I had been thinking about building a lifesize quadrotor helicopter in the vain of my little blade mqx and I had a look to see if anyone had done it, and came up with this video. The team has publicly displayed this at the 2012 German Air Show and received Lindberg award for innovation. There is a couple of other images if you search this subject, but this is the only one I know that has been built.
This design uses 16 2 kilowatt motors. I am unsure of the other specifics of the vehicle other than estimated weight at 170kgs.
I believe that this type of design would be possible in a quadrotor configuration. By lowering the centre of gravity to the intersection of the chassis arms the vehicle would be more stable. By reducing the amount of motors the chance of failure decreases.
The Quadrotor would also offer a greater propeller thrust area. There is a lot of estimation involved in calculating the specifications of downward force required for sufficient lift. After some initial consideration my proposal is as follows..
PERFORMANCE and Specification GOALS:
A quadrotor vehicle capable of 1000 feet altitude and 100knots
48kw continuous,120kw burst
300kg gross weight
Battery pack capable of 30ish minutes flight time (giving 80km range)
Aluminium Frame/chassis + Carbon Fibre Fuselage and Fan shrouds
Under 5meters total diameter.
Stability software for safety and easier learning curve.
Driver position would be slung below the level of the rotors with head at a level just above, keeping CoG neutral. Driver also to be enclosed in high rigidity, enclosed shell in the middle of the four rotors (aka AR drone).
Premilinary sketch of the chassis i produced on sketchup is of dodgy quality but my main computer is being rebuilt so I have no Solidworks at the moment. IThe cockpit chassis is obviously unfinished, ill get to it when i have solidwords back. It should give a vague idea though.
There is about 18 metres of aluminium there worth about $1200 and about another 18m to complete the cockpit and supports, meaning around $2500 of materials for the chassis.
The sensor required by the software to level the aircraft could be the ARM UM6-LT Orientation Sensor (IMU) Autopilot w/ Arduino. It is around $150,
For motors, I am considering a pair of these kits:
These are from kellycontrollers, they are rated 12kw continous (150a) and 30k max. Retail at $2700 meaning 5400 for chargers,motors and controllers.
The controller is a 500amp kellycontrollers unit and the motor is the Mars ME0913.
For batteries Im looking at
24 packs will be required for the 288v. Hopefully these will deliver close to half an hour of flight. Unless under unusual circumstances, the system should run at under 150 amps which should mean a good battery life. Control input would have to be perfect and I thought something like this may fit the job when modified ($200)
There will be many other parts needed, such as instruments, software, seat, fibreglass or carbon-fiber cockpit and fanshrouds etc... I was thinking of building a naked prototype, as the cockpit/fanshroud design and fabrication could well be the most espensive part of the project.
If you add the costs already calculated you can see that this is no small undertaking and without any expertise in many of the areas required to complete this project (especially electrical systems) I'm wondering about what you guys think about the viability of this....
Major Concerns would be:
The performance of self levelling software.
Total Weight. (65kg Battery pack. 80kg for motors/controllers. Frame estimate 40kg). Only leaves 115kg for everything else...
Battery Life.
Propeller material.
Cockpit rigity and crash avoidance/systems.
Pilot...Anyone keen?
Sorry about the first picture, I really havent used sketchup for a long time, this may be a better pic to get an ideo of the design i had in mind. Its very messy and the large plates on the bottom of the props arent meant to be there...
This is without the roll bar and top part of the cockpit and has most of the chassis tubular framework removed. Also the seating position is more laid back as you can tell from the shape of the aluminium fuselage pictured...
The wii sensor would sure be a cheap and reliable option. Im not sure it would have the accuracy of the chip though.. Definately worth a try for testing phase anyway..
Now that I checked the link, they are every easy to work with and will be a great tool for testing, thanks!
I've also been studying this for a while now. The reason for multiple controllers is a LOT of redundacy. Each motor has their own controller. I believe that each controller has its own battery, too, but that is overkill in my book.
For this design, you can do well with 16 rotors and controllers, and 2 battery packs. Spread the power out so if one pack goes south, then only half of the rotors stop. If you are REALLY paranoid (and one doesn't become a rotor pilot without that), then you should use 4 packs, again, spreading the power distribution out amongst all of the rotors.
A good reason for 16 rotors is to spread the weight distribution out - reduce the amount of lift each rotor has to produce.
You should also consider moving the rotors above your head - in case one of the rotors flies off the motor. It also allows for you to have an unrestricted view of the ground and on the horizon.
There is (or was) a company that sells an off-the-shelf solution called hoverfly, but their website seems to be down. Check out aeroquad.com for lots of info about quads and other multi-rotor copters. rcgroups.com has a section for multi-rotor helicopters that is also very useful.
Lastly, you will want to have some form of butt-saver - a ballistic parachute - BRS makes some very good ones.
I had been thinking about building a lifesize quadrotor helicopter in the vain of my little blade mqx and I had a look to see if anyone had done it, and came up with this video. The team has publicly displayed this at the 2012 German Air Show and received Lindberg award for innovation. There is a couple of other images if you search this subject, but this is the only one I know that has been built.
This design uses 16 2 kilowatt motors. I am unsure of the other specifics of the vehicle other than estimated weight at 170kgs.
I believe that this type of design would be possible in a quadrotor configuration. By lowering the centre of gravity to the intersection of the chassis arms the vehicle would be more stable. By reducing the amount of motors the chance of failure decreases.
The Quadrotor would also offer a greater propeller thrust area. There is a lot of estimation involved in calculating the specifications of downward force required for sufficient lift. After some initial consideration my proposal is as follows..
PERFORMANCE and Specification GOALS:
A quadrotor vehicle capable of 1000 feet altitude and 100knots
48kw continuous,120kw burst
300kg gross weight
Battery pack capable of 30ish minutes flight time (giving 80km range)
Aluminium Frame/chassis + Carbon Fibre Fuselage and Fan shrouds
Under 5meters total diameter.
Stability software for safety and easier learning curve.
Driver position would be slung below the level of the rotors with head at a level just above, keeping CoG neutral. Driver also to be enclosed in high rigidity, enclosed shell in the middle of the four rotors (aka AR drone).
Premilinary sketch of the chassis i produced on sketchup is of dodgy quality but my main computer is being rebuilt so I have no Solidworks at the moment. IThe cockpit chassis is obviously unfinished, ill get to it when i have solidwords back. It should give a vague idea though.
There is about 18 metres of aluminium there worth about $1200 and about another 18m to complete the cockpit and supports, meaning around $2500 of materials for the chassis.
The sensor required by the software to level the aircraft could be the ARM UM6-LT Orientation Sensor (IMU) Autopilot w/ Arduino. It is around $150,
For motors, I am considering a pair of these kits:
These are from kellycontrollers, they are rated 12kw continous (150a) and 30k max. Retail at $2700 meaning 5400 for chargers,motors and controllers.
The controller is a 500amp kellycontrollers unit and the motor is the Mars ME0913.
For batteries Im looking at
24 packs will be required for the 288v. Hopefully these will deliver close to half an hour of flight. Unless under unusual circumstances, the system should run at under 150 amps which should mean a good battery life. Control input would have to be perfect and I thought something like this may fit the job when modified ($200)
There will be many other parts needed, such as instruments, software, seat, fibreglass or carbon-fiber cockpit and fanshrouds etc... I was thinking of building a naked prototype, as the cockpit/fanshroud design and fabrication could well be the most espensive part of the project.
If you add the costs already calculated you can see that this is no small undertaking and without any expertise in many of the areas required to complete this project (especially electrical systems) I'm wondering about what you guys think about the viability of this....
Major Concerns would be:
The performance of self levelling software.
Total Weight. (65kg Battery pack. 80kg for motors/controllers. Frame estimate 40kg). Only leaves 115kg for everything else...
Battery Life.
Propeller material.
Cockpit rigity and crash avoidance/systems.
Pilot...Anyone keen?
From what I've read, it is more important to have the CoG close to the center for most systems - if you are overpowered, it actually helps to move the mass closer to the outside.
Lots of choices for self-leveling software - DIYdrones.com, scoutuav.com rcgroups.com talk about the various packages out there. Since you have mentioned the Arduino processor, then check out aeroquad.com.
Pilot? Nope. Use a remote control, as the germans did in your video. Once you have tested it remotely, then sit in it and use the remote. MUCH safer that way.
You miss the point with using only 4 motors, instead of 16. The systems are designed to use lots of motors, and can compensate quite well if one (or more) quit. I saw some software that could compensate for up to 1/3 of the motors quitting.
Speaking as a private pilot - redundancy is a VERY good thing.
Personally, I think you are going to have a BLAST working on this. You really should hook up with the local EAA (experimental aircraft association) to see what you need to deal with legally (on my long list of things to do).
From what I've read, it is more important to have the CoG close to the center for most systems - if you are overpowered, it actually helps to move the mass closer to the outside.
Lots of choices for self-leveling software - DIYdrones.com, scoutuav.com rcgroups.com talk about the various packages out there. Since you have mentioned the Arduino processor, then check out aeroquad.com.
Pilot? Nope. Use a remote control, as the germans did in your video. Once you have tested it remotely, then sit in it and use the remote. MUCH safer that way.
You miss the point with using only 4 motors, instead of 16. The systems are designed to use lots of motors, and can compensate quite well if one (or more) quit. I saw some software that could compensate for up to 1/3 of the motors quitting.
Speaking as a private pilot - redundancy is a VERY good thing.
Personally, I think you are going to have a BLAST working on this. You really should hook up with the local EAA (experimental aircraft association) to see what you need to deal with legally (on my long list of things to do).
Cheers,
Peter
Thankyou for the scoutuav link I hadnt been there before! I appreciate you chiming in here!
The idea really centers around making flying more accessible due to the advantages of a multirotor setup. Risk management then becomes paramount, obviously. To mitigate a single controller failure, more than 4 rotors are necessary, there is no argument from me there.
A complete solution for mitigating propeller failure and or dislodgement is also going to be near impossible in a 4 rotor due to the area of thrust required meaning the rotor force (Due to its size/mass) will pierce even a carbon fibre cockpit, thus endangering the pilot.
These have been issues I have been considering since the start. I am reluctant to go with 16 rotors as, frankly, its been done. The e-volo team are moving toward a design that is very similar to that which you have described. (16 rotor, low slung cockput).
I do, however think than an 8 rotor setup would mitigate most of the problems that a quadrotor presents. Using 2 controllers, a single controller failure will leave 4 rotors functioning and the overload capacity of electric motors means that the craft should be able to be recovered in most circumstances.
Also, some sacrifices in prop design may be viable, such as using a composite material that will not pierce a cockpit. The field of vision issue is addressed by changing the engine support structure design. Something like this perhaps. (I hate you sketchup!)
I have built two mini quadcopters using arduinos and I am helping a friend with his 8 sided octorotor build. I had considered the Octorotor design before but the weight required because of the 8 support structure design would be prohibitive (especially on a budget). At University, a long time ago, we were involved in a study of the vector advantages of multi rotors and ever since, I have been waiting to see them fill the skies......
High energy consumption and weight augmentation, as well as software are the real hurdles here for the EV proposal. Will the attainable range make the machine viable, can we find/write/comission software reliable enough in a short time frame?
I really want to keep the CoG as neutal as possible on all axes. I'm more set on this than I am on not using the 16 rotor option. Field of view will be fine, performance will be improved and it looks like more fun (big plus!) having the cockpit slung centrally.
I have a recrational restricted pilot's license in Australia, I live here in a small outback town and while we have the resources, people-wise there is just a draftsman and a (read: dodgy) civil engineer indulging in this craziness. If not for access to the internet and forums like these, it just would not get done.
Thankyou for the scoutuav link I hadnt been there before! I appreciate you chiming in here!
The idea really centers around making flying more accessible due to the advantages of a multirotor setup. Risk management then becomes paramount, obviously. To mitigate a single controller failure, more than 4 rotors are necessary, there is no argument from me there..........
I live near the Robinson Helicopter plant, in Torrance California, and have read about Frank Robinson's approach to helicopter manufacturing. I is all about quality control as a risk management strategy. That is why he is one of the few, if not the only manufacturer of civilian helicopters in the country. You are on the right track.
EV Flying Machine for the future.
Re: EV Flying Machine for the future.
Re: EV Flying Machine for the future.
Linear Mode
