|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 9:26:22 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 12, 2006 9:26:22 GMT -5
I like plastic, and I love the idea of having the chute deplot if it loses contact with the controller. That will be tricky, but I think we can figure it out.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 12:44:30 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus Laboratories on Aug 12, 2006 12:44:30 GMT -5
Yeah, and we should also try to see if we can get it so that the engine shuts down too, because if the chute deploys with the prop spinning , it could cause the parachute to stall, and it could damage the prop on impact. Also, do you think we should have V-tail or a T-tail. I don't know. With a V-tail, it would be easier to pack the parachute, but with the T-tail, it is easier to build.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 13:14:34 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 12, 2006 13:14:34 GMT -5
That all really depends on where you want the parashute. Instead of having it on the rear like a drag chute, you can put it on top. That way, the wings will provide additional drag on decent causing an even better landing; however, if the chute DOES deploy while the engine is running, this will cause a total loss of control. I figure that putting a kill switch attatched to the chute is probably easy, right? Deploy chute = pull pin = engine dies. Makes sense to me. This way, we can use the easier T tail and have the chute auto-kill the engine preventing disaster. Comments?
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 13:22:48 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus Laboratories on Aug 12, 2006 13:22:48 GMT -5
Yeah, the auto-kill does sound easy enough to do, and it probably would be better to put the chute on the top (this never occured to me, even though I watched a documentary on a vehicle NASA designed that had a chute on the top, it was designed as an escape vehicle from the ISS).
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 14:03:00 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 12, 2006 14:03:00 GMT -5
So there are two tricky pats to this scenario. 1) Designing the plasitc breakaway body and 2) Getting the bot to know when it has lost the signal with the controller and then getting it to deploy the chute.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 14:45:18 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus Laboratories on Aug 12, 2006 14:45:18 GMT -5
Well, the breakaway isn't that hard, I've designed things that are similar before, one of the mwas a glider with breakaway wings. So, just the bt knowing when it's lost the signal is the hard part.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 15:29:23 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 12, 2006 15:29:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 15:37:00 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 12, 2006 15:37:00 GMT -5
This is nifty. Throw in the camera, trans, receiver, VT glasses, power for $700. This improves the controller's vision, but only leaves $300 for the aircraft, chute, and controls.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 15:37:22 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 12, 2006 15:37:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 16:03:55 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus Laboratories on Aug 12, 2006 16:03:55 GMT -5
The link didn't work, but the cameras that I as thinking about earlier are on micromark.com (well, I had a paper catalog) but they have a range of only 1000ft, so they're probly useless unless we can modify the transciever, which probably wouldn't be advisable.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 17:06:31 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 12, 2006 17:06:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 17:52:22 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus Laboratories on Aug 12, 2006 17:52:22 GMT -5
Those look good, I think 1 mile would be a good range, since the controller fro the control surface probably wouldn't go over a mile, but if they did, and we had the funding, I'd say we should make it as long range as possible. Oh, and would it be possible to attach some kind of GPS device to the aircraft so we could locate what we find with the camera, or would there be some other way?
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 17:57:38 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 12, 2006 17:57:38 GMT -5
That is certainly possible, but not cheap. The pilot ought to be able to identify the aircraft's general position after loss of contact. Perhaps an audible alarm could sound if the chute deploys, making location easy if close.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 17:59:40 GMT -5
Post by chimera388 on Aug 12, 2006 17:59:40 GMT -5
Oh, you mean if the plane finds something, how do we know where what it found actually is? I don't know. Maybe we can drop them a radio, or just land the plane next to them and go get it, or... Hmm. I dont know.
|
|
|
ASARV
Aug 12, 2006 20:13:18 GMT -5
Post by Enceladus Laboratories on Aug 12, 2006 20:13:18 GMT -5
Well, I had a few ideas 1) we drop a package to them with a handheld GPS and a cell phone or radio, so that they can call in and tell them their exact location, but there's the problem of the person being unable to call, either because of a disability or because they are injured. 2)we could have a handeld GPS onboard the aircraft (cheapest one I've seen is $80) and since that particular model has the coordinates on the very top of the display, we could have one of the cameras aimed partially at the GPS, and the rest for navigaton (or we could have one camera dedicated to the GPS). 3) although probably not the best idea, we could somehow drop a device that would illuminate the area, maybe an electric flare (a ball with with several bundled LEDs) or drop smoke (bad idea) or some kind of homng beacon, which would probably be too expensive, and all of these last ones would be hard to find.
|
|