3-D Printing Enables UVA Student-Built Unmanned Plane
In an effort that took four months and $2000, instead of the quarter million dollars and two years they estimate it would have using conventional design methods, a group of University of Virginia engineering students has built and flown an airplane of parts created on a 3-D printer. The plane is 6.5 feet in wingspan, and cruises at 45 mph. I only wish this had been sponsored by Estes or Makerbot rather than the MITRE Corporation; it would be great for every high school or hobbyist group that can scrape together the printing time to have one of these on demand. (HT to Gaël Duval.)
Am I reading correctly that even the engine (a turbofan) was built entirely from 3d-printed parts? Now THAT's cool.
The press release is deceptive. They did not build a working turbofan engine with a 3D printer. They built a plastic scale model of a Rolls Royce turbofan engine with a Stratasys 3D printer. It will rotate if powered with compressed air. Rolls Royce gave U of VA a $2 million dollar grant which supported that effort.
The plane itself wasn't printed as one piece. It was more like printing the parts of a plane kit. Very slowly. 80 hour weeks are mentioned. Not sure where the $2000 cost figure comes from, but it doesn't include labor or 3D printer time. Maybe that's just the plastic cost.
3-D Printing Enables UVA student-built UAV
Baby steps, baby steps. To use a car analogy, we are at the horse and buggy stage of 3D printing. In computers, that would be the i4004 stage. Give it time and personal 3D printers -will- become common and useful.
I imagine it will be similar to photo printing. Not everyone has a photo printer, some people still upload their images to a photo-finishing place and let them do the printing. But many people can justify owning a photo printer for various reasons (cost, volume, control, etc.).
I was surprised that they went with the typical high wing trainer. On the other hand, going with something well known and very reliable was a good idea to verify that they method works.
Spending $2k on a $500 project does seem silly. Skimming the article, they are mechanical engineering students. It would be more applicable to aeronautical engineering students, to prototype new types of aircraft.
Judging by the picture, they may have gone a little heavy on the wings and fuselage. Mechanically, it was probably stronger than the need, which is a good idea. For aeronautical purposes, it was probably overkill. But hey, it flies, and that's what counts. :)
I would love to see more on the project than the article. It's kind of light on details.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I think it would be interesting for the Maker community to come out with some part specs for this. Think a standard body and motor mounting structure that have interfaces to take different wing configurations, tail configurations, even wheels and whatnot. Kinda like an API for a plane model where you have a few basic standardized parts and you can then print out all manner of different things to try that just basically bolt onto those standards. They could probably do much the same for the quatro/hexa copters as well. Hell, there's probably a ton of applications that would benefit from a library of standard parts that you can build on.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
To be blunt, the MakerBot is a "toy" 3D printer, capable of producing nothing more than small, low-quality, toys. It's imprecise and produces rather crude pieces. It's not bad for a build-it-yourself kit, and the price isn't bad at all, but as far as 3D printers go overall... well, you get what you pay for. The build platform is small, the tolerances poor, and the finished pieces rather rough.
You can make some REALLY nice stuff with 3D printing. You can't with the MakerBot. To see what's really possible, check out shapeways.com The stuff there (user-submitted designs printed on professional printers) is light-years ahead of the MakerBot. I, myself, got the world's best D&D dice there, printed with Stainless Steel and a bronze finish.
I think that this is more a "proof of concept" for the METHOD, more than it was for making experimental UAVs. Just because it's old hat for you doesn't mean the sponsoring corporation doesn't need testing and trial runs made. This is fantastic for people that need to deal with "empirical data and experience", not theoretical. Theoretical extrapolation of technology won't convince the FAA to let you put your parts on a type-certified aircraft. FAA are mostly old engineers that don't trust new technology until it's been tested for about 20 years.
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
No. Next up will be a report from MITRE showing how a UAV can be built cheaply and what its capabilities for combat or surveillance are. As a result, 3-D printers and related technology will be placed on lists of export restricted equipment. And lists of people who own or attempt to purchase listed equipment will be turned over to the FBI for further scrutiny.
Have gnu, will travel.
Simple... it's because just like powered flight in the early 20th century meant we would eventually all be driving flying cars everywhere, the development of a hands-free, any-geometry manufacturing process means we will soon be 3D printing all our material needs at home faster than they can be distributed to us from centres of mass manufacture.