Long Distance UAV

[unvmygame]

My name is Dave - I'm new here so I apologize if this is a stupid question or if it's been discussed before... is it possible to design a UAV that can travel miles?

Here's my idea:

http://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/2/5/30/unvmygame/f_oqomodel02m_ed7059b.jpg

Using an OQO, which is a small fully-functional 1.8GHz, 2GB RAM Vista/XP computer (1lb). Battery life is between 3.5 and 7 hours depending on configuration. This thing easily connects to a USB aircard for cellular internet.

Is it possible to control a plane over the internet so you can go beyond the range of traditional RF? Latency would certainly be sub-1sec which should be fine. You're only limited to cell coverage - which is everywhere now.

I bet if I knew how to send a signal over the internet to the OQO (which could be connected to some kind of controller, I could prob fly a plane into the next state.

Why not? Has anyone done this?
Dave

[patrickegan]

Unsafe! Long distance has been done over the Atlantic.

[Gary Mortimer]

I hope your tongues firmly in your mouth there Spit, bit much that.

Many aircraft fly great distances with autopilots, but as time goes on regulation encroaches.

For now unless you have big bucks and lots of time to comply, flight within visual line of sight, VLOS is the only thing on the table, and even that table seems to have one leg shorter than the others.

[Buzz_Lightyear]

For now unless you have big bucks and lots of time to comply, flight within visual line of sight, VLOS is the only thing on the table, and even that table seems to have one leg shorter than the others.
This seems like a big generalization to make. Maybe the rules in his country differ from those in yours. It seems a bit counter-productive to the discussion to apply them when they very possibly would not apply.

[vau]

I bet you're glad you posted now Dave....

In short, realtime control of the aircraft would be problematic using cellular, primarily because of latency and issues when handing-off from one cell to the next. Even if you could keep a nominal 250ms (I think you'd be lucky) this would probably be too difficult to fly with.

However you could use an autopilot to provide the realtime stabilisation and then use the cellular link to provide telemetry down from the craft and to upload new taskings (e.g. fly at heading xxx for xxx meters)

[Gary Mortimer]

Buzz,

No hopefully it will prompt Dave to find out about rules in his own country.

If its an ICAO one, they will be much of a muchness.

Best to do that before embarking on what might be an expensive project.

I was not shooting it down, just pointing out he might want to check.

I am not a Unav fan before that gets flagged up.

I'm and RCAP ATTO ARDU type of guy.

Nobodys pointed out that most units are way smaller than the one shown so regardless of if it working, lifting it would create the first issue. Cool looking thing, handy for a ground station.

Rant ends

[patrickegan]

Spit,

At least I have the stones to use my real name, instead of a sock puppet. And I don't believe it is a good idea to use anyones product unsafely.

[spitfiremk9]

Gary
I do have difficulty controlling my tongue at times, but it looked as though Pat had replied without even thinking " Unsafe!" ?
Dave made it quite clear that he was a newbie and I felt for the poor guy, imagine how you would have felt if your first post on here had received such a reply? It was unnecessary and abrupt.

Most recently I have warmed to more UAS legislation, especialy if it removes the need to carry hard hats like the Europeans had to carry gas masks in 1940;// "Hey, that funny little plane up there has a Unav sticker on the side of it, Hats on Fellas"


QUOTE; my grandmother
There will never be a Black president of America!

[Gary Mortimer]

Not for this thread that thorny one.

I think most people would predict when it comes to regulation that in a word there might be, lots.

[billh117]

Dave look at diydrones.com they have a smart phone controlled unit with all the info needed to build it or one like it.


There is much good stuff on there and less bickering. :-)

[twisteddelight]

I'm actually slowly working on something similar, but after googling the OQO, it's overkill. Flying a 1,200$ computer is a bad idea....
Personally I'm going to use a PDA since it comes with everything already built in, camera, access to the cell network, programmable, and weighs less than a full computer.
But I’ve got to wait till Verizon lets me get a new phone on the cheap. But I did some research for a stand in and this is probably your best option rather than the OQO, just wire up your own power supply.
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/embedded/artigo/a1000/index.jsp
It’s a bit bigger and heavier but SOOO much cheaper.


But as for sending a signal to the OQO over the internet. That's easy; I've already written the program to control a servo through a usb port over the internet using a joystick. It can be modified pretty easily for whatever you need if you're intrested.

[keithskye]

I actually worked on a project to do this almost 10 years ago. It IS doable. Problem is a regulatory one (quite a few regulations actually). There are many, many viable ways to fly a UAV, but it's all pointless if its not legal, nor safe, to do so. The thing that is so unreal on most of these forums is the complete lack of understanding of what "safety" means and how it is defined and addressed by the DOT, FAA, CAA, and any other regulatory agency in any country you can think of. As soon as you go beyond line of sight, you are entering a whole new arena. Any talk about beyond line of sight control is silly if you do not address the regulatory issues, and as Gary and Patrick have said here and elsewhere, it is only going to be a more, rather than less, regulated business.

Keith McLellan
CEO
Global Air Link
Whisper Aerospace

[twisteddelight]

Which regulation are you refering to?
I've encouterend this 'you can't go beyond line of sight' thing quite a bit but noone has ever pointed to where this comes from.

[fly_boy99]

Just think of the "Blue screen of Death" on this one...

sheesh!

[spitfiremk9]

Sorry for my ignorance, I thought I was clearly being facetious, at least I'm not mean, everyone is entitled to my opinion :)

On the legality note, seeing as there are so many on here that are familliar with the law on these UA things or whatever they are called, could one of you help me with my ignorance and educate me as to, how come 'Aerosonde' is allowed to roam around the world on a daily basis?

[twisteddelight]

On the legality note, seeing as there are so many on here that are familliar with the law on these UA things or whatever they are called, could one of you help me with my ignorance and educate me as to, how come 'Aerosonde' is allowed to roam around the world on a daily basis?
I googled Aerosonde and FAA....

"The aerosonde has not been given clearance by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fly near the U.S. coast, because of concerns that the robot aircraft might encounter other aircraft skirting the storm, according to a Florida Sun Sentinel article posted earlier this year. The FAA does plan to give the aerosonde clearance late in 2008--with restrictions."

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=930&tstamp=200804

But as for those restrictions, I'd guess it probably has to carry a transponder, lights, file a flight plan, probably a radio....


Edit: here you go

Negotiations with FAA: Our flights have been operating under considerable restrictions by the FAA: a strobe light is required, transponder to be required on future flights, no flights over land, no flying under IFR conditions (except beyond 12 nm from shore), only a single corridor at low altitude is available to us is available to get to the ocean, and no flying along the coastline (except between NARL and Point Barrow. An FAA official visited the Aerosonde operations toward the end of the two week period, and stated that all of these restrictions could be relaxed for future flights. Specific operations that were discussed with the FAA officials, and which were not allowed previously,k include flights along the coastline for coastal research, and flights inland to support wildlife and vegetation studies.

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Aerosonde/nsfdoc.html

[Gary Mortimer]

Heres some links to proposed regs not all set in stone yet.

http://attopilot.ning.com/forum/attachment/download?id=2847572%3AUploadedFi38%3A2012

http://attopilot.ning.com/forum/attachment/download?id=2847572%3AUploadedFi38%3A1901

A good starting point and more than likely what will happen in the near future.

I'm not on the inside track with this, I just read what comes into the public domain.

But this is thread hi jacking of note!!

[unvmygame]

Guys-- nice to meet all of you. NO WORRIES about attitudes, bickering, egos, etc. I spend most of my time on a pool/billiard forum and suffice it to say, they can "spot you guys the 7" when it comes to rammy posts (regardless where you're from in the world).

Funny, I didn't see any bickering in this thread. I think I'm used to "If you think you're right, pull $1000 out of the ATM and let's meet up and bet on who's right." lmfao

I am a relative newbie; however, I've been flying r/c helicopters for a long time. I'm not an acrobatic pilot (because I'm not in a fight with my $$$); however, I fly really well.... but I'm BORED.

I recently sold an internet communication firm, so I understand RF, microwave and internet communications really well. I'm not one to putt a little prop around a park and feel like I got my jollies off. I'd rather spend 10x the money and do something fun.

I totally understand the "safe" thing. Anything I do would be safe.

As far as legality, I'm not sweating it. Base-jumpers don't ask for permission before jumping off a building or bridge. Wire-walkers ask for forgiveness instead of permission as well. With an IP signal, I could sit at a Starbucks and fly a plane. By the time anyone knew which end was up, the airplane would be wrecked or retrieved and I'd be long gone.

I found this RangeVideo OSD which is actually perfect--
http://www.rangevideo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=49&products_id=135&zenid=2313566819607541d9a0593d7ddd07a6

Do you guys have experience with this? I just wanna break the RF barrier if I have a 1st-person POV with a HUD like this ---- wouldn't you guys? Who wants to fly 1st-person within a park? ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

IP/cellular is the only way I know how --- the autopilot capability is the move as well (which another guy said above).

Sorry if I sound like a naive newbie. If I can figure out how to interface that RangeVideo board to receive an IP single--- I'm sending a plane WAY off somewhere (with SAFETY first in mind).

Dave

[gkamysz]

I totally understand the "safe" thing. Anything I do would be safe.
Dave

This is what everyone is concerned about. What you think is being safe and what others (pilots, soccermoms, the Pope, the goverment. etc.) think is safe is not one and the same.

Sending a model up and flying it around line of site at a field designated for flying model airplanes most will agree is safe. Sending a model up to fly itself, where it might meet another aircraft without your knowledge, where it's uncertified power plant might fail, where it's uncertified control system might fail, and lead to death or injury, most will agree is unsafe. Where you do it, isn't really for you to decide. You are playing in somebody else's field. Just like you can't take an unroadworthy vehicle on the road, you very shortly will not bea able to take an uncertified model UAV into the air.

Think of it as sending a car out onto the highway with an autodriver system, doesn't matter if it's for a joyride, just to say you did it, have a package to deliver, or maybe you are attempting to develop an new autodriver. Many here think that if you where to do this with a moped, it's safe because it's light and small. It sounds pretty ominous to think of a semi hauling 40 tons on autopilot, but if either one causes an accident where a school bus full of children are invovled the outcome is the same.

I'd love to try exactly what you are doing. But doing it anywhere near here I can't say is safe. If I owned thousands of acres in the dakotas or SW US, I would give it a go. Flying over others property become a big sticky point.

Greg

[twisteddelight]

I found this RangeVideo OSD which is actually perfect--
http://www.rangevideo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=49&products_id=135&zenid=2313566819607541d9a0593d7ddd07a6

Do you guys have experience with this? I just wanna break the RF barrier if I have a 1st-person POV with a HUD like this ---- wouldn't you guys? Who wants to fly 1st-person within a park? ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

IP/cellular is the only way I know how --- the autopilot capability is the move as well (which another guy said above).

Sorry if I sound like a naive newbie. If I can figure out how to interface that RangeVideo board to receive an IP single--- I'm sending a plane WAY off somewhere (with SAFETY first in mind).

Dave
Well assuming you have a computer on board for IP/Cellular connectivity just chose a computer that has video in and connect it through there. (You'd have to change the connector though)
But really since you probably will be flying with a computer you have a lot more options than just the stuff for RC planes. You can dasiy chain dozens of devices to a single usb port and have access to any other fun sensors you'd want (I'd check out the robot guys, they have a lot of good stuff)

[Sgt_Ric]

"unvmygame "
This section is dealing with autonomous UAVs... you are speaking of FPV flight.

Move over to the FPV section where there are many like minded threads.

[keithskye]

"unvmygame "
This section is dealing with autonomous UAVs... you are speaking of FPV flight.

Move over to the FPV section where there are many like minded threads.

He's the one that started this thread, which does not mention anything about autonomous flight, and his thread comes under Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which is just that - unmanned, and has nothing to do with autonomous operation. Also, his idea has to do with long distance control of a UAV, whether for video or other purposes is still that - long distance control of the UAV, and that is applicable to any and all who are interested in controlling their aircraft.

I for one am very interested in how he does with his idea. There are latency issues and other challenges using satellite datalink for control of a high speed (a relative term here) UAV, and I'm open to options.

On a different note, I think the safety and regulatory concerns are legitimate and should be considered carefully in the pursuit and development of this idea. As long as measures are taken to address those issues, I say go for it, Dave. Just do it the right way, though!

Keith McLellan

[spitfiremk9]

He's the one that started this thread, which does not mention anything about autonomous flight, and his thread comes under Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which is just that - unmanned, and has nothing to do with autonomous operation. Also, his idea has to do with long distance control of a UAV, whether for video or other purposes is still that - long distance control of the UAV, and that is applicable to any and all who are interested in controlling their aircraft.

I for one am very interested in how he does with his idea. There are latency issues and other challenges using satellite datalink for control of a high speed (a relative term here) UAV, and I'm open to options.

On a different note, I think the safety and regulatory concerns are legitimate and should be considered carefully in the pursuit and development of this idea. As long as measures are taken to address those issues, I say go for it, Dave. Just do it the right way, though!

Keith McLellan

Wow, well put Kieth, my sentiments entirely

[airboss]

Has anyone been flying in general aviation aircraft while using their cell phone? Never had a latency issue, connection was solid as long as we "followed" the major roads and populated areas.
Then the phone went dead as we flew over the everglades. No communications for ten minutes.
You are relying on someone else to provide your comm. Not safe to me. Only system i can think of is Irridium satellite phone providing downlink service to majority of world. Very expensive comm. Phone weighs 2 pounds.

Any other system out there that could be relied on to provide comm to flying aircraft?
Able to cover any area aircraft travels over.

Not impressed with unlimited capital and limited regard for rules of flight. WGUMCD...what goes up etc. Gravity sucks when you lose control.
That's the whole basis of this sport-control. Controlling something away from you. Controlling the impulse to send an object through the air and possibly crashing into someone or something because you have lost control. Really distressed at someone flouting the ability to buy what they want and ignoring laws established to protect those who may not have the money to race to an emergency room.
How would you insure an aircraft that is capable of leaving your sphere of influence.

luck-allen

[fly_boy99]

I wouldn't want that cell phone computer enhanced bird flying over my head!!!

Good luck and seek the desert... ;)

[Pneumatic]

I'm pretty new at this, but I'll share my thoughts on computational platforms for UAVs, and leave the debate about legalities to others.

OQO as a platform: It's a very powerful system, but most of the power won't be useful to you for controlling the plane. You won't get any benefit at all from the screen, or the keyboard, etc. Not only will they be heavy, they'll also drain the battery, and even the features that you would want to would be tricky. To use the camera, you'd need a complex bracket to hold the device on the outside of the plane, and that would make it vulnerable to crashes and the elements.

If you want to use a x86 (equivalent) architecture with reasonable power and not too many of the other thrills, you could get something like a fit-pc2 -- http://fit-pc2.com/ -- or fit-pc slim -- http://www.fit-pc.com/new/slim-diskless.html -- and just pull them out of their case. Both can run on a pretty broad range of input voltages. I have a slim, and removing two screws allows you to pull the whole board out. It has very low power consuption (typ. 1-5W which translates to 130-450mA off a 7.4 lipoly pack.) Both can boot/run off a solid state device like a CF card or a thumb drive which will be better for a vibration/crash rich environment like a UAV. (both also come with external connectors for their 802.11g , which would enhance the fine line-of-sight control/communication mechanism by using a better antenna. For longer distances, most cell-data providers (edge, gsm, gprs) will support linux with a little coaxing. You could even run XP, though running XP headless and remote is a bit more of a pain, but I'm a linux geek at heart, so I would say that.

However, both these platforms do have one serious shortcoming shared by the OQO, which is lack of general purpose I/O. All have USB, which could be useful for the cellular data connection, a camera, a gps, etc, (the slim has a single serial port, though you need to order the nonstandard cable or figure out the pinout to use it.) But if you want it to interface with general purpose sensors (altittude, airspeed, temp & batt. volt), servos, ESC's, magnetometers (compass) and an IMU, then you need something more. Small microcontrolers like the atmega (base of the arduino) and propeller (basic stamp) chips can interface with with all of those quite nicely, and have enough computational power to make a pretty good IMU based autopilot, but usually aren't powerful enough to do sophisticated navigational computation (figure out the heading for a great-circle route between waypoints, store and use elevation map data along the way, etc) that you might want for truly long distance flight. However, those are both getting to the type of flights where you'd need to deal with regulation.

For that you have two solutions.. you can use the arduino-like boards for I/O and simple control, while having higher level computation done by the main computer. The downside is that it's possible to saturate the USB bus (streaming video, wifi, disk i/o, etc) and that means that you might have bursts of latency talking to your control and monitoring systems, and it's also weight and complexity that you don't need for the most part.

The alternative use a SBC (single board computer) that has general purpose IO, like a PC104, etc. but they can be somewhat more expensive, and more hassle to set up.

This is already far too long a reply, but hopefully gives you some ideas.

-- Mitch