Slashdot Mirror

minor correction: quadcopter hobby class (non commercial) endurance record is currently around 2 hours 9 minutes. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums...

Over an hour is quite possible with conventional drones - there is a tradeoff between prop diameter and power usage - most quads optimise for low prop diameter for performance reasons.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums... >2h flight.

The quadcopter they showed with the eagle is a Spyrit Max FPV T2M, a toy level 230 size (measured in mm diagonally from motor-motor), and weighs less than 600g when it has the prop guards & camera on board (which it didn't at the time), yet the 360 sized quads (like the DJI Phantom) weigh around a 1000g and get heavier when you add things a camera & 3 axis gimbal, plus they have brushless motors that are far more powerful than the brushed motors of the Spyrit.

A Cheerson CX-20 is around the same size as a Phantom, and one has already accidentally killed a bald eagle that had attacked it: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=33893158&postcount=56152

#1 "He" wouldn't have been flying it, it would have been autonomous

#2 It probably wouldn't have crashed. .

  Besides the rant, this guys got to be a real knuckle dagger or have other motivation as the camera resolution is 640x480. Here's some pictures and a review so you can see the toy he was flying.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums...
 

Good luck jamming inertia

Which is why you put up GPS jamming and physical barriers too. Inertial nav is only accurate over short distances, unless you have some external way to calibrate your nav system and can remove the various bias issues caused by vibration, temperature changes and other things that cause changes in the gyros (mechanical, laser ring or otherwise). Usually inertial nav's need to be calibrated, and they do that with GPS (or some other system like LORAN) in order to maintain enough accuracy over time.

Nothing is perfect, but you do the best you can with the resources you have and you live with the risks you cannot afford to fix. I'm suggesting that there is bigger bang for the buck in other things than trying to go out and detect these things in flight.

Good luck jamming inertia

You'll be getting crap for $100-150. Sorry, but you will. Now that being said, I have found a Syma x5C from Banggood for $63.51 CAD and has a 2MB camera. http://www.banggood.com/Syma-X... and it's not bad for a beginner but it's going to get broken and then you'll be pissed off.

But you should really save your pennies and buy a Cheerson CX20 but it's $368.40 CAD. http://www.banggood.com/Cheers... Here's an entire thread on it from people who know their stuff on RCGroups: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums...

Do your research on this on YouTube and the Internet in general. Read the reviews. This is a pretty serious drone for little cost. You can get gimbals and use GoPro cameras (or SJ4000 type cameras too). Anyhow, good drones aren't to be found for under $300. Save your money...you'll thank me later.

This isn't just about a single person or an isolated incident. The BLM has been rubbing locals the wrong way in Nevada for some time now. This includes events that lead to the local sheriff (Tony DeMeo) threatening to arrest BLM agents for illegal search and seizures against his constituents. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1289150

The FAA has no authority over RC stuff.

Incorrect. The FAA considers RC aircraft as aircraft and therefore has complete jurisdiction. They created a policy for hobby use of rc aircraft, AC 91-57, but there is not a specific one for commercial RC aircraft.

Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.

From the FAA website;

What is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)?
A UAS is the unmanned aircraft (UA) and all of the associated support equipment, control station, data links, telemetry, communications and navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft.
The UA is the flying portion of the system, flown by a pilot via a ground control system, or autonomously through use of an on-board computer, communication links and any additional equipment that is necessary for the UA to operate safely. The FAA issues an experimental airworthiness certificate for the entire system, not just the flying portion of the system.

What you are describing is a autonomous aircraft which is a sub type of unmanned aircraft.

3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.

Here is an exerpt from one of the links in the search you posted;

Conclusion:
Maximum practical payload seem to be about 5kg, total weight of 7kg.

5kg is about 11 pounds or about 2 six packs. Notice he is talking about payload capacity.

You really should not give people so much ammo to refute your claims. Here is an exerpt from one of thelinks in the search you posted;

Conclusion:
Maximum practical payload seem to be about 5kg, total weight of 7kg.

5kg is about 11 pounds or about 2 six packs. Notice he is talking about payload capacity.

That said: This hasn't been a problem. I know of no cases of RC to full sized aviation mid-airs.

Here's one for you.

I imagine they happen with some regularity at places where R/C and manned aircraft share the airspace -- for example, at Torrey Pines before R/C use was banned (not sure what the current status is.) Of course, nobody was arrested in those incidents and I don't even know that there were any injuries -- but there were some collisions.

I don't believe you. The algorithm has been reverse engineered: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1759502 Anyone skilled with a software radio could eventually synchronize to this and then just need to put out a more powerful signal.

hmmm ... I don't see where it says it goes 40. It does say this:

40/55 mph (65/90 kph) sustained/gust wind tolerance,

which is clearly different than going 40mph.

If the pilotless plane/multicopter cannot go faster than the sustained wind, it cannot tolerate it, as the plane won't be able to come back to its starting point -- it'll drift downwind no matter what it does, and you'll never see it again (unless you go looking for it.)

Still ... while 40 mph isn't much for a R/C plane, it sounds fast for a multicopter. But after looking it up, I guess it's not that exceptional after all. Still, if you're going full throttle just to hover in the wind, you're probably going to greatly reduce your loiter time -- I wouldn't expect 50 minutes of flight time in that situation.

Just get one. Its an amazing piece of chinese engineering. It is in fact so good, that a US toy company, Traxxas is rebranding and selling it at 2x the price.

This is a perfect introduction into what modern drones can do, for around 40$

Rcgroups: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23707658&postcount=210

Dude. Full retail is $4K for something that looks pretty good - http://www.marcusuav.com/pricelist.htm.
By decent EE I mean someone like this - DIY http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1337608
I am guessing this cost well less than $4K - though depends on what the guy's time is worth. So if by "big budget" you mean more than a few hundred bucks then yes.

A little information from us RC airplane pilot hobbyists: (I own and operate a home-built unmanned drone plane for fun) This sort of flying is called "FPV Flying", for First Person View. You can spend absolutely everything you want to know about it on the FPV boards over on www.rcgroups.com for anyone that's interested: http://www.rcgroups.com/video-piloting-fpv-rpv-469/ It has been debated legally for several years now, and the bottom line is per the FAA, as long as you are not interfering with actual manned airplanes, there isn't much you're not allowed to do, as long as you obey the controlled airspace laws. For example, you must stay below 400 feet when within 3 miles of an airport. Furthermore, most everyone that flies RC seriously at least knows, and is usually a member of, the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). In the last few years, the AMA has been working closely with the FAA to try and put together safety guidelines for unmanned FPV planes and drones. Those guidelines can be found here: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf On a personal note about the article, I highly doubt these activists were following all the AMA guidelines for FPV flying.

Go to www.rcgroups.com, visit the multi-rotor forum in the RC helis section ( http://www.rcgroups.com/multi-rotor-helis-659/ ) Hundreds of amateurs tinkering with 'drones', some just flying them around a field for fun, others doing a bit of aerial photography with 'em. And they've been doing it for quite a while... A lot of the lower-end builds are stabilised by a combination of an Arduino, Wii Motion Plus, and the open-source MultiWii software. Higher-end multicopters can have actively stabilised camera mounts, and be carrying fairly high-end camera gear.

Not the guy I was referring to. Horst is not using a flying wing & is not piloting his plane using real-time video sent back over a radio link to a head-mounted display like the guy I was referring to. There was some problem with the Head mounted display as he won them in a competition but the guy giving out prizes refused to give him his prize for some time

The guy I was referring to had flight times over 40 min, speeds approaching 100km & could pilot somewhat out of line of sight.using the radiop video link. His videos were closer to those done by basejumpers that what I saw of Horst's.

I bookmarked a page way back & IIRC the guy doing all this was Trappy from Austria, not Switzerland. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1279141&page=11

The problem with coaxial rotor helis in the hobbyist market is that they're all fixed-pitch blade - so are completely useless for outdoor operation in even a light breeze. Although they're still fixed-pitch, quadcopters are much better at doing this. e.g.:

Horizon Hobby Blade mQX Micro Quad-Copter with AS3X RTF & BNF Review
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1579977

I recommend you FPV and I find it more fun than the drone. There are many ready to fly solutions for cheap. Here is the link to the proper forums RcGroups http://youtu.be/b7e2IQ_Ft3c

This collection of UAV links may be helpful: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=358497
and also this forum in general: http://www.rcgroups.com/uav-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-238/

This collection of UAV links may be helpful: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=358497
and also this forum in general: http://www.rcgroups.com/uav-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-238/

Jason, there're many people already doing this. For light weight you can use a lightweight made in china pinhole wireless camera. A little heavier, the USB stick camera. A compact digital camera even.

For more info, read up:

http://www.rcgroups.com/aerial-photography-128/

The HAM license is required for legal use of the FPV 1280 MHz video links and frequency hopping UHF control systems on the ARS 433 MHz bands in the US. They transmit at powers of 500 mW ~ 1000 mW which allows control ranges greater then 10 miles line of sight.

Warning: FPV is not a cheap or easy hobby! It requires a great deal of electrical, mechanical, engineering, radio, and flying skills to be successful.
The RCG FPV Forum is good place to learn more.

My guess is that helium containment is hard for balloons and the limited range is caused by helium loss?

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-265008.html

Helium atom's are very small giving them a diffusion rate through solids that's 3x that of air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium

The other factor is, all helium we currently have is produced through alpha particle emissions due to radioactive decay. This is a non-renewable and finite resource that if exploited would run out long before we cooked ourselves in a carbonated atmosphere.

Tiny carbon footprint indeed, but possibly still wasteful. Once the helium escapes the balloon it floats up to the upper atmosphere and escapes into space via some method I'm forgetting. Never to be used again. The same thing applies to your birthday balloons but nobody is particularly worried about those unless you try to lift your house with them.

a variant or FFF Eagle (fan fold foam)

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=950519

I had to look it up. Learned they were used for reconnaissance.

Some good pictures here for those who are curious:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252658

Because blimps are slow (bye bye speed advantage), helium is bloody expensive (and rightly so), and people are scared of hydrogen-filled bags.

No, blimps can be very fast, try 55km/h (34mph) for this RC blimp. Reason blimps can be as fast as copters is they use all of their thrust to move forward like an airplane, not wasting it to provide lift. Besides they're claiming the quadcopter only has a 10km range. At 55km/h that's barely 6 minutes, that's "quick" when you don't have access to roads. While they have not released the speed of their quadcopter I found this forum post that says a MikroKopter (MK) Quadcopter does 36mph which is equivalent to the blimp.

Helium is not that expensive, not when you're comparing it to a quadcopter with multiple charging stations and is more likely to crash.

As for being afraid have you not seen a quadcopter? It's four propellers moving very fast and sounding like 1,000 angry bees. A quadcopter is probably one of the scariest sounds in the world.

Quadcopters have their place, they're small, stealthy and fun, but I don't think they make a good daily delivery system.

It may not happen soon enough in the scale that will impact the majority of the people, but it is already happening.

Here is a link to a guy who took the plans for an old Guillows free-flight plane and converted it to a 3d printable version:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/thumbgallery.php?t=1455808&do=threadgallery

Here is a link to a company that makes a "printer" for foam for simple models and prototyping:

http://www.phlatboyz.com/Phlatprinter-3-Kit_p_9.html

I think we are fast approaching the time when the printers will be able to print another copy of itself.

Sure, you'll need the raw material, but we are at the point now where you could "print" an Ikea furniture piece.

I've been following the following thread over at RC Groups for about a month:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/thumbgallery.php?do=threadgallery&t=1455808

It's 124 grams right now and almost ready to fly.

Sounds like what 98% of all quadcopter hobbyists encounter daily.

And we are giving 100K+ grants to these colleges to do R&D on stuff that industries experts like Ascending/Aerovironment/Dragam/Microdrone have been doing for ages. On both cheap and expensive scale. With all the super-universities teams working on acrobatic in a close spaced with motion capture systems, why not have some R&D in wind-resistance? Motor fail-over? Wireless comnunications? No one is really doing hardcore research in that topic, aside from the hobby community and that's what everyone is really asking for....

Looks more fun. Story should have said, College students buy a quadcopter, velcro a set of sensors to record to an SD card and fly it in a swarm of bats to get the sensor readings.

I agree. Too many people here scared of their own shadows.

If you and anyone else wants to get into this sort of thing, or just RC planes in general, may I suggest RCGroups.com:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/index.php

It's an awesome forum.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1279141

Over 100 pages of details and questions etc. This guy and others have been doing this for awhile :-)

Got it! Trappy is the guy who does many of these vids and here's where he's building what he feel sis the best plane for the job http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1279141

MANY pages of build details and back and forth on how best to build it etc. I believe this will seriously answer most any questions you have and he gives some radio info too I think. The vids in the Alps are AMAZING! I guess if I had been smart I would have submitted this way back when. D'oh! Hackaday.com linked to some of his earlier stuff and got me interested FWIW.

It seems that you can resolve copyright issues by claiming fair-use. I came across this post a few days at rcgroups. Scroll down to post #5 for the procedure.

Thanks.

Note: you can link to specific posts using the top-right post number.

What pisses me off is that they make Youtube waste time "policing" falsely.

It seems that you can resolve copyright issues by claiming fair-use. I came across this post a few days at rcgroups. Scroll down to post #5 for the procedure.

Thanks.

Note: you can link to specific posts using the top-right post number.

What pisses me off is that they make Youtube waste time "policing" falsely.

Thanks.

Note: you can link to specific posts using the top-right post number.

It seems that you can resolve copyright issues by claiming fair-use. I came across this post a few days at rcgroups. Scroll down to post #5 for the procedure.

FD: I am an aerospace engineer and have significant experience in UAV development, particularly aircraft design and avionics selection.

Excellent! I do love the breadth and depth of expertise that is available here in our community. Thanks for replying.

I am curious what your thoughts are regarding the forum linked below:

http://www.rcgroups.com/uav-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-238/

On the same site, this guy: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?u=115141 blogs about building an UAV helicopter. His style of writing is somewhat baroque, but his posts are sometimes hilarious.

Q) What countries have more relaxed UAV regulations?

A) Australia and New Zealand are famously progressive in their UAV policies. Other countries, such as Mexico, have been know to be relatively friendly, too.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=31fcf01ee166e7be6375a4830cd4fd5e&t=831627

Oh, hey, and here's the whole UAV category:

http://www.rcgroups.com/uav-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-238/ :)

Here's a thread on someone else's experience seeking the same objective:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1054800&highlight=uav

Not sure if you already have radio-controlled airplane experience. If you do not, I have a very solid recommendation for you:

A world-class starter platform for both learning to fly and lifting is the Slow Stick. It is one of the most popular planes with RC hackers, is cheap as dirt, has solid lifting potential (and upgrades can make it a real monster), and has lots of commercially available upgrade parts.

I'd go with a slow stick glider, and add a cheap brushless motor for starters (in fact, that's precisely what I have about six feet behind me for my first aerial photography platform). That will give you a good mix of cheap and solid lifting potential.

As for the forum, Slashdot is a good place to start for all things geeky, but the specialist forums you're looking for are at RCGroups:

http://www.rcgroups.com/

Here's the main starter thread for Slow Sticks:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122951

Admit your noob-ness, ask for advice, be respectful, weather the occasional ornery response with good humor, and you can learn everything you want to know at RC Groups.

Not sure if you already have radio-controlled airplane experience. If you do not, I have a very solid recommendation for you:

A world-class starter platform for both learning to fly and lifting is the Slow Stick. It is one of the most popular planes with RC hackers, is cheap as dirt, has solid lifting potential (and upgrades can make it a real monster), and has lots of commercially available upgrade parts.

I'd go with a slow stick glider, and add a cheap brushless motor for starters (in fact, that's precisely what I have about six feet behind me for my first aerial photography platform). That will give you a good mix of cheap and solid lifting potential.

As for the forum, Slashdot is a good place to start for all things geeky, but the specialist forums you're looking for are at RCGroups:

http://www.rcgroups.com/

Here's the main starter thread for Slow Sticks:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122951

Admit your noob-ness, ask for advice, be respectful, weather the occasional ornery response with good humor, and you can learn everything you want to know at RC Groups.

go to the http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/index.php RC forums there is alot of info in what you want to do. and here is the forums you want http://www.rcgroups.com/uav-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-238/ Note that if you live in USA it is illegal to make UAV. Even first person view flying is illegal. But first you need to learn how to make stuff fly before you even attempt to do the UAV stuff.

go to the http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/index.php RC forums there is alot of info in what you want to do. and here is the forums you want http://www.rcgroups.com/uav-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-238/ Note that if you live in USA it is illegal to make UAV. Even first person view flying is illegal. But first you need to learn how to make stuff fly before you even attempt to do the UAV stuff.

Ah, that explains it then. Cruise missiles and other long-range delivery methods are easy and cheap to obtain, while a GPS navigator is the nigh-legendary top-secret techical marvel only rumoured to exist...

GPS is the "missing part of the puzzle" that you couldn't possibly provide yourself. Locating stuff is hard. Very very hard.

In case you insist on acting like a fool, you do realize the US will stop GPS service at the slightest sign of an attack against american soil ? They do that for a reason.

Most countries don't have the capability of detecting bombs taped into the bottom of a random car, set up to go off during rush hour.

Allow me to explain why this won't work : everyone in that rush hour will be protected by several layers of metal between him and the bomb. You might actually kill the drivers immediately next to you. But there's no fucking way you're going to hurt someone who's in the second car behind or in front of you.

So even with a huge, huge bomb, you'll maybe (maybe) kill 4 people. And it would take the bomb making resources of something like the US military to pull that off too.

A market is a much, much easier thing to hit, and a place where you can kill many people loads easier. Especially if you can create an explosion some 5-10 meters above the market itself.

Yeah. And with a GPS-enabled phone, all they are lacking is the flying bomb.

I truly hope you are trolling. Otherwise I'm starting to get a bit scared, and not of terrorists. Maybe we should start a war on stupidity next ?

Ever notice the hobby shops around you ? An RC plane with load carrying capacity of 5, maybe even 10 kilograms is for sale for less than 500$. Add a microcontroller and a gps system and you're done. Many internet sites will explain you how it's done, how the programming works, etc.

Something like an iphone 3g would have the added advantage of having communications available. Maybe even enough for video streaming.

here's some advise for the aspiring terrorist :
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=312566 with lots of links to manufacturers.

Cost per kilo is somewhat missing the point.

Firstly, you can't buy a kilo to orbit. You simply can't.

You may be able to beg a ride-along if you have the right political connections, but otherwise it's impossible.

Secondly, it's unlikely that if 20g to orbit is $2000, 200g to orbit will be $20000.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly.

20g to orbit can't do much. You can put a bad camera, a radio, a solar panel, and a magnetometer on it, and maybe if you push the envelope really hard a 3-axis gyro. (to calculate your orbit)

200g however, even if it was $10000 per flight is in the realm where universities with modest physics, aerospace, or electronics facilities might consider it interesting to put up a small test sat.

Your cellphone weighs under 200g, even if it has GPS, GSM, accellerometers, wifi, camera, ...

With 200g in a small satellite, you've got a good shot at a reasonable camera, stabilisation using the earths magnetic field, GPS, a much better radio, solar panels, batteries to keep it alive during dark.

It's even reasonable that you could have a small part of it - say 50g - as a single-shot rocket able to optimise the trajectory.

I note that http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=814157 there are amateur build fully remote controlled planes at under half a gram.

Here's our HD feed from PBS, shrunk to internet resolution.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1960730

What a joke.