Define for me the difference...

[Tango Juliet]

between an aerial photography platform and a UAV. Both are Un-Manned and reomotely piloted, correct? I'm not playing devil's advocate here, I'm just trying to get a better understanding. And at what point does a modeler need to worry about FCC Licensing and FAA Regulations?

[sodman12]

UAV is fully computer controlled. or has the ability to be. This makes is easier to fly out of sight which is where a lot of people have a problem. once it goes out of sight and esp. if there is no downlink for video the chance that a small problem could turn into a big one become more and more likely.

At least thats what i think of when someone says UAV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

[Unterhausen]

I think the FAA may classify alll rc aircraft as UAV's. It seems that most military UAV's are teleoperated, don't think there are many that are really autonomously operated at this point. To the FAA, the difference between flying from the ground with and without onboard video is fairly minimal.

However, for the purpose of this forum, I think the definition is that a UAV has a computer flying the plane.

[lvspark]

@ FBO,
Depends upon your definition of UAV. Does "A" stand for Aerial or Autonomous?

We all fly unmanned aerial vehicles. A paper airplane could also be considered unmanned, aerial, and a vehicle

Right now people start to worry when money changes hands cause that has been when the FAA says it is a commercial operation and your "model" becomes a "UAS" (Unmanned Aerial System). Does not matter if it is autonomous or not. FAA shut down a public entity that was flying a 20 some ounce electric that was flown by direct visual control by direct remote control just like the thousands of other models in the world today.. 2 other "model type" planes have been shut down by FAA but both had autopilots for program and fly.. They were only like a model by looks, it is the autonomous flight aspect and mission scenario that sets them apart.

My opinion is that an aerial photography platform flown like an average model, is just that! A model airplane with a camera. On most occasions it is flown in a much more reserved manner.

A aerial photography platform that uses a flight computer for primary guidance and stabilization becomes a UAV IMO.

A pilot must have direct control over the model for it to be a model. Failsafe modes that include automated responses (like kill engine, return to safe landing area, pop chute) would possibily make the model even safer.

Edited to add:
In relation "true UAV's" vs. most of the "autonomous capable" model aircraft in this forum, is these hobby UAV's are typically flown within direct visual line of sight, and the pilot has the ability to disable the autopilot and take direct control at any time. It's not like they are programming them to fly 10 miles away and back. Their eye is on them at all times.

[Ailuropoda]

FCC and FAA being american organizations, I'm not sure I can help. Definitions seem to be a disputed thing in the USA.
I can tell you about Canada though. The Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) define a model aircraft and unmanned air vehicle in section 101.01.
"model aircraft" - means an aircraft, the total weight of which does not exceed 35 kg (77.2 pounds), that is mechanically driven or launched into flight for recreational purposes and that is not designed to carry persons or other living creatures; (modèle réduit d'aéronef)
"unmanned air vehicle" means a power-driven aircraft, other than a model aircraft, that is designed to fly without a human operator on board; (véhicule aérien non habité)

Once a model has been used non-recreationally, it irreversably becomes a UAV with all the documentation and paper work requirements that go with it. I hope this hasn't caused further confusion.

[Tango Juliet]

Thank you all for your responses. I guess I wasn't thinking far enough outside the box, and didn't realize that there was an autonomy factor to UAV's. I'm not enough of a computer whiz to create systems of that complexity, but it is very interesting. Over on the Aerial Photography threads I've noticed that the majority of the aircraft are electric powered, very light, and use some sort of small digital still or video camera. I prefer to build IC powered "models" and desire to build larger aircraft as $$ and space allow. For many years I've wanted to design my own Aerial Photo ship that would carry a standard hand-held video camera onboard. I'm always looking for design ideas, but the electric stuff isn't really my bag, baby! I'd like to go with a pusher design with the camera mounted in the nose for a birds eye perspective. Similar to a Cessna 336/337 but without the tractor motor in the front. I di-gress(sp). I'm starting to ramble on about a future build that should go into a new thread. Thanks again though.

[fhhuber506771]

The Kadet Sr is a littel smaller than what I would stick a VHS-C camera inside but has a reputation for being easy to modify. A twin-boom pusher with a camera in the nose would be no problem. Its been done.

I've not seen the kit for the Telemaster, just the resulting aircraft (there's a REALLY large plane!)... but I suspect it could be modified in a similar manner. (scaled up because of the significantly larger wing)

Sparky Paul has photos and info about modifying the Kadet Sr.

[why_fly_high]

Thank you all for your responses. I guess I wasn't thinking far enough outside the box, and didn't realize that there was an autonomy factor to UAV's. I'm not enough of a computer whiz to create systems of that complexity, but it is very interesting. Over on the Aerial Photography threads I've noticed that the majority of the aircraft are electric powered, very light, and use some sort of small digital still or video camera. I prefer to build IC powered "models" and desire to build larger aircraft as $$ and space allow. For many years I've wanted to design my own Aerial Photo ship that would carry a standard hand-held video camera onboard. I'm always looking for design ideas, but the electric stuff isn't really my bag, baby! I'd like to go with a pusher design with the camera mounted in the nose for a birds eye perspective. Similar to a Cessna 336/337 but without the tractor motor in the front. I di-gress(sp). I'm starting to ramble on about a future build that should go into a new thread. Thanks again though.
You mean someting like this?

[Tango Juliet]

why fly high - that's exactly what I was thinking of! :eek: I've never seen that before, although I have seen a pre-production skymaster that did only have a pusher. Do you have any information on that aircraft? I have built a couple of the Kadet Seniors' and actually intended on using the rib template for my design.

[fhhuber506771]

If you want to base it on a skymaster.....
http://www.nitroplanes.com/newce337sk0s.html

81 inch span...

The question becomes if the thing will fly well on a single pusher engine. The full scale Skymaster is marginally powered to maintain altitude (full loaded) when one engine dies.

3 or 4 blade prop on a .72 2-stroke, or a .91 4-stroke might do it though.

Saves a lot of work building if you can find an ARF thats close to your goal..

[Tango Juliet]

Huber - You're right, it does save time and effort, but I enjoy the satisfaction of designing my own creation and getting it to work. Besides, it's also unique and no-one else has one.

[fhhuber506771]

Some people do enjoy building... I am one.

Some would REALLY like the minimal modification ARF path...

Some have adequate building space... others don't... (I can't build right now cause I can't even get into my model room... too many models! I can barely open the door)

Sometimes... its cheaper to get an ARF than to build and cover...