[Canberrauav] Test Aircraft - discussion
Stephen Dade stephen_dade at hotmail.com 
Mon Aug 12 12:21:56 UTC 2013 

It was raised at tonight's meeting that CanberraUAV does not have a solid
fleet of UAV's.

In particular the (recent) crash of our Boomerang has shown that we don't
have ready-to-go spares, leading to falling behind in our testing schedule
while Jack/Tridge build up replacement airframes.

Thus the intention is to decide on a couple of airframes that we can  have a
ready supply of spares.

The airframes should be:

-Able to carry our electronics (~3kg, plus physical room in the fuselage)

-Commonly available

-Capable of at least 20min flights

-Powerful enough to cope with moderate winds

-Strong enough to withstand rough landings

-Easy to set up

-Easy to place/remove electronics.

Currently on the suggestion list is:

-Boomerang

-Telemaster

I'm open to the idea of having two airframe types - one for short CMAC
flights and another for medium endurance flights (at Geoff's place).

I'll leave this discussion open until the next Monday meeting, where we will
make a decision as to which airframe we want to purchase.

Thanks

Stephen

[Canberrauav] Airframes discussion
Stephen Dade stephen_dade at hotmail.com 
Thu Aug 15 09:04:10 UTC 2013 

So, I have an idea stemming from our discussion of airframes on Monday:

At this point in time, the vast majority (if not all) of CanberraUAV's test
airframes are actually Jack and Tridge's personal airframes.

I feel that it's not fair for CanberraUAV to be relying on Jack and Tridge's
personal funds and goodwill, particularly when we've got substantial funds
of our own.

I'd far prefer that CanberraUAV had its own set of built-up and fitted out
airframes - maybe 2x small frames and 2x medium/large frames?

There's a few reasons for this:

-In the case of a crash, we would have airframes ready-to-go. This would
prevent delays in testing, of which we have a couple of examples.

-Other team members can more easily access the airframes for (re)fitting
equipment and flying

In addition, I think it would be a good idea to keep flight logs of our test
flights. I was thinking  a table (or something more fancy) on our admin
Github repo. It would include things like time&date, location, airframe
used, test purpose, results, weather conditions, time and distance flown.

It would make our testing process a more organised and make the Flight
Record Deliverable far easier. CanberraUAV would look that little bit more
"professional" too.

Comments on either of the above welcome :)

-Stephen

[Canberrauav] Airframes discussion
Jack Pittar jpittar at bigpond.net.au 
Thu Aug 15 14:31:38 UTC 2013

Yes, I've been thinking about this and I agree.
I have been looking at other aircraft that would fit under the rules for
flying Self Guide Model Aircraft, and have enough room to fit the equipment.
The Boomerang still seems to be the best fit. I discussed this with Tridge,
then purchased the aircraft today. I also purchased the parts needed to make
it into a taildragger so that I could keep the one I crashed on the weekend
for repairing later, and keeping as a trainer aircraft. The bill came to
$200.
If I keep the old one as a trainer, the new one will require a motor.
A new petrol motor has come out in the 10cc size for $200, which would be a
good match for this aircraft. Should i purchase one?
Jack.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: canberrauav-bounces at canberrauav.com
[mailto:canberrauav-bounces at canberrauav.com]On Behalf Of Stephen Dade
  Sent: Thursday, 15 August 2013 7:04 PM
  To: canberrauav
  Subject: [Canberrauav] Airframes discussion

  So, I have an idea stemming from our discussion of airframes on Monday:

  At this point in time, the vast majority (if not all) of CanberraUAV's
test airframes are actually Jack and Tridge's personal airframes.

  I feel that it's not fair for CanberraUAV to be relying on Jack and Tridge
's personal funds and goodwill, particularly when we've got substantial
funds of our own.

  I'd far prefer that CanberraUAV had its own set of built-up and fitted out
airframes - maybe 2x small frames and 2x medium/large frames?

  There's a few reasons for this:

  -In the case of a crash, we would have airframes ready-to-go. This would
prevent delays in testing, of which we have a couple of examples.

  -Other team members can more easily access the airframes for (re)fitting
equipment and flying

  In addition, I think it would be a good idea to keep flight logs of our
test flights. I was thinking  a table (or something more fancy) on our admin
Github repo. It would include things like time&date, location, airframe
used, test purpose, results, weather conditions, time and distance flown.

  It would make our testing process a more organised and make the Flight
Record Deliverable far easier. CanberraUAV would look that little bit more
"professional" too.

  Comments on either of the above welcome :)

  -Stephen

[Canberrauav] Airframes discussion
Andrew Tridgell andrew at tridgell.net 
Thu Aug 15 22:02:08 UTC 2013 

> If I keep the old one as a trainer, the new one will require a motor.
> A new petrol motor has come out in the 10cc size for $200, which would be a
> good match for this aircraft. Should i purchase one?

yes, I think so. A petrol motor would bring our test aircraft closer to
our OBC plane, and it will be interesting to see how reliable it is and
what sort of RF noise it generates. 

If everyone else is OK with it I think Jack should get the Evolution
10cc petrol motor for the new Boomerang. It seems to be the first petrol
motor that meets MAAA SGMA rules.

Cheers, Tridge

Copyright 2013 http://canberrauav.org.au/