[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/