|
ASARV
Aug 10, 2006 12:00:03 GMT -5
Post by Chimera388 on Aug 10, 2006 12:00:03 GMT -5
Hi there. I am a C/2dLt in the CAP, also on COWG staff. I would very much like to assist you in offering suggestions as well as testing prototypes when the time comes. I can test in CO and AZ, two of the harshest and most active SAR regions. For now, I will work on a call sign. Are you going to do this like the military and have a project name and then an official name, as in, do you need two names or is one sufficient? Also, I am a Computer Engineering major at Embry-Riddle, and may be able to help you in that regard as well
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 10, 2006 12:38:55 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus Laboratories on Aug 10, 2006 12:38:55 GMT -5
Hello Chimera388, thanks for posting. Yes, I believe we should have both a project name and an official name to be more like the military. And, I was also thinking that a computer engineer would almost definetly be needed for this project because I wanted to be able to control this vehicle from a laptop, using the key board and a joystick (much like the Predator UAV) and have the ability to change views on the computer from a forward looking camera to a downward looking camera. So, any help is welcome, and I also would like you to assist us in choosing a project and official name. Thanks. Also, with in the next month or so I will be posting the preliminary requirements as an outline for the vehicle, and I hope to have a prototype working in the field in less than a year, which I will have subjected to harsh flight testing that will be recorded in a log and released with the final UASARV. Hopefully, this vehicle will be released and working in at least ymy squadron and your squadron in less than 2 years, the sooner the better. However, I've yet to tell anyone at my local squadron of my idea yet .
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 10, 2006 16:39:15 GMT -5
Post by Chimera388 on Aug 10, 2006 16:39:15 GMT -5
Project "Saving Grace" is the best I came up with. Grace for short. I am still working on a aircraft name. As for the stick, that seems logical, as it will be intuitive and easy to use for the pilot. I suggest three cameras. A forward view, like a thingypit, a rear view for confirming sightings, and a downard view for terrain mapping and observation. This way, not only can GTs use this to locate targets, but to choose the best route of movement by scouting the terrain ahead.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 10, 2006 17:34:11 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus on Aug 10, 2006 17:34:11 GMT -5
Project Saving Grace it is. That's a really good name . Three cameras is a great idea (and it never occured to me either). And I've already decided on the cameras to use, they're full color high quality cameras that are 1"x1/4"x1/2, and they are $60 each for the camera, a transmitter, and a reciever.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 10, 2006 18:46:32 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 10, 2006 18:46:32 GMT -5
What is the range of the transmitter? It won't be much good for ground teams unless the transmission can go at lest 1/2 mile. Also, make sure the range of the cameras doesn't outrange the range of the remote control unit That would be bad. Something else to think about is whether Grace is reusable. From your cost projection of $1000, I would say no, but think about easily replacable pieces. have you seen the Future Weapons episode on UAVs? They have a man portable recon UAV that if you crash, can be repaired in the field because the control surfaces are designed to simply break off on impact, preserving them and the equipment.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 10, 2006 20:47:19 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus on Aug 10, 2006 20:47:19 GMT -5
Well, I was thinking that Grace would be a rather small and lightweight aircraft with a high glide ratio, so crashing would be rather hard to do, but I was thinking of making the wings and tail breakaway, so it would be easier to repair in the field. Now, I believe it would be reusable and that should be a main goal, and if we need to, we could spend more on it.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 11, 2006 1:31:27 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 11, 2006 1:31:27 GMT -5
When I say reusable referring to my cost projection, I mean to ask how do we intend to retrieve it? I see four options, but there may be more. 1) It flies back to the launch point and simply lands, making it necessary to have a clearing 2) We crashland it somewhere, pick it up, reassemble it, and we are ready 3) Parachute deploys at the push of a button over the launch personell, and they retrieve it. 4) We don't. We get another one.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 11, 2006 13:28:00 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus on Aug 11, 2006 13:28:00 GMT -5
Well, I say that we should design it so that if it crashes we could reassemble it and launch it again, but we should make the primary means of landing with a parachute, since it would be harder to land it in a small area, which brings us to another question. If we are not able to land it in a small area, will we be able to launch it in a short area? The answer: there is two ways to do this, we could use a RATO device, which is simple enough to make using Estes products, or we could make a rotary wing aircraft (which would be more expensive and harder to do). So esentially, we want STOL capabilities which can be achieved in several ways, but it should be reusable, but I don't know if it could be reusable in one day. Technically, the only thing to worry about is battery life.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 11, 2006 19:21:14 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 11, 2006 19:21:14 GMT -5
Well, there are military UAVs that are hand launched by throwing them like a paper airplane. This eliminates the need for additional supplies for a launch (rockets) and the added cost/complexity of rotary winged aircraft. Also, your prelim designes specify the device as gas powered. What helped you to this conclusion?
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 11, 2006 21:15:41 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus on Aug 11, 2006 21:15:41 GMT -5
Well, I first picked the motor as gas-powered because I thought an electric one wouldn't be powerful enough, but I've done some research and found out that an electric engine would be cheaper and powerful enough, not to mention we wouldn't have to worry about excessive heat. I've also been thinking, and I've wondered if it would be possibe to have the onboard cameras and contols wired to an onboard computer, such as a modified laptop (I can get cheap older laptops at a local store) and then maybe we could build a transmitter out of a radio (some of those two-way radios with a 2-mile range that come in a pack of 2 for $30) but I don't know if that would work, I'm not good at modifying computers, the only thing I can do with computers is do some upgrading. Oh, and I also have some old microprocessors, a 386 and 4 486s, and AMD motherboard, CD drive, and ribbon cables, so I don't know if those might be any help.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 11, 2006 22:25:55 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus Laboratories on Aug 11, 2006 22:25:55 GMT -5
Oh, and we might get some help from the National Institue for Aviation Research, I'm waiting for word back from them.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 11, 2006 22:49:58 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 11, 2006 22:49:58 GMT -5
You cannot transmit video through and FRS signal (those radios for $30). A more advanced signal is needed. You probalby can get control surface commands through those radios, but it would be easier to get an existing kit for a model airplane and use it's tranceiver and control surfaces. As for the power, electric will; be lighter weight, cheaper, less complicated, and easier to refill in the AO. The existing mobo and processors probably won't help. Really, this whole design is very simple. All you need is an existing control kit for a model airplane, 3 cameras (if you take my suggestion) and a tranceiver for the cameras. It may be easier and cheaper to run the cameras sperate from the control surfaces. This way, you can use existing technology rather than engineering your own. Then, once all this is done all you have to really engineer is the body, engine placement, the retreival system, and you might have to acquire a program that displays the video from the feeds. Not too hard. How many guys are on your team, and do you have assignments already?
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 11, 2006 23:07:47 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus Laboratories on Aug 11, 2006 23:07:47 GMT -5
Well, thanks for that explanation on how to set up the controls, one of the problems I have is overthinking things. Anyway, on our team is myself, two other guys for sure, you, possibly one other guy from Enceladus Laboratories, and possibly some students from Wichita State University and maybe the NIAR. But I haven't made assignments yet, but the other two guys are the heads of the biology department and the physics department, while the third possible guy is an aspiring civil engineer (and he actually wants to be in the Army Corps of Engineers).
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 11, 2006 23:14:36 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 11, 2006 23:14:36 GMT -5
Well if we had a huge budget and a bunch of engineers programming it all into one signal and one system would be great, but for our first model, let's just KISS as my Co always says. Keep it simple stupid.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 11, 2006 23:25:45 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus Laboratories on Aug 11, 2006 23:25:45 GMT -5
Good idea on KISS. With KISS, maybe we can have Project Saving Grace finished even sooner. Anyway, with the recovery system, we should use the parachute, that way we can land it near the SAR ground team, and we could also have it so it automatically deployed if it went out of range of the controller. Also, what material should our device be? I was thinking plastic or wood. Metal is too heavy, expensive, and not easy to work with. I'm leaning towards plastic though, because it is more durable and longer lasting. Wood is cheaper , easier to work with, and easier to come by, but it would not be durable enough and would easily get water damaged. So, it's probably gonna br plastic, but what do you think? Plastic, wood, or other?
|
|