PDA

View Full Version : The Techpod!!!



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hobby UAV
24th August 2012, 05:14 PM
Hi everyone ,
Im wayne garris I have designed and prototyped a small FPV airframe . I made it with communities just like this in mind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjCBROvFcZM
I am trying to raise the fund necessary to have the aluminum mold made so the techpod can be made from EPO and mass produced . please visit my kickstarter (http://kck.st/PFbkL9) page and consider backing the techpod
also get more info here hobbyuav.com (http://hobbyuav.com/)
and check out my diydrones blog (http://diydrones.com/profile/waynegarris)where i have been posting developments for years .
thanks
wayne
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/125/938/6b2991fe7ea8c68fe9c2000d2b1ab29d_large.jpg?1345666 020

noxnflame
24th August 2012, 05:15 PM
oooh nice!

SENTRY
24th August 2012, 05:16 PM
I'm glad that you finally made it over here - we've been talking on FB for over a year about this airframe. PM'd

SENTRY
24th August 2012, 05:19 PM
BTW - I don't normally allow unsolicited advertisements here - but I've been talking with Wayne about this rig for a year at the least - when it stalled (seemingly) on another board, I even offered to buy the proto/design/rights and "relieve" him of duties. Like any smart guy he has held fast and is moving forward with the project.

I will also allow the developments here bc 1) there is no better place and 2) he's ACTUALLY not selling anything (yet) - haha.

Welcome aboard Wayne - and I'll talk to you later. J'son

SENTRY
24th August 2012, 05:23 PM
Oh - I also moved this to the proper section. Welcome again Wayne - TTYL.

Hobby UAV
25th August 2012, 05:32 AM
awsome ! thanks guys . the stall was to solve this problem
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tech2_55.jpg?9d7bd4
it took more the 300 hours of compute time on my phenom2 4x 3.2ghz . as well as endless design - analyze cycles
here is how i did the original performance estimations using xflr5 then used solid works for final drag reduction
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/xfoil-rg-15.jpg
if you look closely at this picture you will see all the stats . wing loading , Cl/Cd etc .
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/xflr5-techpod.jpg

K_G
25th August 2012, 09:05 AM
Really spectacular platform and great computer skills. I foresee a lot of business coming your way.

Hucker
25th August 2012, 09:15 AM
Welcome to another Washington guy! I'm just up the road in Woodinville. That thing looks very efficient. Great work.

Derrick
25th August 2012, 10:29 AM
That is a really cool design... I am looking forward to learning more about Techpod!

chbla
25th August 2012, 10:39 AM
cool!

did you also think about space for a HD camera? it's what I'm missing, as it would make a nice and well built video/photo shoot platform

Scotttu
25th August 2012, 11:04 AM
Wayne that's pretty hot looking!!

I'm across the water, Silverdale area...

tty044
25th August 2012, 06:50 PM
I am looking forward to see your success. Very good approach to make money from hobby that you know very well.

Regards
Michal

CaliDave
25th August 2012, 07:16 PM
Neat! Nice to see something coming to life. Interested to see which areas this platform will fill in FPV. Keep it up!

brosius85
25th August 2012, 07:23 PM
looks great! i hope you get your startup cash sorted for the EPO mold soon. looks like its gonna be a winner!

Akoni
25th August 2012, 10:48 PM
Very interesting. Will you be designing further portability into the Techpod?

Hobby UAV
26th August 2012, 12:23 AM
Thanks guys . this looks like a great community and i look forward to getting to know everyone . I think the key to my success will be communities just like this one . support me on kickstarter if you can but helping me get the word out to more people is a huge help also .

@ akoni ,
yes , I think it can be easily modded to break down . future versions will no doubt feature this .
speaking of future versions
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/DSC_0008.jpg

Dionysos
26th August 2012, 06:08 AM
You could save a lot of computing time using appropriate reynolds numbers not just as many as possible...
I can't read a single thing from your rainbow colour chart. What did you optimize the plane for? Glide ratio, lowest sink ing rate?
But I like the cnc wood pieces, looks awesome. Xflr5 is a nice tool, I like it too, but it has it's short coming s since drela didn't update the xfoil code anymore for years...

Dio

FPVsam
26th August 2012, 08:03 AM
Cool Wayne! How does the nose section handles sunlight? No sunglare etc?

When can we pre-order? :D

steamburn
26th August 2012, 08:47 AM
It looks awesome and very promising. The only problem I see now, is on how long before some unscrupulous merchant from the far east steals your design and start selling it around the world. Is it possible to patent a design like yours?

FPVsam
26th August 2012, 09:13 AM
^^^^ +1 on that, think twice before putting some technical details and pics on here!

Hobby UAV
26th August 2012, 04:14 PM
going to try to go flying this evening . Going for an hour + flight . Ill be posting the video ASAP. If anyone wants to watch , ill be at the cascade r/c airfeild in snohomish (http://www.cascadefamilyflyers.com/)around 5:00 pm tonight .

I want to make it clear to everyone . I am raising the funds to have the aluminum molds made ( 2 x $12,500 ) plus the fist production run of molded EPO techpods through kickstarter .Please go to my project page and pre-order now . pre-order here !! (http://kck.st/PFbkL9)

If you dont pre-order I won't be able to bring everyone this cool airplane . I'll be stuck to what i can produce in my garage . won't be as cheap and wont be molded EPO.

@Dionysos
The pretty colors are cool and all but they do serve a higher purpose . a run of xfoil (which produced to charts in question) takes maybe 45 seconds . These are just 2D calcs . The reason for " all possible " Rn , alpha combos is to compile them into a 3D " lattice " to calculate an airplanes performance not just an airfoils . Like this .

http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/techpod-body-polars.bmp

Dionysos
27th August 2012, 12:35 AM
Hi,
I get your point. So what did you optimize the plane for?

Dio

Hobby UAV
27th August 2012, 01:24 AM
Ok,
got out. got some flying in , but I left the RX antennas behind . so no fpv video . flew for a timed 21:45 minutes with one land / take off and many fly byes and 4 or 5 climb outs . got some good cell phone shots of slow flybys . charging the lipos . I will post the numbers when they are done . video will take a sec to get uploaded to youtube . its on my friends iphone and i have android so hes got upload it first ....


Dio
the picture shows here (http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/xflr5-techpod.jpg) its optimized operating point .
Thank you for giving me the chance to explain .

wayne

Hobby UAV
27th August 2012, 01:27 AM
ok got one uploaded shows a full flaps landing .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3hghWV7WeY&feature=player_detailpage

noxnflame
27th August 2012, 02:26 AM
That looks great! I cant wait to see you succeed on this one! I have a feeling it's gonna be a hit.
Good luck!

StompAE86
27th August 2012, 04:58 AM
Is there room for a HD cam anywhere... looks like the dome on the front only holds the flight cam. Also whats the difference between this and all the other long endurance high wing trainers? Ie skywalker Is the whole idea that your going for just a least draggy airframe possible? I mean its bulk money to invest into something that will just get copied bu HK etc if its successful, I mean best of luck to you just curious thats all... Looks the biz thats for sure.

Dionysos
27th August 2012, 07:57 AM
Hi,
I'm still not getting it: You are getting a (cl/cd) of 117, or in other words a (gamma) of 0.49 degrees. That's utopic. Around cl/cd=20 would be a good "theoretical" value for a plane of that size, even that is too high, in real life situations you can aim for something like 10-15.

An ASW high performance manned glider with aspect ratio much larger than yours has a glide ratio of 50 + with related (gamma) of ~1.1 degrees.

To calculate the plane polars you just need to step through every flap/elevator deflection, i.e. in 0.5 degrees steps and good.

Vortex Lattice is simply a way to reduce a 3 dimensional "problem" to 2 dimensional one, thus reducing computational power. The wing is split into different panels, somewhat similar to FEM and that's it. But you cannot take into account any interference of let's say fuselage/wing, horizontal stabilizer / vertical stabilizer, so there is quite a high degree of uncertainty, especially when evaluating drag.
In order to do so, you must run a real 3d simulation, with Ansys for example, but that's like to shooting an ant with a bazooka.

But never mind, it flies and looks nice. I'm sure you learned a lot when doing all the calcs.

Dio

pesbra
27th August 2012, 08:26 AM
just pledged on kickstarter. Very nice

Hobby UAV
28th August 2012, 04:38 PM
@ stompae86
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/131/911/d0b334a7448f301c94a9918501925dfb_large.jpg?1346020 284
drag is directly proportional to flight time . cut your drag in half and double your flight time .(yes that is "perfect " world lab speak ) the point is reduce drag increase flight time . as for the Chinese and HK . You have to understand their culture . they will not copy a Chinese product produced from a Chinese company . and BTW the techpod will most likely be on hobbyking . Bulk money ? its priced at $200 retail . the kickstarter price of $240 includes shipping . I had to average out everyone and add it accordingly . the skywalker x-8 goes for $200 and they are actively producing a massive quantity . their production cost are way lower yet no one complains .the techpod comes with a cameraquality dome and pan and tilt . this ain't no trainer . I would be more then happy to go head to head with any one of the sky walker line or any other of the cheesy "trainers" . trainers are made for one thing , being easy to fly , not endurance . I will be in Moclips,washington this labor day . I am going to go play in the sustained 15 to 25 mph wind they get there on the beach . Any one care to take up my challenge and fly your bixler,skywalker,whatever next to the techpod ? I have a few campground spots near town . I have power and water hook up or bring your tent .

@Dio
thanks you for taking me to task . yes the 117 cl/cd only includes the wings etc.... yes XFLR5 is wonky at drag prediction . yes VLM it half ass 3d . thats why i used it for initial performance estimates . the real drag reduction came from using solid works flow module ;-) ( I sense a cool picture coming )
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tech2_55.jpg

@ all
Got an hour flight in yesterday . used 5100 ma on a 3-cell. editing the video now . I will have it posted soon if not tonight after work . thank you everyone for you kind words and support !

robwatkiss
28th August 2012, 05:01 PM
Starting my AeroEng degree in a month's time so particularly interested in your modelling and simulation work. Keep it up! :)

SENTRY
28th August 2012, 08:53 PM
Just be careful Wayne - what the SW doesn't make up for in design - it can make up for in payload. Can the TP haul up 2 8000mah 3S packs? What will the numbers look like then - add a coupla antennas into the airflow - vTx - etc - the rules change. I put my Scout Bee 22 miles out with 14 amp hours onboard - and basicly glided all the way home.

Either way - I want one - LOL.

Hobby UAV
30th August 2012, 07:44 AM
here is the hour long video sped up for you tube . sorry about the poor compression .

http://youtu.be/KhOhR7FOJT4
and here is a quick demo of the strenght of the 9mm tubes and connecting rod I use for the spar .

http://youtu.be/2dypzvR0Fa0
ok some quickie numbers .
techpod weight as flown 1hour:
5lbs
weight of batteries flown (3x shida 2200) :
6.5 ounces per @ ~1.2 lbs
Energy consumed to fly 1 hour @ 5lbs:
5400 ma @ ~ 12v (3-cell) for 64.8 watts/hour approx

2 8000mah : (http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__16225__ZIPPY_Flightmax_8000mAh_3S1P_30C_.html)
3s = 644 grams x 2 = 2.3 lbs
16000 mah at 12v = 192 watts

oh yes I forgot to mention that the techpod prototype you see in the pictures and video , is 1 lbs heavier then the molded EPO models will be . I weighed everything before I had to cover the dense styro-foam stuff it is made out of . it waighed about 2.75 lbs with aiframe,servos,moter,esc . but that was before i slathered on this stuff (http://www.wowplanes.com/product_reviews_info.php?products_id=130&reviews_id=30&osCsid=999a764fec335a99fa9c89d3b0816449) to make the super brittle foam flyable . It added a pound and wont be necessary on the EPO models of course ...
so that means if the weight is near the same with 2 x 8000mah lipos = 192/64 watts = 3 hours ?!! omg is that right ? im sure you guys will grill me tomorrow or maybe I'm just tired .
anyways enjoy ;-)

SENTRY
30th August 2012, 07:48 AM
Showoff. LOL

K_G
30th August 2012, 10:34 AM
Pledged!

Hobby UAV
3rd September 2012, 03:03 PM
hey guys, got back from moclips. would have flown longer but people started putting up kites , yikes!
wayne

http://youtu.be/3t7_hUBkx2c

boopidoo
4th September 2012, 01:06 PM
I think you`ll have problems with reflections when using the gopro for some reasons. First the gopro is in light color which reflects light quite a lot. It`s difficult to make a good gopro mount for both this reason and also that the lens is not placed in the center of the dome as well as the lens can`t be placed as close to the dome inner surface as would be optimal. We`ve faced a lot of these problems in development of the RV JET nose dome.

However I like the concept but what would be really cool was if the dome woiuld be deeper so that the camera could rotate +/- 90 degrees without being obstructed by the fuselage.

Hobby UAV
4th September 2012, 03:08 PM
boopidoo ,
thanks for the advice and the comment. I will take that into account when designing the pan tilt system for it.
wayne

Carbon
6th September 2012, 09:07 PM
http://compare.ebay.com/like/120903793971?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar
problem solved.

Hobby UAV
12th September 2012, 06:08 AM
update:
the techpod completed its first 2 hour flight today! wootwoot! videos and amp usage data coming soon.
wayne

roberto
12th September 2012, 07:31 AM
sorry for being an E-nazi:

energy is measured in watts x hour. ;)




5400 ma @ ~ 12v (3-cell) for 64.8 watts/hour approx

Steve-o
12th September 2012, 08:41 AM
Hello wayne, nice project i'm reading this with very much interest.

Also nice demo on the strength of the wing spar.
A little point here: do the same test here, but now with the brass wingsleves and put the band where the watercan is hanging from, as wide as the fugelage or less.
This would put more stress on the spar in my opinion this would be the real test :)
I'm curious what happens than :confused:

Gtz

SquireM
12th September 2012, 10:25 AM
update:
the techpod completed its first 2 hour flight today! wootwoot! videos and amp usage data coming soon.
wayne
That's amazing! What was she carrying?

Hobby UAV
12th September 2012, 03:48 PM
Test ? No prob coming right up . Just for fun I'll break it .

2x 6000mah 3s was the load.
Ty
Wayne

Carbon
12th September 2012, 03:51 PM
noooo!!! don't break it!!

RcLab1
12th September 2012, 03:54 PM
Wayne,

Is there enough separation inside the Pod/fuselage for "separation" of the RC and FPV gear?

ie.... vidTX separation from UHF RC rx.

I don't want to mount anything on the wings and/or boom. It will ruin the 300hrs of airflow/CAD work you did on it.

Just askin' :-)

Hobby UAV
12th September 2012, 04:44 PM
@ carbon,
no silly goose not the techpod, an extra spar i have.
@Rclab1,
you can check out the payload area here (http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/techpod-payload-3-d-model?xg_source=activity)
antennas are an eventuality, at least the rest of the plain is slick.

Carbon
12th September 2012, 04:45 PM
oh whew!

RcLab1
12th September 2012, 04:57 PM
ok, hopefully all equipment can be stuff in the pod without interference..... separation of UHF RX, VidTX, GPS, OSD is important.
Hope all fits in the pod!

StompAE86
12th September 2012, 06:43 PM
yeah separation looks like an issue with less then half a meter between rx and vtx. Also epo is much less slick then composite wonder what that will do for drag especially after some hangar rash etc. How far out have you gone with this thing?

Hobby UAV
12th September 2012, 07:21 PM
Ya the prototype has plenty of parasitic drag. Composites are way more expensive and heavier. But make for cleaner bodies.

Not going far out with this . That only proves radio. This prototype is way too valuable for risk .

The techpod will still balance with more weight in the tail. How heavy is your vtx ? I can check that out for you .
Ty
Wayne

SENTRY
12th September 2012, 08:19 PM
Goin far out proves much more than radio setup. When you fly circles you have a (theoretical) headwind 25% of the time, tailwind 25% - crosswinds total 50%. To your benefit crosswind losses COULD be reduced/negated - but in the real world this is not likely. You have to trim for this if crosswinds are steady - that robs the airframe of efficiency. When you fly range you have a headwind 50% of the time (outboud) - that time will be under throttle the entire way - and most newer guys will maintain 500ft/mile climbout (and MANY guys buy themselves much more room for error than that). While you also have a tailwind 50% of the time (this helps your test math), you still have to maintain enough altitude for solid video and control. This altitude maintenace may require at least a percentage of throttle to control sink. Tracking comes into play as mentioned above (control input = drag) as well. I could go on an on.

Theoretical range is great in the lab - and trust me when I say the TP looks like it's gonna hurt some feelings. I'm excited about it. :) But until it rolls out for real we all are just waiting for the proof.

That said - what we do here is not all about range... that's for sure - and the better the airframe efficiency is - the more versatile it is for the many roles that it could grow to play.

All eyes on you my friend...

Hobby UAV
12th September 2012, 09:46 PM
Can't wait to get it into the hands of you crazy mofos. Won't catch me going 50 miles out .
And sentry are you trying to goad me into a 3 hour flight ? Challenge excepted! Will take a bit to get different lipos and a better motor. etc . And oh ya got to get my tx on lipos, just about ran out on the last 2 hour flight.:D

SENTRY
12th September 2012, 09:49 PM
Don't crash the proto dork. :) I'm just making sure you realize that the math is gonna change in the real world. :) I think the TP will do well though. :)

Hobby UAV
12th September 2012, 09:59 PM
I only take highly calculated risk. The landing speed was exactly as predicted at the 5.8 lbs it flew at. The take off was a no brainer . The math supports good fly-ability even at 6 lbs . Landing speed will get into the 18 mph range. The math says do it.

SquireM
13th September 2012, 10:57 AM
Perhaps to address Sentry's observations about flying in circles you could choose a different pattern for your test. Perhaps a elongated figure eight (like the teardrop private planes fly for holding)? Are you using an autopilot? Even a 100m line back and forth might do it.

Hobby UAV
13th September 2012, 03:05 PM
things only get worse in the real world not better. never saw a pig in the lab turn into an eagle in the sky ;-) thanks for your concerns about my calculated CVA but its right on the money. not sure what this means and how it effects flight performance? I do :P
CVA = center of vertical . this highly effects cross wind performance. The CVA has been carefully tuned to minimize cross wind trim needs.

Hobby UAV
14th September 2012, 07:56 PM
hey guys , the techpod has completed its first 2 hour testflight. here is the video fast forward for youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdBzbOeh50&feature=plcp
this flight was done with:
2 x 6000 mah 3s for 12000mah total
weight: 5.8 lbs
APC E11x7
charging the lipos now to get the mah used will post that number in a couple hours.
thanks to all my supporters at the techpod kickstarter project !
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/wpid-0008.jpg?9d7bd4

SENTRY
14th September 2012, 07:58 PM
Good job sir!

BacklashRC
14th September 2012, 08:01 PM
Bought a Techpod, so you have to make his thing happen ;). Looks awesome!!

Hobby UAV
14th September 2012, 09:12 PM
hey thanks guys. I think i may be able to squeeze 3 hours out of it or at least very close to 3. Looking for a very low kv motor around 200grams. around 550 kv would be nice scorpion has one around 680kv may try one of their kits and wind one myself to get the kv I'm after. wish my motor mount could hold a in-runner with a gearbox. I may want to offer mounts for both in the future.

Hobby UAV
14th September 2012, 09:53 PM
BTW if no one is aware , if i don't reach my funding goal by the dead line. I can always run it again for another month.I just need more time. I have already asked a few of my backers and they exuberantly tell me they will re-back me for a retry. I am have been trending a very solid 50% or better for the goal. should have chosen 60 days instead of 30. I am no marketing expert. that's for sure. also there are some exciting BIG backers I ahve been talking with but they are slow to move of course. Don't count this out yet! $19 G in three weeks that's something to be proud of. I am also proud of the many backers that tell me they are total newbs and have never flown before. I've been sending them right here. I tell them to get a bixler and fly that first of course. This has all been the thrill of a life time and I'm never going to forget it. I just can't thank you all enough. and thank you sentry for such a awesome website. This can't happen with out guys like you !

Kalleballe
16th September 2012, 04:41 PM
Maybe this motor? 169g 500KV IO 0.7A

http://www.rctigermotor.com/show.php?contentid=131



Also, care to elaborate on this statment regarding the Camera other than using a not so good 1g Cmos.


Hey guys this is Roberts thread the techpod debate can happen else ware. Just wanted to put in 2 cents not hijack this thread. Btw Robert I can help you get even farther with some different motor / battery set ups. And get that camera out of the wind . That will create more drag then a 6 inch diameter fuse . But that said you are pushing the limits in radio gear. Not sure if going farther would do any good. The radio gear is obviously the limiting factor.:)

Hobby UAV
16th September 2012, 08:22 PM
The techpod has plenty of room for a go pro. I am currently working on a pan and tilt. It will be ready as an ad on before the units ship.

boopidoo
17th September 2012, 02:29 AM
Do you plan on making a molded internals such as PT or will it be ply? Also what will spare domes cost? :)

How transportable will the model be when it's taken apart? Renders of the different parts that will be molded?

For me this model might be something I want but only if it is transportable and quick/easy to setup/break apart and that the internals are well thought out. Also I'm a bit worried about the fin snagging onto something when landing on anything but very soft and smooth grass airfields. Is the fuselage strengthened underneath to handle skidding on hard surfaces dirt/sand/asphalt etc?

Hobby UAV
17th September 2012, 04:08 AM
the P/T will be plywood . domes will be about $10 to $15 or even less.

the horizontal stab can be made removable. I have plans to offer some sort of tote or case to go along with it. i will have something ready by the time the techpods are ready to ship.

I also have some landing gear in the works and perhaps a reinforcement piece for the bottom can be made available for those who want to belly land on rougher terrain. however I have landed the prototype on sand and on a dirt road with ot any damage. one could also coat the bottom with something like maybe the stuff for making instant tool grips.

as for layout of the internals. It is a bit difficult to design around all the possible setups. I have people who are going to be using it for everything from simole fpv set ups to autopilots to photo mapers , magnetometer survey and Hyperspectroscopy and even a micro gyro stabilized camera gimbal. The possibilities are endless and i think I have done a good job giving everyone a good amount of space to fit what hey want. I would recommend the you get all your gear together before you start gluing things together. carefully fit your gear and plan out your set up.
thanks
wayne

Hucker
17th September 2012, 09:22 AM
Also I'm a bit worried about the fin snagging onto something when landing on anything but very soft and smooth grass airfields. Is the fuselage strengthened underneath to handle skidding on hard surfaces dirt/sand/asphalt etc?

I also worry about the fin. The more I have conventional tails the more I wish I had a V (I don't quite wish I had a wing though). I can't tell you how many times I've messed up the tail on my RP or had the horizontal get tweaked somehow most of the time loading into cars. Just from a durability standpoint a V seems like it should be lighter and stronger. Not a show stopper by ANY means.

ssassen
17th September 2012, 09:42 AM
@Wayne,

I sent you an email well over two weeks ago after receiving your PM, I have yet to get a reply from you though? Could you perhaps check whether you received it?

Hobby UAV
17th September 2012, 01:56 PM
@boopidoo,
ok that was what you meant by the fin. Yes the tail configuration was debated some at diydrones as i was developing it. The T-tail has its mechanical disadvantages that is for sure. The V-tail is actually quit commonplace in the uav field. and has the advantage of being more mechanically stable and having less forward area. I went with the T-tail because in the end all things considered like Cm and wanting a wide flyable CG placement. There have been many requests to make the tail removable and I am going to work this in to the design. I will also make sure replacement parts are available at reasonable prices.

@ssassen
so sorry i missed your email. I have been experiencing an avalanche of emails. I looked at my inbox I don't see anything but you probably don't use your username on your email. I will throw you a PM with the email address to send it to. I will be looking for it.
thank you
wayne

ssassen
17th September 2012, 03:23 PM
@Wayne,

YGM!

AforcefulThrust
21st September 2012, 03:18 AM
Just pledged 240 for a techpod! Looks like a great design I couldn't pass up haha. Only problem is I've never flown a plane before... Only Trex heli and my hexa. shit... what will I do with this.

Awesome work, Looks like you're on track to reaching your goal. Very nice to see this project succeed.

boopidoo
21st September 2012, 06:01 AM
Have you seen the Ogar, the two models share a number of design similarities.
http://www.futurehobbies.com/products/details/271/30/fpv-aircraft/ogar-pre-assembled-combo.html

BloomingtonFPV
21st September 2012, 07:46 AM
@Wayne,

YGM!

I didn't know what this meant. I googled it:

Acronym, Definition. YGM, You've Got Mail. YGM, Young Gay Male. YGM, You Got Me. YGM, Yeast Genetics and Molecular Biology. YGM, You Get Me?

I still don't know what it means...

Anyway, back to the amazing techpod. The one thing that concerns me is the optical quality of the nose dome. The GoPro2 has a really great lens with edge-to-edge sharpness. It would be a shame to blur it with a nose dome that wasn't sharp. Are there other mounting options that you could envision?

Holy cow- I just checked the Kickstarter page and with 31 hours to go Wayne only needs $375 to reach his goal! Way to go!

boopidoo
21st September 2012, 07:53 AM
As much as I know Sander it's probably not the first one. ;)

martyester
21st September 2012, 03:39 PM
Wayne,
How much landing area is need for this plane. Long approach? Steep approach?

Derrick
21st September 2012, 05:17 PM
I didn't know what this meant. I googled it:

Acronym, Definition. YGM, You've Got Mail. YGM, Young Gay Male. YGM, You Got Me. YGM, Yeast Genetics and Molecular Biology. YGM, You Get Me?

I still don't know what it means...

Anyway, back to the amazing techpod. The one thing that concerns me is the optical quality of the nose dome. The GoPro2 has a really great lens with edge-to-edge sharpness. It would be a shame to blur it with a nose dome that wasn't sharp. Are there other mounting options that you could envision?

Holy cow- I just checked the Kickstarter page and with 31 hours to go Wayne only needs $375 to reach his goal! Way to go!

You hit the nail on the head... when you put a clear dome on the front of a plane and design it to land via skidding on the ground you can guarantee scratching and marring of the dome. This design does however offer aerodynamic efficiency.

@wayne,

Congrats on nearly getting to your goal.

Hobby UAV
21st September 2012, 05:36 PM
hey everyone we are 100% funded !!!
thank you so much everyone for your support!

ygm = you got mail . took me a sec too

landing area is fairly small with full flaps . it has a four servo wing set up so crow can be utilized as well. looking at variable pitch props even. reverse pitch would be insane. now that kickstarter is winding down i can get back to development.

thanks everyone so much for your support!
wayne

robwatkiss
21st September 2012, 05:49 PM
Congrats buddy, awesome project :)

Scotttu
1st October 2012, 11:50 AM
I was watching this plane at the meet and am firmly convinced about it's efficiency - holy cr ap it just shoots up in teh sky, glides around on so little motor and it scoots too!

I threw it out that I'd be willing to push one of these out to the 12 mile mark to the top of the Brothers while my Zephyr sits parked, this would be a very capable plane for that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3Z3IyOiE6k

Hucker
1st October 2012, 12:57 PM
+1 on this. This is a very efficient airplane with about a 2.5m wing on a very big and streamlined fuselage. I'd guess that anybody wanting to fly far will like this platform...alot.

BacklashRC
1st October 2012, 01:00 PM
Let's see that video Scott!

Edit : nevermind, refreshed browser ;)

Scotttu
1st October 2012, 01:51 PM
Wayne if you want to use that video here is the highest resolution possible, which is still 10x better than that u-tube vid above, but do me a favor, RIGHT CLICK SAVE AS and then let me know so I can nuke it from the server:
95mb in size, it may take a bit.

http://www.tngbbs.com/photo/rc/Vids/TechPodTakeoff.mp4

Scotttu
3rd October 2012, 01:23 AM
Wayne - I'm serious about that offer - after The Brothers is Mt Rainier - perfect plane for it!

I should have the Zephyr ready to fly by the weekend, get back under the hood on some longer range stuff soon enough for practice..

Hobby UAV
9th October 2012, 06:56 AM
Let's do it!

Wayne - I'm serious about that offer - after The Brothers is Mt Rainier - perfect plane for it!

I should have the Zephyr ready to fly by the weekend, get back under the hood on some longer range stuff soon enough for practice..

SquireM
12th October 2012, 11:16 PM
This is a crossover question from another thread (http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?8978-Maximum-flight-times-for-different-aircraft).
The last I heard the Techpod had completed a 2 hour flight. You were going to attempt a three hour one. How did that go?
More generally, Do you have data (tested or theoretical) on efficiency for different power plants and/or the maximum weight of batteries the Techpod could carry without diminishing returns?
I'm trying to get a feel for the maximum amount of time I could be in the air with a GoPro-like camera and an autopilot.
Thanks

Scotttu
13th October 2012, 01:37 AM
Let's do it!

I'm up for it, i have all winter to prepare a plane if you have TechPod in production - It would be the perfect advertisement if we can pull it off.

I have the electronic gear and antenna's to do it, just not sure if my Zephyr is up to it until i test it.

pm me for a phone number, lets chat about it........

Blizzard1287
13th October 2012, 01:57 PM
Wayne, this platform looks like a home run! I wasn't shopping for a new airframe but the prospects of a 2 hr powered flight with a pan/tilt are hard to pass up. Is this one time production run? As in preorder now or your SOL? Do you have any videos showing it land? What is the approach like? How well does it handle turbulence? Up here in the north east we dont always have the luxury of large open fields and so landing zones are always less than ideal :)

BCSaltchucker
13th October 2012, 03:31 PM
me too. I noticed Wayne cut off the buy-in function on his Kickstarter account since he made the minimum funds, but I think now I will buy one as soon as it goes into production. Wayne was suggesting it could be ready to ship out by January 2013, IIRC. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav

Hobby UAV
19th October 2012, 09:42 PM
Hey guys ! Techpods are available for pre-order @ http://hobbyuav.com/products-page/uav-drone/techpod-rc-airplane-kit/

The techpod units will be shipping early January. Get them while you still can!

PS kickstarter turns things off automatically after the campaign is over.
Thanks!
Wayne

Vintabilly_NS
29th October 2012, 10:43 AM
Congrats on using Kickstarter. Well done. :)

Hobby UAV
10th December 2012, 04:52 AM
hey guys! The molds are just about ready to start cranking out techpods!
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/04.jpg
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/031.jpg

Legot
10th December 2012, 04:57 AM
Here's to those molds lasting forever!

RcLab1
10th December 2012, 08:49 AM
Great News'.....

roberto
10th December 2012, 09:01 AM
those look very sexy. thanks for sharing :)


hey guys! The molds are just about ready to start cranking out techpods!
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/04.jpg
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/031.jpg

FPVsam
13th December 2012, 10:48 PM
Is the shipping to europe also 25$ Wayne? And will you be producing spare camera domes? Because I'm affraid that a landing on rocky terrain will damage the dome and ruin the camera view with scratches on the plastic.

I am in the need for a long enduring airframe for a project next year, looks like this is the one! :D any ideas about when you will be able to ship out to non kickstarted fund raisers?

BCSaltchucker
14th December 2012, 04:05 AM
Is the shipping to europe also 25$ Wayne? And will you be producing spare camera domes? Because I'm affraid that a landing on rocky terrain will damage the dome and ruin the camera view with scratches on the plastic.

I am in the need for a long enduring airframe for a project next year, looks like this is the one! :D any ideas about when you will be able to ship out to non kickstarted fund raisers?

hey the checkout for pre order only allows USA address

:(

FPVsam
14th December 2012, 05:39 AM
I saw that too, but you have to email him instead. Will give it a try :)

Hobby UAV
20th December 2012, 05:13 AM
Hey guys. If you are in Europe drop me a line and I can tell you how much the shipping will be. Probably about $60 to $70.

Yes replacement domes will be available.

FPVsam
20th December 2012, 07:51 AM
Great!

ssassen
20th December 2012, 07:53 AM
Must ... resist ... the ... urge ....

FPVsam
20th December 2012, 08:13 AM
We need it sander, we need it!

Scotttu
20th December 2012, 09:57 AM
Wayne the techpod could do the Brothers - but I got the Zeph all primed while waiting.......and now I'm no longer employed....:D

I"ll see what BackLashRC does with his.

Hobby UAV
24th December 2012, 10:36 PM
Woot-Woot! production sample on the way!
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IMG_0050.jpg

RcLab1
24th December 2012, 10:50 PM
Wayne,

Are the new fuselage foam just as stiff/dense material as your original TechPod you flew in August?....or better foam material?

Hucker
25th December 2012, 02:01 AM
Awesome news. THose guys are hitting schedule!

mudlark
25th December 2012, 10:46 AM
Woot-Woot! production sample on the way!
http://hobbyuav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IMG_0050.jpg

Hey Wayne
Looking good.
Might have to get me one once I've moved over next year. Just what I need.

ssassen
25th December 2012, 12:15 PM
@Wayne,

Do you have a manual available already? Or a at least a draft? I'm tempted, but would like to get an idea of amount of work required to get one built up as well as the size of batteries I can use, I'm typically using 4S/5000 Nanotechs.

FPVsam
25th December 2012, 01:01 PM
I could always build yours sander, time enough here at college :D

Hobby UAV
25th December 2012, 02:44 PM
@rclabs
Ya that's epo will be about 1 lbs lighter. Looks like its glass smooth no bumpies
@hucker
You should come check it out when it gets it. Should be soon after the 1st.
@mudlark
Would be fun to cruise your farm later this year.
@Sassen
I was going to put together a manual and instructions and how to video when I get this sample. I'll drop a line here when its ready.

Thanks guys!
Wayne

RcLab1
26th December 2012, 07:27 PM
Hello Wayne.
Just wanted to know, can 12" prop fit? or must be smaller?

Thank You....

Hobby UAV
27th December 2012, 07:42 AM
fedex tracking says it will be here friday.
@rclab1,
it will fit a 12 inch prop. 13 is to big thou.

c5galaxy engineer
27th December 2012, 07:58 AM
I like it!!

Scotttu
27th December 2012, 09:38 AM
@Sassen
I was going to put together a manual and instructions and how to video when I get this sample. I'll drop a line here when its ready.

Thanks guys!
Wayne

That'll be in S1000D format, right? Boeing uses S1000D :D :D :D As does all of Europe! :D

ENOFLYER
30th December 2012, 02:45 PM
looks like a great FPV bird the designer did his homework on this one

Hobby UAV
31st December 2012, 05:49 AM
got the production unit in, Check it out.
http://hobbyuav.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dsc00775.jpg?w=180&h=120
http://hobbyuav.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dsc00727.jpg?w=367&h=244
http://hobbyuav.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dsc00752.jpg?w=314&h=473
http://hobbyuav.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dsc00749.jpg?w=233&h=155
I have a whole lot more pictures here (http://hobbyuav.com/2012/12/30/techpod-production-sample-arrives-and-closeups-of-the-parts/)

Ian Davidson
31st December 2012, 06:14 AM
Wow! Very elegant !! :)

ssassen
31st December 2012, 06:24 AM
Looks great Wayne, is the preorder window still open for EU customers?

FPVsam
31st December 2012, 06:29 AM
This is what he send me Sander: "shipping is $58.09 US ( to Belgium ) , $15 for the dome. so $298.09 total. You can send me a payment to [Wayne (you know the symbol) hobbyuav.com] via paypal to reserve one."

I'll have to skip this one for a few months unfortunately, due to a new autopilot project I need a flying wing :)

boopidoo
31st December 2012, 10:00 AM
Isn't it great holding the molded pieces in your hands for the first time? :)

I remember how unreal it felt holding the molded pieces of the RVJET for the first time after having stared at the CAD model for over a year.

Good luck, looks like an efficient platform for long range and endurance FPV.

Scotttu
31st December 2012, 10:21 AM
Wayne that's pretty awesome!!!!

Have you got some HD footage from inside the dome?

Hobby UAV
3rd January 2013, 07:12 AM
got servos in, APM2.5 , hackHD ready to build the production sample. got Friday off. gonna be making instructions, build video etc. should be fun! Got an actual store up BTW guys http://hobbyuav.myshopify.com/

RcLab1
3rd January 2013, 07:16 AM
Awesome!!!!!!!!

paulaus
3rd January 2013, 09:46 AM
No shipping to australia?!

Hobby UAV
3rd January 2013, 06:02 PM
Paulaus, I just secured a distributor is Australia. please contact admin(at)boltrc.com and I will be announcing an EU distro soon too.
Thanks guys

ELLIOT
4th January 2013, 07:01 AM
congratulations wayne! well done!
is possible determinate the maximum flight distance for this airframe?
what is the aspected w/h comsumption necessary for an efficient flight?
and what is the maximum lipo playload?

Hobby UAV
8th January 2013, 01:01 AM
I have gone 2 hours with the prototype. Cruising speed is about 35 mph.
The production sample weighs a full pound less.

I am fitting a 370kv motor swinging a 12x8 with 2x 5000 mah 6s lipos in the sample.
I estimate 3.4 hours of flight time. The weight will only be slightly more then the 2 hour flight.
Should be fun:)

brosius85
8th January 2013, 01:24 AM
am i reading right? you flew with 6s 10000 and used about 60% for a 2 hour flight?

BCSaltchucker
8th January 2013, 02:04 AM
I have gone 2 hours with the prototype. Cruising speed is about 35 mph.
The production sample weighs a full pound less.

I am fitting a 370kv motor swinging a 12x8 with 2x 5000 mah 6s lipos in the sample.

ahhhh now I see the method to the madness

reminds me of those human powered channel-crossing planes. Except yours is much faster!

Hucker
8th January 2013, 02:29 AM
I'm telling you guys this is going to blow up all the electric personal bests, bone stock a 30mi round trip is possible with a 33% reserve. This plane is going to shuffle some things around.

ssassen
8th January 2013, 02:49 AM
Sent you an email Wayne.

ssassen
8th January 2013, 09:19 AM
Two kits ordered, I couldn't resist, build log upcoming ... :D

kalikraven
8th January 2013, 10:18 AM
Got the update Via Kickstarter that the delivery day will be delayed... http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav/posts



(http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav/posts/382337)Delay!.. ugh. (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav/posts/382337)

Update #23 Jan. 08, 2013 (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav/posts/382337)comment (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav/posts/382337#comments)



Sorry everyone but I have to announce the shipping date for techpod has been pushed back to march 15th I received this in an email from my factory contact at world models
The production would be completed and ready to ship by early March. It is longer than expected as our factory will be closed for three weeks starting from early February for the Chinese New Year holidays. Also, the carbon tubes (fuselage) will take about 20 days to order from our supplier and we need some time to work on the tubes when we get them.
Well it looks like more time in the salt mines for me and my poor supporters are going to have to wait another month to get their techpods. Well the bright side is the production unit the factory sent me is awesome and going together nicely. I am waiting for some new lipos to come in so i can fit them in the fuselage.
Here is the new set up:
(http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav/posts/382337)motor (http://www.foxtechfpv.com/foxtech-heavy-duty-motor-w4830-kv370-p-830.html)
(http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav/posts/382337)2x lipos (http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__21373__ZIPPY_Compact_5000mAh_6S_25C_Lipo_Pack.ht ml)
12x8 apc prop
(http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav/posts/382337)APM 2.5 (http://store.diydrones.com/APM_2_5_Not_Assembled_p/br-apmpwrkt2-telem433.htm)
(http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav/posts/382337)HackHD (http://store.diydrones.com/APM_2_5_Not_Assembled_p/br-apmpwrkt2-telem433.htm)
Will be looking for 3+ hours flight time with this set up.
thanks everyone for your continued support and patience.
Wayne
(http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/841500112/techpod-the-hobby-uav/posts/382337)

boopidoo
8th January 2013, 03:34 PM
Has the production prototype actually flown yet?

BCSaltchucker
8th January 2013, 06:49 PM
placed my order. Finally a build which will be soo different in all respects. Hope to maiden by May or so. Sell off most of my other planes in June :D

JohnVH
8th January 2013, 06:58 PM
Cool, another local

ELLIOT
8th January 2013, 09:52 PM
I have gone 2 hours with the prototype. Cruising speed is about 35 mph.
The production sample weighs a full pound less.

I am fitting a 370kv motor swinging a 12x8 with 2x 5000 mah 6s lipos in the sample.
I estimate 3.4 hours of flight time. The weight will only be slightly more then the 2 hour flight.
Should be fun:)

is possible to determinate the exactly power needed for cruise flight with this setup?

BCSaltchucker
8th January 2013, 10:47 PM
by my non-science-background mind I calculate he is averaging 66 Watts cruising power to accomplish that.

energy in battery
Ah 10
battery 6S
volts 23.4

duration 3.5 hrs
speed 50 kph



amps 2.857142857 (Ah / hours)

watts 66.85714286 (Amps x Volts)

--

by comparison, my Z2 when I ran it on 3S and a smaller motor, would cruise at 8 amps at maybe 45kph, at about 11.6 volts average so 8.0A x 11.6V = 92.8 Watts. which is signif less efficient

brosius85
8th January 2013, 10:59 PM
these numbers are still just on paper guys.... i'd rather see what it can really do before buying it on a promise....

BCSaltchucker
8th January 2013, 11:01 PM
Well from what I have found with multicopters, the lower the Kv, larger the prop, the more efficient the power system itself is.

and keep in mind those are BIG batteries he is putting in the 3.5 hour Techpod. Not so easy to carry that much battery around in a Z2! It is like 20,000mah of 3S battery - about 1.5 kilograms of battery alone. I only carried about 0.6 Kg of battery in my ZII to achieve 8amp cruise.

might just want the plane set up this way all the time. Could do 3 or 4 trips to the flying field a week, and only charge the batteries once a week.

brosius85
9th January 2013, 12:16 AM
im not doubting it is a great long range plane and i don't think it is made to compete with the Z2, i would just like to see what it can do rather than just reading numbers before buying one...

gaahrdner
9th January 2013, 12:37 AM
im not doubting it is a great long range plane and i don't think it is made to compete with the Z2, i would just like to see what it can do rather than just reading numbers before buying one...

Isn't there a video where he's already done 2 hours...?

durangoflyer
9th January 2013, 12:47 AM
Subscribed.

brosius85
9th January 2013, 04:31 AM
Isn't there a video where he's already done 2 hours...?
not that i have seen.

i have heard the prototype flew for 2 hours but that is not what i need to see anyway, ideally we will get some osd video of the production sample doing 60kph on 60 watts, carrying 10000 of 6s.

BCSaltchucker
9th January 2013, 05:49 AM
im not doubting it is a great long range plane and i don't think it is made to compete with the Z2, i would just like to see what it can do rather than just reading numbers before buying one...

I quoted those Z2 numbers merely to demonstrate what the Techpod wattage numbers mean, compared to a widely understood reference (Z2). A 30% difference in efficiency (ie 66W vs 92W) sounds awfully plausible to me. Of course each plane is a compromise of characteristics.

And I look forward to some link videos also. Weather has been pretty bad here in the PNW region for flying though (Wayne lives just a 100km away).

Scotttu
9th January 2013, 09:49 AM
I only have this video of take off, shoots up just like a Z2 does...
Floated with no throttle in the mild wind we had, glides very well.
Came in a bit hot but he was dumping altitude- the thing wanted to float so you may need long approaches.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B3Z3IyOiE6k&list=UUfh-T-svaQSibmDris8xL2A

gaahrdner
9th January 2013, 09:55 AM
I've only seen this one, but you're right, it might be the prototype.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdBzbOeh50

Scotttu
9th January 2013, 10:08 AM
I have no doubt this aircraft will do a 2hr flight carrying 10000mah of battery - it just floats but at the time he only had 6k or 8k of battery in it.

It is every bit of efficient as he said, he had to dive it in to get it to land, it just floats.

For my 12 mile flight to the Brothers this would be ideal, except maybe cruising down the side....the Zephyr would be bettersuited for that....

mudlark
9th January 2013, 11:05 AM
I have a slow motion video of the take off some where. I'll try and find it.

BCSaltchucker
9th January 2013, 04:31 PM
It is every bit of efficient as he said, he had to dive it in to get it to land, it just floats.


it has flaps, so maybe program some crow to make it stop? I guess today's autopilots don't work with crow programming though.

Hobby UAV
11th January 2013, 02:26 AM
OK I got to check this thread more often . Let's see. The production model will be ready this weekend. Sorry I am a bit slow with the builds but I got to juggle a whole lot, job , family etc.. I don't hold much hope to fly this weekend cuz the weather is pretty miserable.

Oh yes I got good news! The factory was able to get things moving on the CF rods which means they are shipping before February 10th! Wootwoot! You heard it hear first.

boopidoo
11th January 2013, 05:01 AM
Do you use unidirectional pultruded or woven CF-tubes?

paulaus
11th January 2013, 05:10 AM
To the au contingent.. Get on board quick... Not many coming in

ssassen
11th January 2013, 06:53 AM
@Wayne,

As a fyi, I would consider offering a set of glassfiber wingspars as well, CF is not well suited in a RF rich environment, especially long tubes that run the length of the fuselage/wing.

ProtoCrash
11th January 2013, 07:28 AM
Wow... if I didn't have another 3 projects on the bench right now I'd be ordering! (next round perhaps)...

I notice that a gopro will indeed fit in the clear bubble but how about gopro with pan/tilt? That would be my ideal setup for long lazy flights...

Hobby UAV
13th January 2013, 06:06 AM
boopidoo,
the spar and tail boom are uni. uni is a must for the spars. the first prototype I made years ago had a X-weave but the uni stuff is still way stronger then necessary and is much easier to get a hold of. the boom does however have an x-weave pattern over it but its extruded underneath.

Ssassen,
Thanks for the heads up. I will look into it. If there are enough people who want glass I can have the factory make some.

Thanks for all the kind words everyone!

mudlark
13th January 2013, 01:28 PM
Wayne
Just found this wing with a domed front and a nice looking gimbal. Will yours be any thing like this one?
http://www.rangevideo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=71&products_id=306
Oh and you up for another Farm meeting near the end of March?

Hobby UAV
16th January 2013, 07:14 AM
ya that is a very slick design I have talked with one guy who did some design work on the gimbal. they put way more into this money wise then one dude and a computer and some rc junk and a old Subaru. + $45,000 kickstarter money. they have tons of molded plastic in it. Ya I am totally down for some more flying on the farm. should have plenty of techpods by then.

mudlark
16th January 2013, 03:22 PM
looking forward to seeing the finished kit.
I'm thinking the 23rd or 24th of March which is my only real free week end when I'm back. So stick it in your diary :)

SquireM
16th January 2013, 05:36 PM
Any idea what the ideal glide ratio is for the Techpod?

Mad_Scientist
20th January 2013, 11:03 PM
soooo.. who would be ready to drill a bunch of holes in one of these?? lol

Im buying one of these next week or so. cant wait to get it, but the parasitic drag kills of foam just makes me gag. so anyways, from my time as an avionics tech i can tell you that boundary layer air is a big culprit in the economy of planes,. the rougher the surface, the more you have Im wondering if golf ball drilling the foam will help it reduce the amount of boundary air, and in turn parasitic drag. (just like a golf ball)


so who wants to try it before me so i can see if it works? LOL

and if that doesnt work, how about wrapping the plane with my layer and a super light glue?

brosius85
21st January 2013, 04:38 AM
i think you would have more success with a Lemurian Light Beam crystal device. http://www.reuel.name/2010/12/29/how-to-build-a-lemurian-light-beam-crystal-device/?lang=en

that will improve flight tenfold.

you can always attempt the golfball idea though. let us know if you do :)

mudlark
21st January 2013, 05:36 AM
i think you would have more success with a Lemurian Light Beam crystal device. http://www.reuel.name/2010/12/29/how-to-build-a-lemurian-light-beam-crystal-device/?lang=en

that will improve flight tenfold.

you can always attempt the golfball idea though. let us know if you do :)

;) Nice

Mad_Scientist
21st January 2013, 02:25 PM
lol.. no really though.. what ways is there to smooth the surface of EPO and reduce the drag? i really want one, but i like to finish stuff so that it looks like the real deal. id sacrifice a little bit of weight for the putty/paint if need be.

boopidoo
21st January 2013, 02:43 PM
Drag is not always necessarily decreased by a smooth surface. Sometimes a rough surface can contribute to a significantly lower total drag. Also the molded surface should be very even and smooth. Is there any special areas you think about?

Mad_Scientist
21st January 2013, 03:17 PM
you are correct. sometimes a rough surface is good.. but usually any leading edges shouldnt be rough. for example the area in front of the bulge of the fuselage and the bulge it self. (id need to model this in flow works to be sure) but if those surfaces you would have more boundary layer, that the prop would have to push the "bulge" through. then the air behind the bulge (feeding the bottom of the prop) would be more turbulent.

I think what i would like to try is smoothing the front surface, and then golf ball drill the center on the top wing and the back of the fuselage, this would cause less boundary layer, and give the prop more clean air. should increase efficiency if my theory is right. Ive always been more of a fan of twin engine planes, with the props out front in clean air, but this thing already has so much work done, i dont thing there is much to be improved on.

and yes the over all countours are smooth, but you can look at the pictures to see how the surface is really rough. not good for airflow or painting. even back in the thread i read that it had quite a bit of parasitic drag.

Legot
21st January 2013, 04:15 PM
I'm sure that Wayne has already taken these factors into consideration during the design process.

Mad_Scientist
21st January 2013, 04:25 PM
i see that he used solidworks flow modeling. Id personally like to see the results, and id like to see results with prop wash calculated in.

Solidworks will give you very generic calculations and is not powerful enough to detail things like boundary air and drag. now if you step up to COSMOS (the software i have) then your talking about some serious data.

im really not hating on the plane.. i love the design and wayne did alot of work, i just am very critical of certain things. If there is efficiency to be gained, i like trying to find it. (thats actually what i do for a living lol)

mudlark
21st January 2013, 06:20 PM
why on earth would you want to drill holes in a perfectly good wing.
Rough or smooth I recon the difference would be hard to measure considering the crap we plaster over our planes. Cameras antennas Vtx and wires. Personally I'd be happy with the finish that it comes with which is probably the same finish as a skywalker. Not heard of any-one drilling holes in theirs.
Or the other thing to do is cover it. I've done rough EPP that I sanded down and then covered in light nylon cloth bonded with water based varnish. Not a bad finish once painted.

Mad_Scientist
21st January 2013, 07:47 PM
why on earth would you want to drill holes in a perfectly good wing.

to reduce the boundary layer air, reducing drag. just like a golf ball. (that was pretty clear i thought)

mudlark
21st January 2013, 08:00 PM
Again why????

But please be my guest and get back to me when you have spent the good part of the day drilling all them holes and then find the plane now stays aloft for a few extra minutes.

Seriously this is not NASA

Mad_Scientist
21st January 2013, 08:14 PM
and what if that few extra minutes is the difference between you reaching your landing field or gliding into a highway full of traffic..

do me a favor, if you dont like my idea, say so and move on.

K_G
21st January 2013, 08:27 PM
No reason to think it would be an improvement. It's an airfoil, not a golfball. Properly designed endurance airfoils are mostly laminar, dimples will hurt not help.

mudlark
21st January 2013, 08:36 PM
No reason to think it would be an improvement. It's an airfoil, not a golfball. Properly designed endurance airfoils are mostly laminar, dimples will hurt not help.

Finally words of wisdom. :)

Mad_Scientist
21st January 2013, 08:40 PM
No reason to think it would be an improvement. It's an airfoil, not a golfball. Properly designed endurance airfoils are mostly laminar, dimples will hurt not help.

no reason to think it would NOT be an improvement either. Perhaps next time you go to and air show take a look at some of the jets, and the holes they use to allow the engine to suck away some of that BLA. I dont think anyone here can say without a doubt that there is no turbulence located behind the bulge of the fuselage. It does look pretty good already, like i said, im just curious. we need a wind tunnel :D

K_G
21st January 2013, 09:00 PM
There is one reason, and that is we aren't dealing with full scale. Boundary layers need a reasonable amount of distance over which to build, and at the Techpods size it just ain't happening.

You can't really say that dimples on a golf ball are there to reduce the boundary layer. They are there to cause turbulence and suck air back down around a sharp corner. To say that a golf ball has time to form a boundary layer and that's what the dimples are reducing is misleading. More accurate would be a small object moving at an incredible rate without aerodynamic properties will form a vacuum behind it. Dimples in this case are reducing the size of the vacuum. A boundary layer isn't a vacuum, it is stagnant air.

Mad_Scientist
21st January 2013, 09:08 PM
actually to be technically specific, the dimples in a golfball turbulate the air next to the boundary layer.. and it does reduce drag. at the same time it increase magnus lift. (lift caused my object rotating through the air).. there is nothing misleading about that comment at all. that is a fact in how they work. thats the main reason reason they fly so far and drop off so steeply. feel free to Google as many references as you like if you don't believe me.

anyways.. back to the airplane.. practically any object moving through the air has a boundary layer. and the rougher the surface, generally the worse it is. (hence the dimples in a golf ball turbulate that later to break it up) btw.. according to the reynolds affect, the boundary layer air is MORE critical at lower speeds than higher.. id say that rc is pretty low speed.

here is a pretty good link to read, it doesnt go into to much depth but does a good job explaining

http://adamone.rchomepage.com/index4.htm

Legot
21st January 2013, 09:27 PM
Too bad wings don't rotate through the air to cause lift.

I think the main argument against you is that it would be more effort than its worth to even test if this particular modification is feasible. No one (at least on FPVlab) is looking for the kind of improvements that you suggest at this time. Hopefully Wayne will chime in before too long and address concerns, but its really just an argument of principal. Why would you do this to a plane that has had allot of work put in to design it properly, then go modifying it in an effort to make it almost immeasurably better when there is a high chance of causing it to fly worse and reduce strength to a point from which it cannot be restored?

On this scale, with our toy planes, there is hardly a point that can be seen. I see where you're coming from, but its really hard to justify. If you really want to do it then no one will stop you, just make sure you post your results.

Mad_Scientist
21st January 2013, 09:34 PM
Too bad wings don't rotate through the air to cause lift.

I think the main argument against you is that it would be more effort than its worth to even test if this particular modification is feasible. No one (at least on FPVlab) is looking for the kind of improvements that you suggest at this time. Hopefully Wayne will chime in before too long and address concerns, but its really just an argument of principal. Why would you do this to a plane that has had allot of work put in to design it properly, then go modifying it in an effort to make it almost immeasurably better when there is a high chance of causing it to fly worse and reduce strength to a point from which it cannot be restored?

On this scale, with our toy planes, there is hardly a point that can be seen. I see where you're coming from, but its really hard to justify. If you really want to do it then no one will stop you, just make sure you post your results.


i always thought to most fun part of r/c was trying to make the good better.. and you must of missed the part where the dimples cause turbulence.. that kinda happens wether your spinning or not as long as there is air moving over the surface. I will shut my mouth on this forum becuz apparently anyone who thinks outside the box is an idiot. caio

K_G
21st January 2013, 10:05 PM
I say go for it Mad_Scientist. Please, please go for it.

BCSaltchucker
21st January 2013, 11:17 PM
I think what i would like to try is smoothing the front surface, and then golf ...

fairly standard practice in FPV foamies to tape the leading edges anyways (with filament tape or other - and some folks go so far as to laminate the entire foam wing). Usually done to prevent denting and chipping of the foam in a very vulnerable part of the plane, and to add some structural strength. That probably smooths the foam effectively anyways?

boopidoo
22nd January 2013, 01:34 AM
Yes, a golf ball has a boundary layer. The dimples doesn't reduce the size of the boundary layer, actually a turbulent boundary layer is generally larger then a laminar. Yes, the dimples does reduce drag in the example of the golf ball and probably in many other cases as well. The dimples on the golf ball ceates a turbulent boundary layer which separates later then a laminar thus reducing drag.

However for foamies I also don't think it's worth it. Sure be very welcome to try and it would be great if you could test it in a wind tunnel. First make a bunch of tests with the original wing in different speeds and AOA. Would be awesome if you could test lift as well in different speeds. Then made the modifications and re-make the tests. I'm sure Wayne would be glad to test his wing in that kinds of environment. Since you work with this that might not be so far off? :)

But IMO the most important factor why it's not worth it is that there's other factors more important that might be impaired by this such as loss of structural integrity and added weight. Designing a foam model is the same as making a bunch of compromises. Each compromise has to be considered against each other. Wayne made his compromises with the TP and we made other compromises with the RVJET, two very different models (despite the nose dome) and the result may come out a lot different then the first sketches.

brosius85
22nd January 2013, 05:28 AM
while you are at it why not try sawtooth effect on the wings and prop too!?
http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff330/BEXTREME_THE_FIRST/71F944BC-F2AB-4F5A-A1D6-E7F5A39F4F61-16626-00000CE1E7033892.jpg

ImmersionRC
22nd January 2013, 09:18 AM
IMHO the dimples idea is taken out of context somewhat and is pretty off topic. Whilst it is true that the dimples reduces the drag on a golfball this is due to the golfball's nature to spin, on a stationary golfbal the net effect is more drag. If dimples would make a significant difference in terms of reducing drag on an airplane's wing you can rest assured all modern large commercial jetliners would have dimples. The fact that they don't, even though the effect has been known since the '60s, should tell you something.

earthling
22nd January 2013, 09:28 AM
There is one reason, and that is we aren't dealing with full scale. Boundary layers need a reasonable amount of distance over which to build, and at the Techpods size it just ain't happening.

You can't really say that dimples on a golf ball are there to reduce the boundary layer. They are there to cause turbulence and suck air back down around a sharp corner. To say that a golf ball has time to form a boundary layer and that's what the dimples are reducing is misleading. More accurate would be a small object moving at an incredible rate without aerodynamic properties will form a vacuum behind it. Dimples in this case are reducing the size of the vacuum. A boundary layer isn't a vacuum, it is stagnant air.

A golf ball with dimples is only more efficient than a golf ball without dimples due to the fact that neither is an airfoil and you are trying to approximate one. The whole intent of the dimples in COMBINATION with the magnus effect is to simulate what you can more easily get with an airfoil. Your dimples will only create selective drag as the plane is not a sphere, is not spinning, and is in principle already an airfoil/aerodynamic.

boopidoo
22nd January 2013, 10:06 AM
IMHO the dimples idea is taken out of context somewhat and is pretty off topic. Whilst it is true that the dimples reduces the drag on a golfball this is due to the golfball's nature to spin, on a stationary golfbal the net effect is more drag. If dimples would make a significant difference in terms of reducing drag on an airplane's wing you can rest assured all modern large commercial jetliners would have dimples. The fact that they don't, even though the effect has been known since the '60s, should tell you something.
Well that is very interesting since it does contradict what I've learned. Please feel free to contribute some references to back it up. :)

Anyway I think you're mixing up some aerodynamical factors here. The dimples on the golfball does reduce drag no matter if it is spinning or not. This is because the dimples makes the boundary layer turbulent and an turbulent boundary layer "stays" on the ball longer before it departs thus minimizing the wake. A smaller wake means less drag.

The spinning does create lift, the Magnus effect. The direction of this rotation/spin can make the ball deviated from it's original course. Spinning a ball for this effect is very common in most ball sports.

However just because the dimples and turbulent boundary layer is better for lower drag on a golf ball doesn't mean that it's always good to have a turbulent airflow. Actually over wings, laminar boundary layers are often preferred but there are exceptions of course. For instance turbulators are sometimes used on wings to create a turbulent flow where there's a need to move the separation further aft. In a way the dimples on a golfball does the same thing as turbulators on a wing.

Maybe this tells you something... ;)

ImmersionRC
22nd January 2013, 10:11 AM
I could be mistaken, this isn't a topic I dabble with on a daily basis, as I don't play golf :D

brosius85
22nd January 2013, 10:32 AM
skip to 7:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKxEkT2H8pI

there does seem to be a plausible gain to be found here. 11% improvement in fuel efficiency!

K_G
22nd January 2013, 11:19 AM
For instance turbulators are sometimes used on wings to create a turbulent flow where there's a need to move the separation further aft. In a way the dimples on a golfball does the same thing as turbulators on a wing.

Maybe this tells you something... ;)

Exactly. On a wing, you'd use a turbulator. You'd also be using it only if you messed up when designing the airfoil, got a separation bubble and needed to get it sucked back onto the wing. Boundary layer is just not an issue at this scale, sorry.

K_G
22nd January 2013, 11:24 AM
skip to 7:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKxEkT2H8pI

there does seem to be a plausible gain to be found here. 11% improvement in fuel efficiency!

Also due to the fact that it has strong angles with the air needing to be sucked back down to avoid separation (drag). Mostly behind the rear window and trunk. The much easier and effective solution is actual turbulators, the triangular shaped wedges that people put on performance cars right before the rear window starts to drop. Or on STOL aircraft that hit the air at extreme angles on approach and takeoff and need to keep the air attached.

The Techpod has no such rear facing blunt drag area as a car or golfball. The boundary layer isn't an issue at this scale. Separation bubbles maybe, and only if a bad airfoil was chosen. In which case you would just find out where the separation was happening and place a turbulator accordingly.

I'm not one to stop anyone from experimenting simply because they don't want to find out how others tested the same idea (over and over for decades) and what their results were.

boopidoo
22nd January 2013, 11:27 AM
Not sorry... why should I be, I'm not wrong. :)

Golf ball dimples and turbulator is basically the same and no, the useage of turbulators is not because someone screwed up. Although maybe in some cases it's used that way as well. It would be interesting to read about such cases, got any reference examples? Turbulators can, for example, be used when there's a variable wing profile (ie flap) to delay separation when the profile changes.

I'm all for that it might be overkill to use it on this scale though, as I wrote earlier there's much more important factors to worry about.

For example if someone made a large enclosure for CP-antennas (1.3) having turbulators/dimples on it would greatly reduce the drag.

mudlark
22nd January 2013, 12:47 PM
Hopefully that's the end of the Golf Bull!!!!

Thinking out side of the box is great but some times????

Can we just get a production one in the air and see how this bird handles. With out dimples

Very keen to see how it performs against the SW both for duration and ware and tare.

K_G
22nd January 2013, 01:28 PM
Boopidoo, I'd read stuff by mark drela referencing boundary layers, turbulation etc. That goes for Mad_Scientist as well.

boopidoo
22nd January 2013, 03:39 PM
I've read quite a lot about aerodynamics and boundary layers thank you. And you would have to be more precise before I dive headlong into everything the talented Mr Mark Drela has written. It's been a decade since I studied this but I don't think anything I've written to be incorrect.

But if you were thinking of some special references regarding the sole use of turbulators on otherwise messed up wings I'm all ears if you'd like to be more precise. ;)

@mudlark
This discussion hardly delays the first flight of the production model does it? ;)

K_G
22nd January 2013, 03:56 PM
I'm not in it to win it, back in the day I visited those subjects from the best sources I could find and I've written what I remember. As someone already said, there is probably a very good reason besides not thinking about it for not including it as a drag reducing device on virtually anything other than golf balls. The airline industry would be all over it for fuel savings if it was even a 1/4 of 1% savings. Aircraft like the Voyager etc decline to use it. DLG's don't even put up a 1/2mm trip wire to get back an energized layer, and what could be simpler? But people not doing it isn't the proof.

Every so often someone says hey, what about dimples? Nothing ever comes of it even from people who have the time and resources, so if you want it answered, the answers are out there. It's easy to come in, say they reduce drag on a golf ball and then decline to go research it's use on aircraft and get someone else to look it up for you. I'm not THAT helpful. It's not a new or original question, it's researchable.

Hucker
22nd January 2013, 04:17 PM
For those that care about the actual TechPod, I was lucky enough to see it the other day (the one off the mold, not the prototype) and it looks nice. Surface finish is smooth and fit and finish looks good, especially when compared to my Radian Pro and EZ* which is not a very high standard. Since the wing is thin, I expect that people will be covering at least the leading edge with tape or 3mm lam. It should easily exceed what any of the skywalkers would do range and duration wise (perhaps by a factor of 2) at the expense of having a longer thinner wing which will be more fragile and not as aerobatic. It was designed and optimized to go far on little battery while carrying a GoPro sized flight cam AND a downward looking DSLR, ideal for UAV, long range FPV , AP. It's not a zeph or a basher. If you are hard on planes I suspect the TechPod is going to teach you manners :) It is designed with flaps so most likely you will use 7 channels to control it though you can get away with 5 or 6 if you Y the ailerons or flaps.

I don't think you'll need dimples

ImmersionRC
22nd January 2013, 04:29 PM
I don't think you'll need dimples

Lets be brutally honest here shall we? Who wants a plane with cellulite? No, thank you!

boopidoo
22nd January 2013, 05:17 PM
All (my) models get cellulites after awhile... it could be because I use too hot water when fixing them or maybe they just feel to content that I'll stay with them and don't care how they look anymore... ;)

@K_G
I never said that I wanted to use turbulators on a model but IMO some information was not correct so I responded. Being an aeronautic engineer I would indeed find it very interesting if someone made some scientific tests (like those I suggested to Mad Scientist).

On airliners vortex generators are used for the same effect, delaying separation of the boundary layer. In a way very small vortex generators (those seen on many airliner wings) and turbulators is doing the same thing. They are also used on the nose and in front of the windhield etc.

mudlark
22nd January 2013, 05:19 PM
@mudlark
This discussion hardly delays the first flight of the production model does it?

Ha Ha
Dude you're missing the point.
Wayne has put a lot of effort into this project and some are trying to alter it before it's even hit the sky's.

boopidoo
22nd January 2013, 05:22 PM
No, I get the point but since I don't get to work with aerodynamics I enjoy discussing it. ;)

mudlark
22nd January 2013, 05:26 PM
For those that care about the actual TechPod, I was lucky enough to see it the other day (the one off the mold, not the prototype) and it looks nice. Surface finish is smooth and fit and finish looks good, especially when compared to my Radian Pro and EZ* which is not a very high standard. Since the wing is thin, I expect that people will be covering at least the leading edge with tape or 3mm lam. It should easily exceed what any of the skywalkers would do range and duration wise (perhaps by a factor of 2) at the expense of having a longer thinner wing which will be more fragile and not as aerobatic. It was designed and optimized to go far on little battery while carrying a GoPro sized flight cam AND a downward looking DSLR, ideal for UAV, long range FPV , AP. It's not a zeph or a basher. If you are hard on planes I suspect the TechPod is going to teach you manners :) It is designed with flaps so most likely you will use 7 channels to control it though you can get away with 5 or 6 if you Y the ailerons or flaps.

I don't think you'll need dimples

Good info Hucker I hope Wayne can bring it along to the Flying Dog Farm BBQ Bash in March
Would like to order one but too big to fit in my suitcase.

brosius85
22nd January 2013, 05:27 PM
thou shalt not alter thy techpod lest thee incur the wrath of the mudlark

i don't think this part of the discussion is solely limited to theorizing on the techpod's possible aerodynamic features as much as a general aero tech, if wayne asks im sure we can get a separate thread going but until then i cant see how this should offend anyone...

go on with the auesum aero theory!

mudlark
22nd January 2013, 05:39 PM
:)

no worries


we're good

Mad_Scientist
22nd January 2013, 06:58 PM
The airline industry would be all over it for fuel savings if it was even a 1/4 of 1% savings.



im not gonna comment on the techpods efficiencies or improvements anymore as it seems to be a touchy subject, but KG i have to disagree with you on most of your points.. and the one ive quoted above is a complete fallacy, and can be proven. it has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that blended wings would carry more passengers, reduce fuel consumption, and after initial infrastructure rebuilds would reduce cost significantly, both in pilots pay (less needed, planes carry more people) AND in fuel economy. but the air line industry doesnt touch it. So to say that they would jump all over something that would reduce fuel consumption by .25%, well... that might be your opinion but the facts dont substantiate it. espeicially when they have a TWENTY THREE PERCENT increase right infront of them! You have to think what the cost of such a project would be. they would have to retool practically every sheet metal stamp in the industry! and if they were going to do that, they would just go with the blended wings!!

also, unlike others, i have no problems putting references to back my theories, or fact based opinions, so here is a couple.. the wiki has some links to other sources so no need to list them all

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/gallery/2008-02/whatever-happened-blended-wing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48






anyways.. sorry i stirred the pot. didnt know a conversation about the surface texture of epo would cause all this.

gaahrdner
22nd January 2013, 09:25 PM
I just don't think dimples will help an already sleek aerodynamic design, but I would humbly suggest we leave this thread for it's initial topic, discussion of the Techpod, and start a new one concerning increased wing efficiency through alternative designs.

It is FPVLAB after all!

Hucker
22nd January 2013, 10:43 PM
FWIW airlines do chase efficiency but do so in conventional ways. For example winglets are retrofitted to conventional airplanes for a 5ish percent gain. New generation engines are better. The 787 (when not broken down) represents a 20% efficiency gain over the 767. I think from a business perspective betting the company on a completely new design requiring completely new infrastructure just doesn't make sense compared to incremental gains. A true maverick would need to spear head a blended body design.

I'm really curious about your dimple idea. The only thing close is that I know of is the high performance glider guys strategically placing zigzag tape on wings. There is a slight gain <1% as I recall using these devices. They are very carefully placed rather than covering the whole plane. Such devices seem to me to be able to help high AOA performance or slow speed control rather than efficiency.

Seems pretty easy to test though if you have access to a CNC router to lay down a dimple grid on a wing. Take any foamy glider, and trim it out so it flys nicely hands off. Then lay down your grid of dimples on one wing and see which way the plane yaws when you fly it and you will have a 'quick' clue as to whether you are going to be a millionaire or just another guy with a cool idea that doesn't work.

Scotttu
22nd January 2013, 11:54 PM
I just don't think dimples will help an already sleek aerodynamic design, but I would humbly suggest we leave this thread for it's initial topic, discussion of the Techpod, and start a new one concerning increased wing efficiency through alternative designs.

It is FPVLAB after all!

Agreed, I keep checking in here waiting for results from a test flight and keep seeing this..........

FYI my opinion, the gain won't be noticeable, just my opinion.

boopidoo
23rd January 2013, 03:43 AM
Darn I long back to the wind tunnel days... why did this remind of me being in the wrong business... well, ok the money is better with what I do now so... yeah let's wait on the TP. :)

RcLab1
23rd January 2013, 01:29 PM
sooo, is March 15th the official shipping dates to us all? :-)

swillhide
23rd January 2013, 01:59 PM
Aww come on guys, have you never seen the Mythbusters do this test? http://access.aasd.k12.wi.us/wp/baslerdale/2009/10/24/mythbusters-golf-ball-car-better-gas-mileage/

BCSaltchucker
23rd January 2013, 09:59 PM
sooo, is March 15th the official shipping dates to us all? :-)

hey that's not bad at all!

I am tempted to put a deposit on one of these planes. Soonest delivery date is some time in 2016
http://www.iconaircraft.com/buy-your-icon.html

BCSaltchucker
26th January 2013, 12:55 PM
Wha tha? ...

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1817793

they have barely gone into production and already have been ripped off. Let me guess - they used the same moulds too?

RcLab1
26th January 2013, 02:04 PM
Wow, Big Drama ongoing for 2 years about the development of the TechPod/Cyclops.....

Thats pretty crazy and interesting.....


http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23937430&postcount=12

Carbon
26th January 2013, 02:35 PM
Holy crap dudes, that just sucks. For everyone that backed it up on Kickstarter, everything.
Although I've never heard of Asia Tech Drones.

brosius85
26th January 2013, 10:15 PM
WHAT A MESSS!!!!

very hard to believe either party.

BloomingtonFPV
26th January 2013, 10:34 PM
And both parties look bad. Deleting content on diydrones doesn't look so good. We need to hear from Wayne.

Dionysos
26th January 2013, 10:59 PM
shhhhhhhh...

taken money from here, no money left, spent money there, sold old kits...
Lots of desperate moves in this rcgroupsthread, showing very little character.


watching from the sidelines.

Dio

Hmerly
26th January 2013, 11:42 PM
Yeah, makes both sides look bad. Glad i did not jump in

Hobby UAV
27th January 2013, 01:18 AM
All I have to say on the subject is please give me enough respect to let the courts decide. I can't comment on this just yet. I have enough respect for due process to rely upon it instead of making public baseless accusations. The truth will come out. And no this is defiantly not the whole story.
Thanks for your ongoing support.
Wayne

Carbon
27th January 2013, 01:26 AM
Good luck Wayne! I think we are all just rooting for the day when the techpods/cyclops arrive at the door step :D

Hobby UAV
27th January 2013, 02:26 AM
Hey I just read all the debate about dimples. I am all up for experimentation and if a little CFD or real world experimentation shows improvement I'm all up for it. However my opinion sides with it not improving performance. The RG-15 is a real high NCrit specialist which the way I understand it represents surface roughness. This is what makes it good for punching through the BL on the back side of a slop in DS.

Hans
27th January 2013, 03:46 AM
Wow, Big Drama ongoing for 2 years about the development of the TechPod/Cyclops.....
Thats pretty crazy and interesting.....
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23937430&postcount=12

This is like an episode of American Chopper for nerds.

ssassen
27th January 2013, 06:28 AM
@Wayne,

I fully support your decision to refrain from posting in any forum and seeking legal counsel to settle this, no amount of mud slinging is going to improve things, to the contrary, it'll only make matters worse. Get a lawyer to deal with this mess whilst you focus your time and energy on other things, the Techpod for example or family and friends.

FPVsam
27th January 2013, 07:10 AM
Interested to see how this will end...

Hobby UAV
27th January 2013, 02:32 PM
@rclabs1, @boopidoo

Please give me the benefit of the doubt until I have a chance to tell my side of the story! I wont be telling it in some blog I will be telling it in a court of law.

RcLab1
27th January 2013, 02:45 PM
I never donated in the KickStarter program, I'm neutral and Im a 'average-FPV-hobbiest"....I don't take any sides.
I dont know you and John.

I hope you guys settle it maturely and friendly manner. This is just a hobby for all us here:-)
I really hope it goes well because your planes are awesome!

boopidoo
27th January 2013, 02:47 PM
Sure I'm with ssassen on this and fully understand that this won't be settled on a public forum.

However I'm also aware that taking matters in to court doesn't always result in the best results. Gentlemen agreements, which matters alot to me, may not matter to the court. So no matter who wins in court an honest man may still be screwed.

Anyway I don't side with anyone since I know far too little and am not involved. I hope for a workable solution that works for all involved. Now isn't that a diplomatic answer. ;)

BacklashRC
27th January 2013, 03:10 PM
Wayne says he designed the plane. John says Wayne designed the plane. If there is some sort of intellectual property agreement or non disclosure form the courts will sort this out post haste.

I agree with Wayne when he says a public forum is not an appropriate place to quibble over business dealings.

With that said, I can't wait to get the plane! I would also like a composite version....

BCSaltchucker
27th January 2013, 03:43 PM
I am still eagerly looking forward to this plane, and thank Wayne for making the massive effort to bring it to market.

Hobby UAV
27th January 2013, 04:18 PM
Thanks man!

Hobby UAV
27th January 2013, 04:24 PM
Ive been talking with the guys at RNR (http://www.rnrproducts.com/airframes.htm) about making composite airframes. However I don't have the resources to make it happen at the moment but I do have plans in the works.

zaGURUinzaSKY
27th January 2013, 07:53 PM
what about making the karbon fiber boom longer to go under the rudder and protect it during landing ?

Hobby UAV
28th January 2013, 05:21 AM
Well it would be easy enough to attach a Popsicle stick or something if you desire. I have never ran into the problem myself.

Scotttu
28th January 2013, 10:48 AM
Waiting anxiously to see BackLashRC begin the build - We're gonna send that puppy out 15 miles on it's maiden! :D

Seriously I am anxious to see it, love to get one of these someday after I retire the EZSTar....

Limeclouds
31st January 2013, 02:39 PM
Hey Wayne,

Sorry about all the mess!

I have no sides to the story, but is there no way you and John can work it out or has it gone too far? I just think its a darn shame that ideas and products are delayed or tainted with bickering mess! Maybe be the bigger guy and ask him for a pint?

Eitherway good luck with the airframe etc...

Hobby UAV
31st January 2013, 05:06 PM
Thanks limeclouds.
Right now I have no comment .

BCSaltchucker
2nd February 2013, 12:41 AM
anyone plan to lay solar panels on the techpod wings to gain some flying time?

WildWill
2nd February 2013, 01:23 AM
anyone plan to lay solar panels on the techpod wings to gain some flying time?

I've thought about doing something like that, that's the deal with R. Montel from what I've gathered. They seem really expensive though, got a source for something less expensive?

Carbon
2nd February 2013, 02:11 AM
I was in Cosco the other day and this guy was showing off these great flexible solar panels. Super lightweight and they could charge your phone, 4 AA batteries, and a flashlight with just a 8x12" solar panel. The only problem I see with solar is the cost. I'd rather just buy more batteries!

Hobby UAV
2nd February 2013, 02:40 AM
was talking with a guy who flies with solar and we came to the conclusion that you could attach enough solar panels to provide about 22 watts. About 1/3 of the power needs to fly. theoretically adding an extra hour to a 3 hour flight. on a sunny day of course.

Scotttu
2nd February 2013, 02:50 AM
The guy that set the 100km record had them on his wings.

Hobby UAV
2nd February 2013, 03:08 AM
ya about that. 3.4 hours * 35mph = 119 miles or 191.5 km of powered flight. :) add some solar and dayum! how's that for sum balls! :cool:

SquireM
2nd February 2013, 03:20 AM
Wayne, did you ever do the three hour flight you were talking about?

Hobby UAV
2nd February 2013, 04:29 AM
I have everything installed just need to finish setting up the APM. looking at Sunday.

Maximus
2nd February 2013, 04:42 AM
This thread has been cleaned up.

CrashAffinity
2nd February 2013, 04:49 AM
I was in Cosco the other day and this guy was showing off these great flexible solar panels. Super lightweight and they could charge your phone, 4 AA batteries, and a flashlight with just a 8x12" solar panel. The only problem I see with solar is the cost. I'd rather just buy more batteries!

From what i've seen adding solar to planes to increase flight time at current efficiency rates (and cost) gives you very little gain for the $$$ that are put into it, however, in R. Montiel's case on RCG, he's got a huge glider that can soar for hours on thermals (i think he said he's done 9 hour flights) so in his case, the only purpose of the solar is to feed enough power into his video tx so that he doesn't saddle his plane with too big a battery for the video.

So you're likely spot on, the rest of us jokers can just get a bigger battery :D

Snoopy
2nd February 2013, 05:17 AM
You get a real good feel for portable solar panel performance reading user reviews at Amazon. You'll be lucky to get a trickle charge on a perfect day. I had a business renting equipment on the beach and looked into supplying panels for people renting our umbrellas so they could charge laptops or whatever. The ROI wasn't even close to working for us. Now a solar paint for RC would be interesting.

BCSaltchucker
2nd February 2013, 02:48 PM
I do not fully understand the technology he is using, but this guy is aiming for near continuous flight without thermalling, and only 2.2m wingspan. Big difference is the motor prop on the techpod is seriously limited by prop swinging room (big slow prop is more efficient) ... but maybe we could double our flight times with a carefully engineered solar charging build.

http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?12207-2.2-m-solar-glider-continuous-flight&p=208091#post208091

Hobby UAV
2nd February 2013, 05:50 PM
I still have to actually get some panels and play around with then before I am convinced however it looks very interesting.

So... I have to migrate the Vtx to the tail . do you guys recommend shielding the video line going to it?

WildWill
2nd February 2013, 05:54 PM
Yea, any long runs like that allow for RFI to get into the system. There's a thread on here about the cat6 shielded that's helpful.

Hobby UAV
2nd February 2013, 06:12 PM
sentry's cat6 thread (http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?3641-The-Most-Amazing-Invention-Ever-For-FPV-(CAT-6))
ok found the thread. hmm going to have to see what i got on hand. Cool stuff.

Blizzard1287
2nd February 2013, 07:27 PM
L-com also sells shielded USB cable in various gauges. its a little more durable than cat 6