Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12497Re: [tracker2] Re: Rockoon Launch

Expand Messages
  • Tom Tengdin
    May 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I suspect a steerable glider or bomb style configuration would be
      better. Less moving parts.

      If there is no power to the main rotor then I believe there is very
      little torque. A tail assembly should be enough, just like on a
      gyrocopter.

      T3

      On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 10:48 -0700, Scott Miller wrote:
      > I know helicopters have at least a limited ability to land using
      > autorotation in the event of a tail rotor failure because of the very
      > low torque. I would expect that friction is still going to try to turn
      > the payload, but maybe a big fin would be enough to slow it down to a
      > controllable state. Or maybe counter-rotating rotors on the same shaft?
      >
      > It seems like it ought to be easier to deal with than a glider, and
      > simpler than a helicopter since it doesn't need to transmit power
      > through the shaft.
      >
      > In any case, it's going to be a long time before I have time to mess
      > with a new project like this.
      >
      > In the shorter term, it'd be fun to design a long-duration lander. The
      > last payload I flew out in the desert landed on the side of a mountain
      > in the middle of nowhere, with good APRS coverage. If it had been
      > weatherproof and solar powered, it could still be out there sending back
      > telemetry and the occasional JPEG image trickled out a packet at a time.
      >
      > Scott
      >
      > On 5/9/2011 10:40 AM, pb648174 wrote:
      > > Well, with just an autorotating helicopter blade your payload will be
      > > spinning in the opposite direction just as fast and probably not very
      > > controllable. So you'd need a tail rotor and once you do that you've got
      > > a helicopter. To get an idea of the difficulty of controlling that go to
      > > the local RC store and try out the RC simulators which have a helicopter
      > > option. Helicopters are very difficult to fly even in a slight wind,
      > > much less 100mph.
      > >
      > > So I would think for any kind of option like this you'd want a full UAV,
      > > either a glider, powered airplane or tri/quad copter. That stuff is cool
      > > and fun and can be tested on its own minus the balloon so I would think
      > > that is the way to go. There are lots of arduino based UAV projects out
      > > there to look to for inspiration.
      > >
      > > --- In tracker2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tracker2%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > > Scott Miller <scott@...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > Any non-powered descent device is going to have a very hard time
      > > > > penetrating the high speed winds encountered during ascent. Gliders,
      > > > > steerable parachutes, or whatever else you dream up would need to have
      > > > > a glide slope and forward speed that averages high enough to overcome
      > > >
      > > > Are there any resources out there on guided landing systems? I was
      > > > thinking about trying some sort of autorotating helicopter blade for a
      > > > balloon payload. It wouldn't be for returning to the launch site, just
      > > > for choosing a landing site within a certain range.
      > > >
      > > > Scott
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic