well. With gas you can get very long endurance, oceans have been crossed. Be aware that you will have to deal with vibrations, poor reliability, noise and maybe even interference with the RC, if you choose an electronic ignition.

I recommend a glider configuration. They have outstanding aerodynamics to achieve long endurance and are well mannered.

Multiplex Cularis or Hobby King ASK21 EP Glider 2600mm Fiberglass might be good choices. Your camera should fit in there. They have four flap wings for optimal performance and precise landings. The first you need for your required endurance, the second for landing in difficult terrain in your field missions. Use a large battery and a small propeller (rather high pitch) to achieve your required endurance.

3. Plane for 600g camera with optional forward view

Think about this once you have mastered step 1 and 2.

General considerations:

I do not recommend building a plane from scratch. There are more than enough options on the market in any price range (also veery cheap). It is not likely that you will save money by building from scratch. You should use your time to learn Paparazzi and for flight training. In addition, if you crash, you can easily buy a new airframe and continue flying soon instead of spending hours in the workshop rebuilding from scratch.

Forget about a landing gear. You will not be able to use it in your field missions. In addition it is more difficult to start and land, heavy and deteriorates the planes aerodynamics.

If you don't need forward view, don't choose pusher propulsion. If you need forward view, the hobbyuav Techpod or HobbyKing Skywalker X-8 might be good choices.

I don't recommend Bormatec Maja, it simply doesn't fly well enough. I tried it.

I don't recommend parachute or landing net. That adds complexity to the system and is rather for professionals. Using a good airframe and a good pilot you will be able to land on small fields.

Best regards and good luck
Reto

2013/7/23 alonso acuña <[hidden email]>
Thanks to all the people that have responded, this is a great discussion.



>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
> - How large is your payload (camera)?

We have 3 cameras: a multispectral, a Canon Powershot ELPH 320 and a  DSLR. The first 2 are small and weight is less than 150g. The other one is bigger and could go over 600g.  Primary goal is to use the first 2 and the other one would be bonus or would be served later by a different plane.

>
> - Do you need vertical view only?

Initially yes but oblique photo would be a bonus (would be done with the heavier camera and perhaps with a different plane).

>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?

> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?

I am working with very experienced people in building planes, electric and gas, and flying them manually. I think I would prefer electric.

>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
I am working with people experienced in programming (including me) and electronics. We will be investing whatever time it takes to be able to answer yes to this question. We are just starting.
We might use a smaller cheaper plane with no camera for flight testing and learning and then move to the primary plane when we feel confident.

> - Do you have a runway available?
>
For testing yes. For real work we will be taking photos at multiple locations all over our small country so perhaps a dirt road or a grass field is all we'll find. I would like to know how big is the space needed to takeoff and land and whether designs can be adapted to do shorter landings. We might consider parachutes or nets or whatever.


50 minute flight would be OK.  The Bormatec Maja is advertised with 50 min endurance with 3S/6000mAh and 500W motor with 1,5kg payload inclusive of batteries. As seen on http://conservationdrones.org/hardware/
My plan is to build our own airframe as these are too expensive to buy and we have the guys who can build planes from scratch if necessary. They don't have experience with this kind of application or automated flying, so we are unsure about the design to use.

Thanks again for all the help.

Alonso Acuna


On 23 July 2013 11:02, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The question about the runway is very relevant indeed as you can achieve a
> long flight duration either by having a relatively high wing load, for
> instance with a 2 m plane with a landing gear packed with batteries

I am curious how long a runway you need - and also if paparazzi
handles landing or whether that's something that has to be done by
hand? (I'm still very much a paparazzi noob!)

> or if
> you don?t have a runway you will need a plane with a nice aerodynamic and

> less wing load (I am thinking for instance of f3j gliders) but you will have
> more problems with wind?

>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Hector Garcia de Marina
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:53
>
>
> ? : [hidden email]

> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> Hi C?dric,

>
>
>
> would you mind to show such setup? I am curious about the flight autonomy,
> payload, total size and weight of the plane etc.
>
>
>
> Reto also points out a good remark, it seems that you will need a runway for
> this kind of airplane (or at least, a nice big launcher :P).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]>

> wrote:
>
> I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less vibrations,
> better reliability, less noise.
>
> 50+ minutes flight isn?t difficult to achieve with the right plane and

> enough batteries.
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Reto B?ttner
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24
> ? : [hidden email]

> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate
> advice we would need some more information:
>
>
>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
>
> - How large is your payload (camera)?
>
> - Do you need vertical view only?
>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?
>
> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?
>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
> - Do you have a runway available?
>
>
>
> Regards, Reto
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>
>
> I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
> endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
> endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
> longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
> crashes. For example:
>
>  * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
>  * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.
>
> It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
> still probably a good idea.
>
> In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
> "conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
> certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.
>
> Chris Gough
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
>> flights of more than one hour.
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acu?a" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better
>>> for
>>> use with paparazzi.
>>>
>>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>>> new airframe.
>>>
>>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>>> and give feedback.
>>>
>>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Alonso Acu?a

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Stephen Dwyer
Hello,

I would definitely back up what everyone else has said, especially about starting with a "cheap" practice plane. Not only will that reduce startup costs and recurring costs/time that occur after a crash, but it is also far easier to transport and find a smaller space to fly in. Having to load up a big gas aircraft and its equipment just for a quick test of a new autopilot feature is a pain. I have built smaller and larger camera planes, and each have their advantages, but definitely nice to start smaller. The smaller electric aircraft also tend to have lower maintenance requirements. One thing to note, be wary of going with a very cheap plane. If you are pursuing a serious project, I think it is usually worth the extra money for a quality product that is more reliable and has better performance. Trying to save a bit of money in the short run often leads to more issues and frustration in the future, resulting in more fixing/debugging than flying.

I would also agree that purchasing will likely save money over designing/building your own (unless perhaps you are building in quantity and setting up a manufacturing process), especially for smaller ones. It also means you will likely be able to repeat the performance of an aircraft. One disadvantage is some may require extensive modification. Even small modifications can take some time.

We are currently using an electric Multiplex Mentor loaded a good 500-600+ grams of payload (not sure exactly at the moment). This is pushing the limits of the Mentor, and we don't have enough payload left for longer flight times. We typically only get 10-12mins on 3s/4400mAh to give you an idea. However, it is still small enough to hand launch and then recover in a very small clearing in remote forested areas. Landings are still very scary when trying to hit the spot given the heavy wing loading.

In the past I have used a Sig Mfg Rascal 110. This aircraft is a traditional balsa/plywood/film covering aircraft in a traditional high wing tractor configuration. We flew this aircraft up to a gross takeoff weight of around 12kg and 26cc gas engine. With careful vibration isolation on the engine and camera (nothing extreme) we were able to achieve very very good imagery and flight time of 1 hour on 700cc of fuel (the capacity can easily be increased, increasing fuel quantity is relatively easy because of the extremely high energy density of gasoline, adding a bit of weight really increases flight time, when compared to electric). We used a Nikon D3000 or D60 on this aircraft with a fast prime lens set at a fixed focus and a very very high shutter speed (this is how we beat the vibration issues...). There was also lots of other payload onboard including high powered wifi for 6km+ 18Mbit links to move the images down in near realtime, a gumstix computer to control the camera (with libgphoto2) and manage the datalink, and lots of vibration isolation/EMI/RF shielding and enclosures (one major disadvantage of gas, everything must be protected from vibration, even if you don't directly see the effects). However, this aircraft required several hundred feet of runway to takeoff and land, and landing occurred at around 70km/hr when fully loaded.

I have also seen the Senior Telemaster Plus used with good results as a larger workhorse. It can fly very slowly if lightly loaded - in a light wind you can almost land it vertically. It is also fairly inexpensive for a large aircraft. Be aware it is not the most sturdily built, to keep it light.

I haven't tried a glider type aircraft, but would really like to.

While a parachute seems like a good idea, one concern is weight. I have seen that typical parachute recovery systems may consume 15% - 20% of the total aircraft weight, which is very significant. Haven't tried any net recovery. Certainly agree that it adds complexity, and requires very careful design and test to implement properly. It will not be trivial.

One thing to consider is that if you end up with a decent smaller aircraft that can handle your payloads and handles your launch/recovery requirements, but simply doesn't have the endurance you are looking for, is you can consider simply accepting a lower endurance and planning your flight campaigns to get around this. For example, breaking a survey into several parts, and landing to swap out batteries in between. This is what we do with the Mentor. This only works if your range is small; having to fly a long ways away to reach the region of interest won't be helped by this approach.

Just my thoughts, perhaps they will be of use.

Thanks,
-Stephen Dwyer


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Reto Büttner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Alonso

I recommend a three step approach:

1. Test plane to learn Paparazzi

Take a simple generic plane, focus on good manners. That is achieved by average size (between 1m and 2m wing span) and in standard puller configuration (propeller on the nose). Choose electric propulsion for simplicity. Multiplex EasyGlider or a Multiplex TwinStar might be good choices.

2. Plane for 150g vertical camera with 50min endurance

I recommend electric propulsion for simplicity and reliability. As already stated one hour flight time is easily achieved. If you have very experienced people in model gas engines in your team, you can try that as well. With gas you can get very long endurance, oceans have been crossed. Be aware that you will have to deal with vibrations, poor reliability, noise and maybe even interference with the RC, if you choose an electronic ignition.

I recommend a glider configuration. They have outstanding aerodynamics to achieve long endurance and are well mannered.

Multiplex Cularis or Hobby King ASK21 EP Glider 2600mm Fiberglass might be good choices. Your camera should fit in there. They have four flap wings for optimal performance and precise landings. The first you need for your required endurance, the second for landing in difficult terrain in your field missions. Use a large battery and a small propeller (rather high pitch) to achieve your required endurance.

3. Plane for 600g camera with optional forward view

Think about this once you have mastered step 1 and 2.

General considerations:

I do not recommend building a plane from scratch. There are more than enough options on the market in any price range (also veery cheap). It is not likely that you will save money by building from scratch. You should use your time to learn Paparazzi and for flight training. In addition, if you crash, you can easily buy a new airframe and continue flying soon instead of spending hours in the workshop rebuilding from scratch.

Forget about a landing gear. You will not be able to use it in your field missions. In addition it is more difficult to start and land, heavy and deteriorates the planes aerodynamics.

If you don't need forward view, don't choose pusher propulsion. If you need forward view, the hobbyuav Techpod or HobbyKing Skywalker X-8 might be good choices.

I don't recommend Bormatec Maja, it simply doesn't fly well enough. I tried it.

I don't recommend parachute or landing net. That adds complexity to the system and is rather for professionals. Using a good airframe and a good pilot you will be able to land on small fields.

Best regards and good luck
Reto

2013/7/23 alonso acuña <[hidden email]>
Thanks to all the people that have responded, this is a great discussion.



>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
> - How large is your payload (camera)?

We have 3 cameras: a multispectral, a Canon Powershot ELPH 320 and a  DSLR. The first 2 are small and weight is less than 150g. The other one is bigger and could go over 600g.  Primary goal is to use the first 2 and the other one would be bonus or would be served later by a different plane.

>
> - Do you need vertical view only?

Initially yes but oblique photo would be a bonus (would be done with the heavier camera and perhaps with a different plane).

>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?

> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?

I am working with very experienced people in building planes, electric and gas, and flying them manually. I think I would prefer electric.

>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
I am working with people experienced in programming (including me) and electronics. We will be investing whatever time it takes to be able to answer yes to this question. We are just starting.
We might use a smaller cheaper plane with no camera for flight testing and learning and then move to the primary plane when we feel confident.

> - Do you have a runway available?
>
For testing yes. For real work we will be taking photos at multiple locations all over our small country so perhaps a dirt road or a grass field is all we'll find. I would like to know how big is the space needed to takeoff and land and whether designs can be adapted to do shorter landings. We might consider parachutes or nets or whatever.


50 minute flight would be OK.  The Bormatec Maja is advertised with 50 min endurance with 3S/6000mAh and 500W motor with 1,5kg payload inclusive of batteries. As seen on http://conservationdrones.org/hardware/
My plan is to build our own airframe as these are too expensive to buy and we have the guys who can build planes from scratch if necessary. They don't have experience with this kind of application or automated flying, so we are unsure about the design to use.

Thanks again for all the help.

Alonso Acuna


On 23 July 2013 11:02, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The question about the runway is very relevant indeed as you can achieve a
> long flight duration either by having a relatively high wing load, for
> instance with a 2 m plane with a landing gear packed with batteries

I am curious how long a runway you need - and also if paparazzi
handles landing or whether that's something that has to be done by
hand? (I'm still very much a paparazzi noob!)

> or if
> you don?t have a runway you will need a plane with a nice aerodynamic and

> less wing load (I am thinking for instance of f3j gliders) but you will have
> more problems with wind?

>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Hector Garcia de Marina
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:53
>
>
> ? : [hidden email]

> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> Hi C?dric,

>
>
>
> would you mind to show such setup? I am curious about the flight autonomy,
> payload, total size and weight of the plane etc.
>
>
>
> Reto also points out a good remark, it seems that you will need a runway for
> this kind of airplane (or at least, a nice big launcher :P).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]>

> wrote:
>
> I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less vibrations,
> better reliability, less noise.
>
> 50+ minutes flight isn?t difficult to achieve with the right plane and

> enough batteries.
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Reto B?ttner
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24
> ? : [hidden email]

> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate
> advice we would need some more information:
>
>
>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
>
> - How large is your payload (camera)?
>
> - Do you need vertical view only?
>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?
>
> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?
>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
> - Do you have a runway available?
>
>
>
> Regards, Reto
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>
>
> I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
> endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
> endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
> longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
> crashes. For example:
>
>  * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
>  * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.
>
> It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
> still probably a good idea.
>
> In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
> "conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
> certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.
>
> Chris Gough
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
>> flights of more than one hour.
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acu?a" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better
>>> for
>>> use with paparazzi.
>>>
>>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>>> new airframe.
>>>
>>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>>> and give feedback.
>>>
>>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Alonso Acu?a

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Chris Gough-2
Hi Stephen, do you still have your Sig Rascal config? That would be a good addition to example airframes, because there is a JSBSim FDM for the Rascal (in flightgear).

Chris Gough

On 24/07/2013, at 1:45 PM, Stephen Dwyer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

I would definitely back up what everyone else has said, especially about starting with a "cheap" practice plane. Not only will that reduce startup costs and recurring costs/time that occur after a crash, but it is also far easier to transport and find a smaller space to fly in. Having to load up a big gas aircraft and its equipment just for a quick test of a new autopilot feature is a pain. I have built smaller and larger camera planes, and each have their advantages, but definitely nice to start smaller. The smaller electric aircraft also tend to have lower maintenance requirements. One thing to note, be wary of going with a very cheap plane. If you are pursuing a serious project, I think it is usually worth the extra money for a quality product that is more reliable and has better performance. Trying to save a bit of money in the short run often leads to more issues and frustration in the future, resulting in more fixing/debugging than flying.

I would also agree that purchasing will likely save money over designing/building your own (unless perhaps you are building in quantity and setting up a manufacturing process), especially for smaller ones. It also means you will likely be able to repeat the performance of an aircraft. One disadvantage is some may require extensive modification. Even small modifications can take some time.

We are currently using an electric Multiplex Mentor loaded a good 500-600+ grams of payload (not sure exactly at the moment). This is pushing the limits of the Mentor, and we don't have enough payload left for longer flight times. We typically only get 10-12mins on 3s/4400mAh to give you an idea. However, it is still small enough to hand launch and then recover in a very small clearing in remote forested areas. Landings are still very scary when trying to hit the spot given the heavy wing loading.

In the past I have used a Sig Mfg Rascal 110. This aircraft is a traditional balsa/plywood/film covering aircraft in a traditional high wing tractor configuration. We flew this aircraft up to a gross takeoff weight of around 12kg and 26cc gas engine. With careful vibration isolation on the engine and camera (nothing extreme) we were able to achieve very very good imagery and flight time of 1 hour on 700cc of fuel (the capacity can easily be increased, increasing fuel quantity is relatively easy because of the extremely high energy density of gasoline, adding a bit of weight really increases flight time, when compared to electric). We used a Nikon D3000 or D60 on this aircraft with a fast prime lens set at a fixed focus and a very very high shutter speed (this is how we beat the vibration issues...). There was also lots of other payload onboard including high powered wifi for 6km+ 18Mbit links to move the images down in near realtime, a gumstix computer to control the camera (with libgphoto2) and manage the datalink, and lots of vibration isolation/EMI/RF shielding and enclosures (one major disadvantage of gas, everything must be protected from vibration, even if you don't directly see the effects). However, this aircraft required several hundred feet of runway to takeoff and land, and landing occurred at around 70km/hr when fully loaded.

I have also seen the Senior Telemaster Plus used with good results as a larger workhorse. It can fly very slowly if lightly loaded - in a light wind you can almost land it vertically. It is also fairly inexpensive for a large aircraft. Be aware it is not the most sturdily built, to keep it light.

I haven't tried a glider type aircraft, but would really like to.

While a parachute seems like a good idea, one concern is weight. I have seen that typical parachute recovery systems may consume 15% - 20% of the total aircraft weight, which is very significant. Haven't tried any net recovery. Certainly agree that it adds complexity, and requires very careful design and test to implement properly. It will not be trivial.

One thing to consider is that if you end up with a decent smaller aircraft that can handle your payloads and handles your launch/recovery requirements, but simply doesn't have the endurance you are looking for, is you can consider simply accepting a lower endurance and planning your flight campaigns to get around this. For example, breaking a survey into several parts, and landing to swap out batteries in between. This is what we do with the Mentor. This only works if your range is small; having to fly a long ways away to reach the region of interest won't be helped by this approach.

Just my thoughts, perhaps they will be of use.

Thanks,
-Stephen Dwyer


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Reto Büttner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Alonso

I recommend a three step approach:

1. Test plane to learn Paparazzi

Take a simple generic plane, focus on good manners. That is achieved by average size (between 1m and 2m wing span) and in standard puller configuration (propeller on the nose). Choose electric propulsion for simplicity. Multiplex EasyGlider or a Multiplex TwinStar might be good choices.

2. Plane for 150g vertical camera with 50min endurance

I recommend electric propulsion for simplicity and reliability. As already stated one hour flight time is easily achieved. If you have very experienced people in model gas engines in your team, you can try that as well. With gas you can get very long endurance, oceans have been crossed. Be aware that you will have to deal with vibrations, poor reliability, noise and maybe even interference with the RC, if you choose an electronic ignition.

I recommend a glider configuration. They have outstanding aerodynamics to achieve long endurance and are well mannered.

Multiplex Cularis or Hobby King ASK21 EP Glider 2600mm Fiberglass might be good choices. Your camera should fit in there. They have four flap wings for optimal performance and precise landings. The first you need for your required endurance, the second for landing in difficult terrain in your field missions. Use a large battery and a small propeller (rather high pitch) to achieve your required endurance.

3. Plane for 600g camera with optional forward view

Think about this once you have mastered step 1 and 2.

General considerations:

I do not recommend building a plane from scratch. There are more than enough options on the market in any price range (also veery cheap). It is not likely that you will save money by building from scratch. You should use your time to learn Paparazzi and for flight training. In addition, if you crash, you can easily buy a new airframe and continue flying soon instead of spending hours in the workshop rebuilding from scratch.

Forget about a landing gear. You will not be able to use it in your field missions. In addition it is more difficult to start and land, heavy and deteriorates the planes aerodynamics.

If you don't need forward view, don't choose pusher propulsion. If you need forward view, the hobbyuav Techpod or HobbyKing Skywalker X-8 might be good choices.

I don't recommend Bormatec Maja, it simply doesn't fly well enough. I tried it.

I don't recommend parachute or landing net. That adds complexity to the system and is rather for professionals. Using a good airframe and a good pilot you will be able to land on small fields.

Best regards and good luck
Reto

2013/7/23 alonso acuña <[hidden email]>
Thanks to all the people that have responded, this is a great discussion.



>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
> - How large is your payload (camera)?

We have 3 cameras: a multispectral, a Canon Powershot ELPH 320 and a  DSLR. The first 2 are small and weight is less than 150g. The other one is bigger and could go over 600g.  Primary goal is to use the first 2 and the other one would be bonus or would be served later by a different plane.

>
> - Do you need vertical view only?

Initially yes but oblique photo would be a bonus (would be done with the heavier camera and perhaps with a different plane).

>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?

> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?

I am working with very experienced people in building planes, electric and gas, and flying them manually. I think I would prefer electric.

>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
I am working with people experienced in programming (including me) and electronics. We will be investing whatever time it takes to be able to answer yes to this question. We are just starting.
We might use a smaller cheaper plane with no camera for flight testing and learning and then move to the primary plane when we feel confident.

> - Do you have a runway available?
>
For testing yes. For real work we will be taking photos at multiple locations all over our small country so perhaps a dirt road or a grass field is all we'll find. I would like to know how big is the space needed to takeoff and land and whether designs can be adapted to do shorter landings. We might consider parachutes or nets or whatever.


50 minute flight would be OK.  The Bormatec Maja is advertised with 50 min endurance with 3S/6000mAh and 500W motor with 1,5kg payload inclusive of batteries. As seen on http://conservationdrones.org/hardware/
My plan is to build our own airframe as these are too expensive to buy and we have the guys who can build planes from scratch if necessary. They don't have experience with this kind of application or automated flying, so we are unsure about the design to use.

Thanks again for all the help.

Alonso Acuna


On 23 July 2013 11:02, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The question about the runway is very relevant indeed as you can achieve a
> long flight duration either by having a relatively high wing load, for
> instance with a 2 m plane with a landing gear packed with batteries

I am curious how long a runway you need - and also if paparazzi
handles landing or whether that's something that has to be done by
hand? (I'm still very much a paparazzi noob!)

> or if
> you don?t have a runway you will need a plane with a nice aerodynamic and

> less wing load (I am thinking for instance of f3j gliders) but you will have
> more problems with wind?

>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Hector Garcia de Marina
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:53
>
>
> ? : [hidden email]

> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> Hi C?dric,

>
>
>
> would you mind to show such setup? I am curious about the flight autonomy,
> payload, total size and weight of the plane etc.
>
>
>
> Reto also points out a good remark, it seems that you will need a runway for
> this kind of airplane (or at least, a nice big launcher :P).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <[hidden email]>

> wrote:
>
> I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less vibrations,
> better reliability, less noise.
>
> 50+ minutes flight isn?t difficult to achieve with the right plane and

> enough batteries.
>
>
>
> De : paparazzi-devel-bounces+spam1=[hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]=[hidden email]] De la part de
> Reto B?ttner
> Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24
> ? : [hidden email]

> Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>
>
>
> There are countless options for your application. To give an appropriate
> advice we would need some more information:
>
>
>
> - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
>
> - How large is your payload (camera)?
>
> - Do you need vertical view only?
>
> - Do you have experience in RC planes?
>
> - Do you have experience in model gas engines?
>
> - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>
> - Do you have a runway available?
>
>
>
> Regards, Reto
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/23 Chris Gough <[hidden email]>
>
> I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get
> endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ minutes
> endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider stepping up to
> longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane that forgives
> crashes. For example:
>
>  * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
>  * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.
>
> It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but
> still probably a good idea.
>
> In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at
> "conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost
> certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.
>
> Chris Gough
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want more
>> flights of more than one hour.
>>
>> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acu?a" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I need
>>> stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small camera. I have
>>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be better
>>> for
>>> use with paparazzi.
>>>
>>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working with a
>>> new airframe.
>>>
>>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure how to
>>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from other users
>>> and give feedback.
>>>
>>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Alonso Acu?a

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Chris Efstathiou
In reply to this post by alonso acuña
Hi.
I agree with all the others here.
Start with something easy like an easyglider or a similar electric
glider and after some successfull
auto2 flights then go for something heavier.
The most important thing is to start with a light, slow and stable
airframe and then get to the heavier
airplanes.
For the endurance and the payload you want i would go to a big trainer
style aircraft like the ASM
Cessna 182 either as an electric or gas powered and the cameras fitted
under the wings.
Chris


On 07/24/2013 12:16 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> how to select an airframe


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Reto Büttner
Hi Chris
 
I guess you are referring to the giant Cessna with 120 inch (3m) wingspan and 25 lb (11kg) weight.
 
I don't think that would be an appropriate choice for Alonsos requirements. He needs to carry a 150g camera in rough field missions. For 150g payload I would choose a plane of max. 2kg. Hand launch and belly landings are mandatory. For his later requirements of 600g payload a 5kg plane must be sufficient. His endurance requirements are much easier to meet using an aerodynamically efficient airframe (glider style) than using a trainer style airframe.
 
I would use a large airframe like the ASM Cessna 182 only if I have a good runway available (preferrably concrete) and my payload is over 2kg.
 
Cheers
Reto
 
2013/7/24 Chris <[hidden email]>
Hi.
I agree with all the others here.
Start with something easy like an easyglider or a similar electric glider and after some successfull
auto2 flights then go for something heavier.
The most important thing is to start with a light, slow and stable airframe and then get to the heavier
airplanes.
For the endurance and the payload you want i would go to a big trainer style aircraft like the ASM
Cessna 182 either as an electric or gas powered and the cameras fitted under the wings.
Chris



On 07/24/2013 12:16 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
how to select an airframe


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Stephen Dwyer
Hello Chris (G.),

Unfortunately, we don't have the Rascal anymore. We were also using it before we switched to paparazzi, and it had a Micropilot onboard. It met it's demise during an auto takeoff due to a software "feature"/bug (commercial solutions aren't perfect...).

After this crash, Sig Mfg. was in limbo for a time, and so they only just started making them again. I would have to say though, fantastic large aircraft. It is very efficient with the elliptical wings, much more so than a Telemaster or similar. It is not very easy to transport though.

Thanks,
-Stephen Dwyer



On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Reto Büttner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Chris
 
I guess you are referring to the giant Cessna with 120 inch (3m) wingspan and 25 lb (11kg) weight.
 
I don't think that would be an appropriate choice for Alonsos requirements. He needs to carry a 150g camera in rough field missions. For 150g payload I would choose a plane of max. 2kg. Hand launch and belly landings are mandatory. For his later requirements of 600g payload a 5kg plane must be sufficient. His endurance requirements are much easier to meet using an aerodynamically efficient airframe (glider style) than using a trainer style airframe.
 
I would use a large airframe like the ASM Cessna 182 only if I have a good runway available (preferrably concrete) and my payload is over 2kg.
 
Cheers
Reto
 
2013/7/24 Chris <[hidden email]>
Hi.
I agree with all the others here.
Start with something easy like an easyglider or a similar electric glider and after some successfull
auto2 flights then go for something heavier.
The most important thing is to start with a light, slow and stable airframe and then get to the heavier
airplanes.
For the endurance and the payload you want i would go to a big trainer style aircraft like the ASM
Cessna 182 either as an electric or gas powered and the cameras fitted under the wings.
Chris



On 07/24/2013 12:16 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
how to select an airframe


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Chris Efstathiou
In reply to this post by alonso acuña
Hi Reto
You are probably right, i am so in love with this airplane as it is so
easy to fly that the only thing
that comes in my mind right now is this model.
Despite it's size it is a very docile airplane, stalls nicely and it can
land in grass with no problem.
I would also reccomend my other love the X8 with a catapult but it is
not an easy airplane to start with
although it has great potential.
Chris



On 07/24/2013 03:31 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> I guess you are referring to the giant Cessna with 120 inch (3m) wingspan
> and 25 lb (11kg) weight.


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: how to select an airframe

Reto Büttner
Hi Chris
 
I believe the giant Cessna is a lovely plane. Just not the right choice for Alonso.
 
I agree concerning the X8. For long endurance forward looking missions I would prefer the Techpod, because a classic airframe with a tail is better mannered and no catapult is required.
 
Reto
 


2013/7/25 Chris <[hidden email]>
Hi Reto
You are probably right, i am so in love with this airplane as it is so easy to fly that the only thing
that comes in my mind right now is this model.
Despite it's size it is a very docile airplane, stalls nicely and it can land in grass with no problem.
I would also reccomend my other love the X8 with a catapult but it is not an easy airplane to start with
although it has great potential.
Chris




On 07/24/2013 03:31 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
I guess you are referring to the giant Cessna with 120 inch (3m) wingspan
and 25 lb (11kg) weight.


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
12