Re: looking for rugged, approx. 8' winspan to carry 5-10lb. payload

In article , F;,VN[OWIR wrote: | I am looking for a gas engine (propeller) powered model aircraft with a | winfspan of 6-8' capable of carrying between 5 and 10lb. I want to use it to | develop UAV software/hardware. I will carry guidance and a camera or 2. I | must be able to take it apart and put it together prior to flight. What I | have in mind is something like the "Silver Fox" UAV which the Marines are | using in Iraq. I would like to pay under $1000 without engine and | electronics. Also I am looking for the names and locations of model airplane | shops in the Los Angeles area that would carry larger model airplanes of | wingspan from 6-8'.

Well, then you should have little problems finding a sutiable plane. There's many ARFs available in the size range you've requested, and in your price range as well.

I'd suggest something with generous dihedral -- it'll make the plane easier to fly (or make self-flying easier), since you're not likely to be doing aerobatics. There's literally dozens of sutiable planes out there.

As for the LA area, pick up your phone book. Find the section on hobby shops. Call one, ask for large ARFs. Rinse, lather, repeat. Most hobby shops of any size that carry R/C stuff will have a few larger ARFs. You could also get a kit but I'm guessing that you want something that won't require that much work to get going. | My ultimate intention is to have a model plane which will fly itself while | carrying the necessary electronics and cameras.

Of course, you should be aware that your ultimate intention is likely to get the attention of the FAA and AMA. If you're not an AMA member, their rules don't apply to you, but the FAA has strict rules regarding UAVs and if you make a plane that is designed to fly itself, you'll have to follow these rules.

| Please reply to this newsgroup.

Of course, your post isn't exactly anonymous --

X-Authenticated-User: lbhawkins >at< cmagic.net X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.194.208 X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 1092067274 66.81.194.208 (9 Aug 2004 11:01:14

-0500)

So we could probably email you if desired.

If you're not familiar with R/C flying yet, I strongly suggest you get familiar with it before you attack a project like this. It'll save you a lot of money and trouble. Also, I'd consult the FAA regulations regarding UAVs as well -- as you will probably need permits and such from them. As long as you fly your plane via a standard remote control, and within your visual range, they generally won't mind, but if you let it fly out of your sight, or let it fly autonomously, they (and maybe some other three letter agencies) will get very interested.

Let's see....

It amazes me how many people reply to this type of post without considering the possible terrorist implications.

Bin Trollin', nothing personal but you apparently have a computer so do your own homework.

Since you have ESP and know what people think about when they reply to posts, you know that I considered the "possible terrorist implications" as I was composing my reply.

You also know that I think Maynard Hill's record has let the cat out of the bag--and Dave Brown not only endorsed Maynard's extraordinary accomplishment, but landed the plane in Ireland.

And you also know that I consider it highly unlikely that any terrorist worth his (or her ) salt is going to ask in a forum like this for help designing a weapon of Mass Destruction.

Therefore, it amazes me that you wrote what you did.

Marty

Marty,

I won't answer messages of the type posted above because of the nagging thought in the back of my mind about the potential terrorist on the other end. Especially, when it's an annomous post.

It's probably just a silly little bit of paranoia on my part, but I can't completely ignore it. Probably never will......

Wiz

Mart> >

Oddly enough I have had a conversation about this type of subject in the recent past. There are a couple of major considerations that makes what Marty wrote probably correct. Here they are for the nibblers to choke on.

The first point is that there are extremely few weapon systems that are going to be very effective in delivering significant damage to more than one or two people that weigh less than 50 pounds. Remember, to be effective the weapon must be DELIVERED. Most ARF's have payload potentials much less than that so they are not going to be very effective.

The second issue is again the delivery. For any weapon to be effective it must be delivered to the correct spot to do the damage. Kind of like a rifle bullet versus a shotgun at 200 yards. The shotgun may or may not be able to put a projectile in that area, but the rifle WILL. This means that our UAV must thread around various impediments to straight flight to get into position. Things like light posts, high lines, tall buildings and serious wind turbulence for the size and weight of vehicle.

Chemical or biological agents weigh less, but are much more constrained as to position of release. Wouldn't do much good to spray some biological agent on the south side of a city with a significant breeze from the north. The second issue is that it probably will not do any good to release said agent a 1000 feet when most people I know of breath at much lower altitudes. This means that AFTER we figured out how to get the vehicle at the right geographical coordinates, we must get it at the correct altitude - with no one noticing it! Imagine how your local PD would react to a ARF cruising down the main boulevard. Can you say 'shots fired'?

The probability that any illicit dangerous (to more than a very few) UAV activity appears to be small.

In short guys, let us exercise our intellect a bit more. They say mental exercise is a reasonable preventative to Alzheimer's (sp?).

Six,

I think there is plenty of room for argument on the points you've made. I don't plan on doing thet here, though.

Wiz

Six_O'Clock_High wrote:

It amazes me that people still reply to threads like this without considering how totally much more, an R/C or even UAV plane that can actually do some real damage that a grenade or suicide bomber can't, would cost.

Just LOOK at the development budgets of ALL the US UAV projects, and get a life.

Buy a model airplane e.g.., a Sig Sr Kadet Almost-Ready-to-Fly), which fits the criteria you set, Add a .90 cu. in. glow engine (e.g., OS .91) and R/C gear. Check the Yellow pages, there many shops in LA that can supply all of the above. Add 5-10 lbs of bricks (I think the Kadet fuselage will accomodate this - if not use diver's belt weights) and then go out in the boonies and see if you can learn to fly it.

Abel

Senior Telemaster. Hobby Lobby sells em but ya gotta build it.

Every technical post on this forum is grist for a terrorist's mill: engines, radios, batteries, autopilots, covering techniques, fuel considerations, prop selection, etc.

There are legitimate purposes for developing private or commercial UAVs.

I see no harm in answering the question as I did. The Man from Uncle imagined the use of an RC airplane as an attack vehicle back in the 60s. I forget how they stopped the plane, but they did.

I thought about it, then dismissed the concern. There are many better ways to distribute 8 to 10 pounds of trouble than in an RC model. ;o)

Marty

In a college competition a few years ago, the winning team used an OS 40 FP to carry NINETEEN (19!) pounds of payload.

That record has given me all kinds of confidence about what will and won't fly.

Marty

And how much did the box cutters cost?

OTOH, that is the very nature of terrorism. The WTC, Cole, and embassy attacks were unusual in their impact on many lives. Most attacks take a relatively small toll of life (suicide bombers), but accomplish their objective by terrorizing the populace into persuading the government to act to appease the terrorists.

At least, that is how it has worked in some countries. Other countries continue to fight back.

I have to admit that I was thinking the same thing, and I was trying to consider legitimate personal and commercial uses.

For commercial uses, I couldn't come up with anything that would be likely to rely on something on such a limited budget... a commercial activity using a UAV would likely be something with a high cost of failure. Of course, basic R&D could be done on such a limited budget, getting the avionics working before installing them in a $10k airframe, but OTOH, the $10k airframe, with RC backup control, would be more likely to safely return the avionics home.

--- Rich

The F4 flies.

The Space Shuttle kinda flies.

With the correct aspect ratio wing, pretty much anything will fly, it's just a matter of how far, how fast, how stable, and how wide the flight envelope is. I doubt the OS40 could carry 19lbs into a 20mph headwind :)

--- Rich

I just built one of these. It carries my airborne video , and my Robbe Charley Skydiver, I also have a Futaba "Auto Pilot". Wonderful model very easy to fly and will lift a fair amount of weight. I have a Tower .75 in mine

Tom Watson Sydney Australia

Thank you for your replies. I think though that I should pour some cold water on some of the speculation about my motives.

I am a programmer and (sometimes) a hardware designer who has gotten interested in UAVs. The reason I obfuscate my name and email address is that I do not want to be harvested. For those of you who would care to check me out further my name and phone number are:

greB snikwaH

(310) 839-6430

You can google my name and phone number to find out even more.

I live in Los Angeles, near Culver City.

I work out of my apartment and am looking to R/C model planes as the cheapest way to get into UAVs. I expect that in the near future I will have more questions for this newsgroup as I know little about R/C models and even less about UAVs.

One reason I am looking for something that will carry a payload of about

I hope I can count on the "group mind" to help me solve some of the problems I will inevitably run into.

Thank you

Martin,

The bad guys will get their information where they can find it. And if that is on a news group like this, then this is where they will look. Though I doubt they have or will find anything here they don't already know, why leave cheese lying around for the rat to chew? Continue to do your thing and leave the intelligence stuff to the intelligence people.

On a similar note, an article in the August 7 L.A. Times had this little tidbit: "Remote-controlled planes are "no longer a hobby-shop business," said Maj. General Wilbert D. Pearson Jr., commander of Edwards Air Force Base. "It's now a serious military operation.""

The article name was "Unmanned Aircraft Gaining The Pentagon's Confidence" and the author was Peter Pae. It also stated that a third of the military fleet of aircraft may be remote-controlled by 2010. Looks to me like more laws, rules and whatever are just around the corner. And considering who made the statement and where he's from, the guys in Kalifornia might be among the first to find out.

Wonder what hoops the AMA is lining up to jump through for this one? Might pose some good questions for the candidates as well.

Look who's pointing at the US Government as a cost effective project manager!

D.H., you get a clue you babbl> > Let's see....

Rich,

And what pray tell is a 20mph headwind other than 20mph of airspeed? If a plane can fly and 20 plus mph it can certainly handle a 20mph headwind. It's ground speed may suck but fly it will!