12501Re: [tracker2] Re: Rockoon Launch
- May 9, 2011I wonder how a package that would return in a mode similar to a maple seed would work. It would play havoc with a horizontally mounted camera but it should have very little effect on the gps reciever if the antenna is mounted at the axis of rotation. The large wing would give a surface to mount Photo Voltaics for a long duration lander like scott was musing about.
DeanOn Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Tom Tengdin <t3@...> wrote:ï¿½
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
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.
> 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 email@example.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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>