Quad Copter Fpv

[SWWASAS]

A fix wing low wing loading motor glider would be much more efficient a platform than a copter. Endurance much longer with the same battery pack. The wing holding it in the air not just raw power. There are also autopilots that can be programmed to hold altitude and fly to GPS coordinates. Most commercially available motor gliders are probably not light enough to get good performance. Too much foam etc. But built up kits could be adapted to carry a camera. I think I have seen models of military RPVs that would work very well. Camera in the nose and propellers in the back. Such a model was used in the now playing movie "Interstellar". The government is pretty nervous about such technology because basically, loaded with explosives, you have a home made cruise missile. But having a camera either recording or downloading visual data and it can be used for a lot of purposes. Takeoff and landing areas would be pretty hard to find in forested areas but the solution the military would use would be a catapult to launch and fly it into a big net between poles to recover it. A catapult that works is simply a sloped light weight ramp of PVC pipe using stretched surgical tubing (used for fishing) to launch the airplane. Stretch the surgical tubing, put the model on the ramp with a latch to hold it, run up to full power, then release the latch. The net can be any large net loosely stretched between poles. Practice in an open area before taking it into the forest. I have a lot of time flying model airplanes so know it is all very doable with modern light weight camera equipment.

Edited December 9, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[norseman]

I like the idea of four hours of flight time vs a half an hour.

What I don't like about the FPV planes that I've seen is that none of them incorporate a gimbal. Which means you have to point the plane at something to look at it and the video records every bump along the way as well.

[Airdale]

A gimbal mount on a fixed wing would have one major problem, once you move the POV away from forward you lose your collision avoidance system, i.e. the Mk 1 eyeball watching where you're going. The gyro stabilization on the Spy Hawk seems to do a pretty good job of controlling camera shake.

[BC witness]

SWWAS, we share another passion, beyond Sasquatch, in RC flying. We may have met sometime over the last 15 years or so at events in the PNW, I've been to a few in Wa., and met numerous American pilots at events here in BC.

[SWWASAS]

I do not do models much any more as BF field work and getting some time on my full sized seems to always have higher priority. But now and then I would like to launch a drone and see what is on the other side of the ridge.

With a steerable camera, I would have one person flying the airplane and another running the camera. My son has experimented with flying models with onboard camera feedback and showed it to me once. It is very difficult and disorientating. He has done engineering work on three of the rovers now on mars, and thinks a Falcon like project would cost much more than projected because of control and reliability issues.

[Guest]

I've been into RC planes on and off, not so much the newer FPV stuff, still catching up.

 

However, to keep stuff simple, instead of a gimbal mount, I'd suggest a cam looking out at 90 degrees from the fuselage along the wing, (High wing) maybe pointed down a little. This is how they set up the minigun on some Cessnas etc in Vietnam, because the pilot could just fly circles around target and keep pasting it. So camera angled similar would have same advantages, you could keep circling, camera would stay pointed to it. It may be good to set up one of those autopilots to precisely circle designated GPS co-ords, since while circling you'll tend to drift off target if trees get in line of sight at points in the circle.

 

So, you'd get lightest FPV forward facing unit, only have just enough quality/resolution to fly it and have second "good" cam under wing, higher res or whatever.

[CMBigfoot]

Next Tuesday in Oregon there's a hearing on House Bill 2534 that would prohibit drones for hunting, fishing, as well as prohibit harassing anglers and hunters.

 

If it becomes law, HB 2534 would require the ODFW Commission to ban the use of drones as an aid in fishing or hunting as well as tracking or harassing wildlife, game birds, " game mammals or other mammals."

 

It also would be illegal to use drones for harassing or otherwise interfering with lawful anglers or hunters.

 

The ODFW and its agents would be exempt from the restrictions.

 

If this passes in Oregon it wouldn't surprise me if Washington would be next.

[Guest]

Half of that, is due to some extremists buzzing hunters on private property, also anti gun activists been buzzing gun clubs with them, shoulda just made it a-okay to shoot them down. There was one dope on youtube trying to get sherrif involved / raise sympathy after he was buzzing a gun club and got a chunk shot out of his. Then trying to spin it as gun owners being out of control psychos, hello, private property.

 

IDK if there's been any significant hassling of animals that I've heard of though, unless it's those same lot trying to scare the wildlife away from hunts.

Mind you, only takes you 5 mins on youtube to fund numerous examples of people being total jerks with them in general. I'm reckoning they ought not to sell ready to fly ones, or take ID for them, something to make the idiots think twice.

[SWWASAS]

My take on drones in Oregon is that a certain element of the population does not want anyone to know what is going on in their own back yard.   The only thing I can figure is that a lot of people have pot grows or are into nude sunbathing.    It does not seem to bother them that the state government puts its nose into everything else they do, but drones seem to really bother them for some reason.       They can pass all the laws they want but the likelihood of someone in a truely remote area being caught is and fined is unlikely.     I think the multi- rotor drones are a terrible platform for looking for BF.     Too noisy and too short a duration to do much looking.      The modern radio control radios are such high frequencies that it is basically line of sight.    Put that equipment in a forest and one tree in the way could cause you to loose control.    The older CB frequencies would be a lot better as they are not so line of sight because of lower frequencies and longer wave lengths.     But that gear is illegal now.   Ham radio people have a lot of available frequencies and their frequencies might be a lot better for a drone. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest sixxgunner]

These could be very useful if they can get the batteries to last a little longer.

[Guest]

Not likely to happen for a while, it was something of a large leap in battery chemistry and availability/low-cost that made quadcopters doable in the first place. Something like 10 times the power in the same size and weight, coupled with high efficiency multipole motor tech this made electric helos that could actually lift their own weight possible. There's not really such a thing as an efficient helicopter, if they're not thrashing air, they're falling.

[SWWASAS]

You got that right. A helicopter or quad-copter has so many critical failure modes, that failure of any of the many single critical parts can result in crash. The same is not true of other types of aircraft. A more efficient aerial platform is a blimp or powered glider where in the case of the blimp the gas counteracts the weight by displacement of air to produce lift. With the powered glider, the wing helps support the weight. Any sort of copter, the weight is supported completely by power and requires a lot of energy to do that. No power and it drops out of the sky. With blimp or powered aircraft, at least when the power fails it still is capable of gliding.

Edited March 12, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[norseman]

Well there is auto rotation.....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation_(helicopter)