Back to Blog
Wookong m flight control system7/10/2023 ![]() An octocopter is designed purely for close quarter flying or within range of FPV for observation and photography, Moreover, the cost of a foam, fixed wing aircraft, if lost, would be much more bearable at 2 to 3 hundred dollars than the loss of 7 or 8 thousand dollars. A large wing, powered sail plane with just a small motor will do this particular task both faster and more economically than an octocopter. The power to weight ratio of the thrust components and battery of rotary and fixed wing bear no resemblance to each other. ![]() They require constant thrust to keep them airborne (and hence, considerable battery power) whereas a fixed wing aircraft may fly unpowered for a while (if necessary), except for gravity and thermal lift provided there is sufficient airflow over the wing. Unlike a fixed wing, rotary wing aircraft are inherently unstable. As other correspondents have said, a rotary wing aircraft is just not viable for this particular task. Unless you enjoy the suspense of whether the aircraft would return to you, there can be no enjoyment of owning such an aircraft in use and if it should crash due to bird strike or any other reason, you would have absolutely no idea where it crashed. ![]() For that matter, why would anyone risk the cost of the aircraft for ANY reason if the aircraft is out of sight of both the pilot and beyond transmitting range of an FPV system. By the way, you have already suggested that the flight should take place over the sea and therefore would reduce the third party risk in the event of failure. Secondly, why would anyone risk the cost of losing such an expensive aircraft on an unmanned, unpiloted flight just to see what the sea conditions are 10 miles up the coast. That is assuming that it could carry sufficient battery power to cope with 1.5 hours flying time at the redundancy level you are advocating though I suspect that the laws of exponential gain apply here. To build such an aircraft would cost at least 7 or 8 thousand dollars. I am sorry, I just cannot accept your reasoning. Another consideration must be that octocopter propellers may not have sufficient thrust to lift the vehicle with only 4 working and also the remaining 4 motors will have to work that much harder to maintain altitude, which in turn, may cause further failure. The additional motors on an octocopter are closer together on the same radius and must therefore be steadier in flight on the failure of one motor. I have seen an hexcopter return safely after losing a single motor, albeit slightly erractically. Surely if one of the eight axes fails, it is better to leave all of the other seven in operation. On the point of equipment failure an octocopter is normally designed for heavy lift. It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to be able to clearly see a small model at a range of 10 miles. The exemption to this order is that if the aircraft is less than 1.8kg all up including airframe, motors and fuel, then a trained observer, who must remain close to the pilot, must then have the line-of-site of the aircraft in order to warn the pilot of hazards. We have different rules in the UK for UAV flying, Air Navigation Order 166(3) which is part of British Law says that the pilot of the aircraft must have direct, un-aided visual of the aircraft at all times. a motor will fail an ESC will fail a prop will fail (though in theory an octo has some redundancy if its design right IE switch to 4 motor mode kill the offending string of 4 motors if a motor esc prop fails. this way if it goes down it does so in the drink and is far far less likely to hit someone. I would program it to go out over the ocean go up shore and work in (but not over land) slowly. you need 30 minutes to get their 30 minutes to get back 10 minutes to loiter and 20 minutes of reserve power (in case of delay or headwinds etc.) if that model "HITS" someone it will likely kill them or at the minimum injur them quite badly. even at 20miles per hour that is MINIMUM 1 hour 30 minutes of battery power. if for commercial purposes the FAA (illegally without authority in my opinion) has decreed any use of RC for commercial purposes to be illegal. in your situation radio control range is irrelevant since your using autonomous GPS control which is "onboard" be warned.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |