Search and Rescue Seaplane

[captmike54]

I really need to tap some of your experience for a project that I am attempting to put together. The fact that you people do this for fun makes me feel that collectively you are probably more experienced than a lot of our experts. I work for a government agency and am attempting to build a 10 foot wingspan seaplane that might be able to search for boaters that might be in distress. I need a camera system that will allow us to search downward on the water but we also need to make sure that we don’t run into anything like another airplane or bridge.

This project is my personal contribution and is much less sophisticated than other ongoing projects and will cost much less, fly lower than 500 feet, and have a terrific utility value. I am paying for the prototype so I have a lot of freedom. I will demonstrate it then hopefully the “powers that be” will consider it for use. I have talked to people up and down the chain and they feel that this concept would be very helpful as a high utility, low cost search and rescue UAV.

If anyone knows of a high grade video system that we can install in the plane (perhaps with multiple cameras (forward looking and downward facing for victim location) and even zoom if possible please respond with information and a link. Even if the range is limited on the system that you suggest, we might be able to adapt it to different government frequencies and increase the power. We must work under the same rules as everyone else but we do have the possibility of using the government frequency spectrum.

We may be able to carry a payload of 25 to 50 pounds depending on how much weight we save on carbon fiber construction of the plane. I need some of that for fuel, a computer, auto pilot, GPS, receiver(s) and our video system with transmitter.

I realize that I am tapping into the Aerial Video portion of the forum but if any of you have suggestions on any other aspect of equipping this seaplane like transmitters/receivers, GPS/ autopilot/ computer guidance combinations, generator/alternator for a Zenoah G62 to keep batteries charged or any other suggestions I would love to hear them. I have found that a lot of you have extraordinary talent, experience and knowledge so I am asking all of you for input that might help. Please realize that the camera is absolutely the most important.

If this plane works well, there is a good chance that I can get government frequencies that can be as powerful as 50 or 100 watts so we can really fly anywhere that we need to go in this area to save lives. We already have a software program that could link with a GPS to direct the plane from take off through search patterns all the way back to the landing site if we lost control.

The engines will be purchased, converted and set up by R.C. Ignition and will be two Zenoah G62 type which will provide more power than should be needed for this aircraft.

Here are some facts on the seaplane that we are thinking of utilizing. G&P Sales (Bill and Betty Price) has/have an excellent reputation and a really great product, so I am going to utilize them for the kit and their advice.

G-44 WIDGEON
1/4 Scale, Designed by Al Franklin

The floats are cloth reinforced mat fiberglass. The engine box design that holds the engines to the wing can be used in either cowl configuration.

The wing design includes 2 full depth 1/4 " AC ply spars capped with 1/2 X 1/4" spruce strips and then carbon fiber strand is glued on top of that with epoxy. The wing cores are designed to be sheeted with 1/64" ply. The spar slots are hot wired into the wing cores ready for construction. The tail group is foam cored. The horizontal stab uses a 1/4" AC ply spar and the vertical stab uses a 1/4" AC ply spar that goes from the top of the stab to the bottom of the hull. The hull has reinforcement box design stringers along the sides of the hull to keep the flat sides from being too flabby.

The kit includes fiberglass fuselage, floats, cowls and nacelles, foam wing, horizontal and vertical stab cores, spar joints, windshield and windows, step by step construction and flying video, full size plans and a construction book full of photos. This is an awesome great flying sea plane. You will never be sorry that you own one.

Price---------- $1200.00.
Wing Span 10'
Length 8 '
Weight 40 - 45 lbs
Wing area 15 Sq. ft
My Note: R.C. Ignition converted engines (2) Zenoah G62 (the manufacturer said that the Zenoah G62 will be a good engine because of the added weight that I will be putting into the plane) http://www.rcignitions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=172#172
Landing Gear Scale and available from Robart
Construction Polyester Fiberglass hand laid 1 oz. mat with 8 oz cloth on top of that in areas that need strength or stiffening. Fiberglass nacelles, and cowls. Both the original Ranger cowls are available and the Mckinnon conversion Lycoming cowls if desired.

Thank all of you for your help,

Mike Howell

[kd7ost]

Interesting project and choice of plane. I would have stayed with a Magneto ignition on my G62's so that I wouldn't need battery power for the electronic ignitions. The additional weight would have been negligible, and with battery packs for both of your cdi units, the weight goes higher. I see why you need a generator.

Check Sullivan Products for an alternator.
http://www.sullivanproducts.com/GenesysCustomMainFrame.htm

They have a variant which was a starter and generator in one.

Your biggest non aircraft problem will be risk mitigation. You'll get a fair amount of hits on you for that.

I have a feeling this thread might go south on you depending on who replies. Don't be alarmed. It's a common theme here when some topics and personnel mix.

You have a lot of issues to resolve. Unless you have an aerospace industry behind you to start on all the issues, I recommend a step by step approach. Your engines are going to cause vibration and isolating the camera systems from that vibration, especially if you're taking stills, won't be an evening project. Getting any significant duration might require swapping out your stock carbs with some that are a little more miserly. But those two Zenoah units should almost pull that plane vertical anyway. You can trade some power for endurance.

I would go step at a time. If you are going to want to fly many miles away in an autonomous manner, you should also be on the UAV section. Different guys with different skill sets are there.

Dan

http://www.rcgroups.com/uav-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-238/

[CenTexFlyer]

Sounds like a GREAT project to me! SAR is kind of "near and dear" to me but that's another story. Without getting TOO specific, I believe the following comments would apply.

Regardless of what you intend to fly, internal combustion (especially two stroke!) is going to be problematic in the vibration department, however, this will not be so much of a problem if you are flying video only. It definitely comes into play if you are using a dig still imagery system that will be limited to shutter speeds below 1/400th of a second. Most video systems are upwards of 1/10,000 of a second so it doesn't become apparent unless your camera mount is actually visibly oscillating from the vibration.

Since you have payload capacity to spare, the key to your system will be a video camera that will provide you the broadest range of use (perhaps you might think of multiple cameras) but you should specify at LEAST a 3 chip camera with the BEST possible optics you can afford. Secondarily you should consider the addition of a thermal imager for night time operatons.

Obviously it would be great if you had a "real time" system that transmitted the video back to your ground station at 30fps, but that not be something you can count on. Perhaps for "proof of concept" you can get away with half that. Not knowing if you are working "near inshore" or "intermediate offshore" or even "international waters" it's difficult to advise what sort of system would be required.

Since you already have an idea that with the right funding, video transmission distance may not be a problem, I'd work on getting the video system that performs the best with the widest array of features.

I would also explore some of the other possible propulsion systems that are available for a project of this type. A hobby type Zenoah might work for a prototype, but production might want to use something a bit different dependant upon the mission parameters.

Just my mission planning $0.02 worth

Gene

[kd7ost]

Since that was his first post and he just joined today, and he posted the same thing elsewhere and is getting replies, I would be surprised to see him back. My suspicions are that he's pretty excited and may not realize he's got such a big task ahead of him. He’s definitely not taking baby steps anyhow.

Dan

[Real Ira]

Hey Mike,
I have the same concern Dan mentioned about risk, but Uncle Sam is picking up the tab that is going to be his issue to deal with.
Having done a fair amount of SAR on the water the main practical problem I see will arise from your use of a sea/float plane as opposed to land based or some other launch recovery method.
When doing salt water SAR the weather is more likley than not going to be snot kicking nasty ie....too rough to launch or recover that bird a large % of the time it will be needed.
$00.2

Ira

[quailbird]

It might work good for those boaters who didn't come home when they were supposed to and had dead engines. A plane like this could locate them cheaper. Usually, though, don't most sea going boats have some kind of tracking devise available?

[captmike54]

Don’t give up on me. I’ll check for your replies at least daily if not more frequently. I appreciate your response because as I stated collectively you folks have a lot of expertise and are already doing what I am attempting to do.

The only other place that I posted this (I hope) was on the engine site http://www.rcignitions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=172#172 , because these are important to the project. I am utilizing motor mounts that should help with a lot of the vibration but I need to find some sort of a mount that will help the video camera also. I must have real time return of the video so that is why we are attempting to adapt present technology to government frequencies so we will have enough range.

I need some zoom (if possible) but not too strong because when I was in Vietnam on an armed helicopter we attempted to use gun sites that were highly magnified and the ground looked like a blur. Does anyone have a suggestion about how to provide downward looking video for SAR and forward looking video for avoidance. Please remember that I cannot put a turret underneath because the plane must land in the water.

We are not flying under AMA or working on FCC frequencies (we will adapt these devices to government frequencies) so that is not a problem. The FAA is primarily concerned with planes that fly above 500 feet or close to airports so we are working with them to make sure that we don’t present a safety issue for anyone.

Dan, thank you for the starter and generator link because those problems are what
I need most. The reason that we changed the ignition system was because of interference primarily. I need batteries for the other equipment like GPS, autopilot, computer, running lights etc. so I hope that this decision is sound.

The Navy has a UAV that is 8 feet longer in wingspan that operates in force 5 (so they say). I hope that this plane can take off from protected waters fly out to the search grid operate and come home and land in protected waters. We will see. If the Coast Guard launches manned aircraft we would leave the scene so we would not present a threat to them in any way.

Remember that this prototype is on my nickel but they will help with frequency allocation and limited other equipment just for evaluation. If they think that it works and is as totally safe as can be then we might get funding.

I have to face criticism at all points of this endeavor so this is good feedback and I appreciate it. This concept fits well into the UAV concept because it is not as complicated as the present ones and it will be much cheaper.

Thanks again for your help.

Mike

[captmike54]

Gene, go you have any links or product names of the type of equipment that you are talking about? I think that 2 cameras is the way, one forward and one downward looking.

thanks,

Mike

[arrow5]

Does it have land on the water ? Most ship based RPV fly into a net on board the mother ship. Hand launch or bungee off ramp for take-off. Check out Aerosond in Australia, they fly immense distances over the Pacific. Sadly they get dumped in the ocean when they have done the job ( weather info ). I`d like to be close when one goes in !

[lvspark]

Great project, but if I wanted to go save lives, I would skip the development phase and make a purchase.
http://www.insitu.com/prod_seascan.cfm

[Real Ira]

Hey Quail,
COMMERCIAL vessels carry a beacon known as an EPRB the searchers can home on but few pleasure VSLs have them and these make up the vast majority of SAR cases.

Mike,
Where your design would be most useful (in my opinion) would be more run of the mill SAR such as broken downs, out of fuel and what is usualy refered to as non-emergency SAR when weather and daylight are more favorable.
These kind of cases are a large % of situations where the Coast Guard has to launch a boat (tying up an asset) to search for a boater who's knowlage of their exact position is often limited. (that is the kindest way I can put it)
Also there are the situations where full scale aircraft are not likley to be used for cost reasons leaving less chance of airspace issues.
To sum it up emergency SAR in foul weather where full scale are likley to be in us is probably not the place where a platform of this type would be of much use.
For more routine, non emergency SAR in milder weather conditions the platform you suggest has the potential to offer a large cost/time savings.
This is not to understate the importance of this kind of mission. I have seen apparent non emergency situations turn to crap very quickly resulting in lives being lost. The sooner these situations are resolved the better and your ideas could go a long way in helping in this area.
Another $00.2

Ira

[nitroflyer]

Great project, but if I wanted to go save lives, I would skip the development phase and make a purchase.
http://www.insitu.com/prod_seascan.cfm

That rocks! I want one of those!!!

[birdman11787]

Great project, but if I wanted to go save lives, I would skip the development phase and make a purchase.
http://www.insitu.com/prod_seascan.cfm

Thanks for posting that Link Lvs , I just watched the promotional video ....... way cool !
john

[captmike54]

Ira, you have a pretty good understanding of what we do. This project could help out a lot with the more minor SAR that we perform prior to the manned aircraft being called out. When they get underway we would come home. This helps by taking a load off of the manned aircraft side.

I think that this plane would be too heavy to catch in as net but I have only seen that done on video. Hopefully we will be strong enough to do that if we cannot land in the lee (down wind side) of the cutter in the water. That Navy seaplane can land in the water in force 5 weather, according to them. Remember on take off if we can hop off of one wave we can just about go vertical so take offs are easier but landings could be more of a problem at sea. Our initial effort is to utilize this inland and coastal at a station or Sector level with take offs and landing in protected areas of water or land with the retract system.

Ivspark, thanks for the link. That camera looks awesome and would solve a lot of problems on my project. The major problems with going out and buying one of these is the price. I will talk to them and see what kind of money they are talking about. We are aiming at a $20,000+ for the plane with accessories. I don’t even know if we could even afford that camera. The plane with engines will cost $3000 built and the rest is real time transmitted video camera system, autopilot, computer with altitude/navigation program and radio control system that can take over in case of a problem with the programmed autopilot path or height. This cheap price is why we are asking all of you for help so we can utilize less expensive methods and equipment.

When a full size high flying UAV crashes it costs as much as $9.7 million dollars. The smaller seaplanes that are deployed, that are just 40% larger that this project, cost over $250,000 dollars. My bet is that you have developed technology that will provide at least a 70% to 80% of the utility for a fraction of the cost.

Thanks,

Mike

[kd7ost]

Well Mike, I stand corrected. Many times new guys will make one brand new post with a load of questions and they never come back. Mostly in the UAV section though. Or they're asking things out of our scope. Like how do I fly a 10 pound UAV across the Ocean getting 600 miles range and see the signal on my cell phone while controlling it with my key board. :rolleyes: Well, maybe not that bad but some are pretty close. ;)


A zooming camera system might come from someplace like Supercircuits.
https://www.supercircuits.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=438
Look on the site for the C and CS lenses to go with them.

There are 2.4 Ghz AV systems that put out a healthy amount of transmit power. Here’s an example of a 1 watt system. http://www.blackwidowav.com/products24ghz.html
Used in conjunction with a 14 dbi patch antenna kept aimed at the plane will get you several miles of range real easily. It does require your HAM radio license to operate and you just can’t make a profit off it or use it for commercial ventures. I’m almost thinking your application should be OK. Like using HAM operations to help in emergencies. That’s what it’s there for.

I don’t know about look ahead camera’s for avoidance of collision. That seems a little hairy due to FOV issues. If you make it wide enough angle to cover much airspace, close objects appear farther than they really are. I’m not going to get into that discussion. I don’t think any off the shelf camera systems at this cost level are going to do that for you. If you’re just looking to gander ahead, a micro camera will do.

Dan

[kd7ost]

I should have mentioned, based on your altitude and GPS requirements, I would consider looking at the Pico Pilot unit from UNAV. http://www.u-nav.com/

The Alt unit features a barometric sensing altitude lock to keep you at your set altitude. With this system you take off and land the plane with a pilot. Once you fly to the desired altitude, you simply enable the PCM radio failsafe system and the plane is off on its pre-programmed flight mission.

I wouldn’t recommend being able to rely on a FMA co-pilot to assist in navigation attitude. It’s not designed for over water use and results might be less than desirable. Using full on rate sensors will be the ticket.

Baer in mind the plane will fly with some pitch, roll and yaw corrections due to winds, lift and normal flight dynamics. Keeping the camera locked in a position will take the most wizardry of all. Vibration is one issue but motion will also throw you off. You have to deal with both. UNAV also makes a unit for this called a “Pico Tilt”. Read up on them and go through the FAQ’s on their site.

Dan

[captmike54]

Dan,
I have a brother and another extremely good friend (MEEs) that work at a Navy research center and they are trying to help me find parts and pieces for this project. Did you see the camera and video from the site that Ivespark recommended at http://www.insitu.com/prod_seascan.cfm
The camera company http://www.exsellinc.com/hood/alticam/index.html is quite interesting. I also found a RFP for these cameras from the Navy and they are checking them out to see if they are available. If you get a chance look at the video from the first site, it is pretty amazing. The camera moves on gimbals which solves a lot of our problems. What do you think?

Mike

[kd7ost]

You're right on. The Insitu group has a great product and they use other great products in the assembly. I don't know the cost of that camera system but their's a fair chance it will eat your initial budget by itself. Check to make sure but that's high level stuff. Of course it does do what you need without having to roll your own.

Dan

[Tale Spin]

Capt'n Mike,
I have monitored this forum for years much as one would a favorite TV show.
Every once in while I pose a question or comment under different ID's. This is the 1st post for this ID. For the most part I just very much enjoy the way fresh and innovative ideas evolve in parallel with the dynamic personalities defending their respective independence.
Your recent appearence appears genuine and poses a very interesting challange. A 40-50 lbs twin engine going out into coastal seas to locate a missing vessel in which most likely would already exsist a small craft advisory.
That in itself is interesting but to design the plane with floats would indicate
an intent to possibly set down into rough water.
I am also interested in your comments that you intend to fund this yourself with RF assistance from ther Feds.
To my point.... if you are successful in developing a viaible design through your interaction with the members of this forum I am interested in offering financial support at any level you wish to develop this vehicle through successful test flights. I submit this proposal publicly to you here only in the hope to further the strength of this group of of talanted members. You will soon discover as you pointed out in your original post these folks are not burdened by any bureucracy.
I believe we've both lived through that environment.
Listen closely to kd7ost and Ira.
Please PM me at your convienence if I may be of any assistance.

[Real Ira]

Hey Mike,
As a former member of The Hooligans Navy, I get the sense you are a Coastie.
I have a few questions about your RC experience as it relates to your project and will PM.

Ira

[kd7ost]

Hey Tale Spin,

I don't know who you are but I'm flattered by your recommendation.

Dan

[Real Ira]

Dito.

Ira

[lvspark]

...

[captmike54]

I really appreciate everything that you guys have already done for this project. So far I have a lot of really good advice and constructive criticism, KD7OST found a gimbaled video camera that might work and could be available, and the autopilot that he suggested looks promising so I have written to the company regarding interface and suggestions for all connecting operating equipment. I just wrote to Ralph at RC ignition systems and Sullivan Products to see if the ignition and starter/alternator systems are congruent.

It really gave me a lot of reinforcement to work harder when TALE SPIN offered to help out financially. What a really nice offer. This forum has already been well worth it and we have only been up a couple of days. I still need to find control systems that have the ability to adapt to government frequencies and I presume that the Alticam video company will have suggestions on transmitter and receiving equipment for the video system.

I owe TALE SPIN and IVSPARK PMs but I am falling out right now so I’ll get them off tomorrow. It is about 0200 here and I am toast.

Once again thank all of you for your responses and help.

Mike

You might get a grin out of this www.manana.com

[lvspark]

...

[DiveBombDave]

Lvspark,

What is the difference between the vision lock/gyro stabilization system compared to the u-nav product called the Pico-Tilt (http://www.u-nav.com/circuitboards/picotilt.html) ?

Dave

[lvspark]

...

[Sky Link]

The only system that I know of that is capable of rock solid gyro stabilization is called WESCAM. It is used in feature films, network television and news helos quite a bit. It is also very expensive. I don't know if they have anything small enough for smaller UAVs.

www.wescam.com

[Corky Boyd]

If you are looking for a camera to perform the search function, I think you will be disappointed with the results. Much of airborne searching is catching a glint off a windshield or picking out a small still white object from moving whitecaps. The old Mark 1 eyeball still can't be beat.

I would be looking at SLAR or passive millimeter radar to do the search function, and real time video downlink for identification. I don't think there are any SLARs small enough for your platform, but there may be passive millimeter radar in the size and weight range. Try and find out of date military hardware from the services. You might get some good stuff free. Many years ago, one of the most effective platforms Customs used against drug runners was a Cessna Citation seized from a drug runner, equipped with the losing prototype radar for the F-16 and surplus FLIR gear from another service. All for free.

The problem with remote sensing, is the ocean contains many more floating objects than just the one you are seaching for. You have to correctly identify the vessel you are looking for before you send out rescue vessels.

[captmike54]

Corky,


I did armed reconnaissance on an armed helicopter in Vietnam for 18 months. You are correct when you say that the eye is more adaptable, has peripheral vision and is better for SAR but the point is that we are attempting to give Sectors, Stations or surface vessels forward vision when the real thing (manned aircraft) are not available. If the real thing is available, we come home or are not utilized.

The entire cost of this UAV is less than 10 hours of underway time by a helicopter according to the accounting figures that are published by GAO. We are attempting to provide another tool that is relatively inexpensive for the government to utilize when a real aircraft is not indicated or available.

Radar does funny things when you utilize it on the water also because like the camera it does not distinguish between all things that reflect the radio frequency. If we could even utilize surface radar it would be great but I don’t see it happening because of the size and weight. The parabolic wave utilized by normal radar would still work fairly well at 250 feet of altitude. The radars that you are talking about are adapted for higher altitude to see the surface. Remember that we are not operating at 6000 or 12000 feet we are working at 250 to 500 feet so a really good high resolution camera can usually distinguish what is there in the water.

I don’t want for this to degenerate into a debate, I just am asking for suggestions for any equipment or design suggestions that you guys think might be applicable to this project. We have comments and support from an O-8, O-6s down to experienced NCOs that do this for a living that want to evaluate this prototype once we have done our best. This plane does have a niche in the SAR assets locker even if it is around the bottom.

Thank you for your input,

Mike

[Real Ira]

With the quality of todays digital cameras,shooting frames during a properly flown search pattern should yield images that would allow a subject vessel to be easily I.D.ed.
If the subject is not noticed during the flight, a more careful examination of these images post flight may produce the desired results.
A Cannon A620 should do the trick quite nicely.

Ira

[Tale Spin]

Mike,
Your web site was great and we see the sincere motivation for your project.
However we have not seen any recent postings here.
I hope you are still moving forward with this project.
Best wishes.

[captmike54]

Hi Tale Spin,

I am working everyday to attempt to put the proposal together for the plane. It is difficult because there are a lot of chicken and egg type things like radio equipment for control and telemetry. I have a group of HAMs helping me with adapting the equipment that is available to government radio frequencies so we will be legal. I have to write the proposal to gain acceptance by the existing program and I need acceptance by the program to obtain the radio frequencies. I have about 90% of the systems at a workable level but I still have a lot more to go. I will try to put together the list of equipment so you folks can have a look at it and give me feedback. Please hang in there and we will get it done ASAP. Mike

[kirika]

Hello, this is my first post here but I am a usual reader of this forum since a lot of months. This is my modest contribution:

Mike, I think if you want to fly lower than 500 feet, you need a quality autopilot system, and they are not cheaper. I know a UAV system called "Sistema FULMAR" very similar that you are projecting. Here is the english link:

http://www.aerovision-uav.com/eng/index.php

Surely this system is more expensive that you are thinking, but it has an autopilot system that perhaps could interesting you. Why I said this?, first of all because I have tried it and I can say that it works fine in low altitude flights, second because it is an "all-in-one" solution, it has integrated GPS receiver, radio modem data link that allows data communications ranges in excess of 60 miles and payload control capabilities (by example, camera gyro-stabilization). In practice, this autopilot can be the sole on-board system (aside video system) in your UAV.

I don't know exactly the current prices, but if you are aiming at a $20,000+ and the plane with engines will cost $3000, perhaps you can buy it (in default of video camera system and computer). Anyway, the only autopilot system cheaper I know is the Pico-Pilot, but I honestly think that it isn't valid for your project. If you are interested I can send you more information.

Excuse me for my poor english, isn't my native language.

Regards.

Cristobal.

[Alfrrubi]

I work on the Fulmar UAV.

This UAV will be evaluated by the Spanish Maritime Salvage Agency in the near future. If you need any addional information on our system please fell free to contact us trough our Web page
http://www.aerovision-uav.com

The company that develop the AP used in the fulmar is also a Spanish company. They are working in several projects all Around the World (including an Unmanned Helicopter being deployed in Irak with the USAF)
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?011707/011707_fol_rover&Eye%20in%20the%20Sky&FOX_Online&%27Rover%27%20system%20revolutionizes%20battlefiel d%20targeting&Technology&-1&Eye%20in%20the%20Sky&Video%20Launch%20Page&News

You can find them at the Following address.

http://www.uavnavigation.com


Best regards
Alfredo Rubio

[captmike54]

Hello Kirika,

I wish my Spanish was as eloquent as your English. Thank you for your suggestions, I am following them up. I see that Alfrrubi posted also so I appreciate his input also.
You are correct, the Pico Auto Pilot is not sophisticated enough but they also make another one called the 3400 and Dave, the engineer there, said that they can adapt it for multi engine aircraft and all of the things that we need. I definitely need as much input as I can get on autopilots, video, long distance video transmission (on government frequencies), long distance control capability (we are looking at adapting a Futaba on the transmission side for 10 to 50 watts on government frequencies), antennas and any other parts and pieces that we can use. thanks again, Mike

[macboffin]

Dont see why it has to be a seaplane/flying boat. As others have said, operating off water that aint flat calm is a bitch;as is landing. Check out the "Scan Eagle" launch/recovery system. If you feel that it HAS to be a waterplane, a purpose-designed bird would be better, rather than a scale model, designed around looking right but not best suited to purpose.Why two engines? Most twins are a handful on one engine, so"twin engine safety" is a bit of a myth. There are very few twin UAVs out there. Having said that, the concept is great, but it will be a rocky road to completion! How about checking out how the Navy do it?

[workshop]

:) :rolleyes: :cool:

[kd7ost]

Just to ring in on the other side, as much as I might avoid a twin I don't think he would expect problems with adverse yaw in an engine out condition for two reasons. One is if the autopilot system is working properly, it can handle an engine out much better than a pilot on the ground. Second, the gasoline 2 cycle engines aren't prone to the flame out that can be more prevalent in glow engines. There reliability is astounding.

As far as taking off in rough water I do agree. But if the water isn't too rough, you don't have to head back to shore every time you need to take off and land.

These aren't intended to influence the project one way or the other. But there are many more factors to consider. It isn't likely that one size fits all. There are pro's and con's to all the approaches.

Dan

[captmike54]

There are many reasons for utilizing a two engine seaplane and the Navy is utilizing a seaplane that is very similar to what we are building that is 18 foot wingspan rather than our 10 foot wingspan. This will be a tough little carbon fiber seaplane and we will spend a lot of time “aiming” the engines so that it will not only fly on one if need be but this should lessen the problems with the high aspect thrust also.

If you have any suggestions as far as long range control, long range real time video, somewhat autonomous flight by GPS, altimeter, micro logic board (or computer) and autopilot, you could really help the cause. We want a plane that will be designed to do what we need for it to do rather than adapting someone else’s work to our needs.

This is a labor of excitement and challenge for us and we are really enjoying what we are doing. There are some wonderful UAVs out there but this one will be able to do everything that we need for it to do (hopefully). There are an almost infinite number of “niches” for different types of UAVs in this wide world. One type does not fit all.

For the “regulars” we found some links that look promising; http://www.auav.net/products.html
One of my favorites; http://www.auav.net/files/USGS1.pdf
If you have your HAM license; http://www.hamtv.com/

Thank you for your comments.

Mike

[captmike54]

Dan,

I did not see your post prior to answering the previous two comments. You and I are on the same track. My research indicates that the 3400 can, if it is built for twin engines, definitely handle the problem of losing an engine. These engines are overpowered for specific reasons. We are planning to “cock or aim” the engines 3 to 4 (I think) degrees to assist in an engine loss. We are also going to adjust for the thrust as needed and have some pretty experienced folks thinking about how to optimize them. The DC-3 had a similar problem.

We are not planning to launch or recover in rough seas but we are building the plane to take as much abuse as possible and it will be extremely watertight (we are even considering a baffled air intake system for the engine cooling and intake. If we had a strong enough reason to launch in a sea we would turn the ship beam to the sea and attempt to take off in the lee. If we can hop off of one wave this plane has enough power to almost go vertical if not a good 45 degrees. They will understand that landing this aircraft in a sea will be very difficult but we might deploy a parachute designed to bring it to the surface on a centerline lift point. See; http://www.aerotelemetry.com/military/frame9military.htm

When I get the final presentation together I will share it privately with you and a few other folks that have helped out so much with ideas.

Thanks,

Mike

[workshop]

It seems unfriendly of you to ask for help from a public forum and then feedback privately to selected individuals.

I'm off put but not so much that I can't offer one more PUBLIC suggestion.

Those wishing to experiment with high thrust lines should build a lot of pitch adjustability into their engine mounts to set what one is bound to find as a counter intuitive thrust angle.

Good luck with your project.

Jeff

[captmike54]

Jeff,

I did not mean to offend or exclude you in any way. I just meant that those 3 or 4 people that have been feeding us suggestions for the entire 3, soon 4 pages of postings might want to see the presentation for feedback purposes. I didn't think that a several page report would be appropriate for a forum because they probably have a limit on how much we can post.

One of these people gave us the ultimate compliment and offered to help finance the development of the project. I want to make sure that I don’t lose track of these guys so they can see what happens. Dan, Ira and Tale Spin and a few others have really pointed me in the right direction and have given me moral support when this thing seemed endless and confusing.

This is not a secret project. It is just a Search and Rescue (SAR) UAV that has the possibility of helping people that might be in trouble. This will probably be on the bottom rung of the equipment that the Coast Guard has available for SAR but if it helps at all it will make me very happy.

Come back to the forum and I will let everyone know when we have nailed down the basic concepts. The real fun will be seeing if it works as planned.

Thanks,

Mike

[workshop]

Mike,

No harm, no foul... This is what I look like in real life --> :mad:

I may not be an O-8, O-6 or an NCO, but I play one on TV... ;)

Jeff

[mikenlapaz]

captmike54
I once thought that these forums had limits on size of postings. I have since discovered that if the content is related, several pages is not prohibitive.

This is a young post less than 2 weeks; a few individuals have done majority of the 43 postings BUT THERE ARE OTHERS that have an interest as well. Look at the viewing currently 1233 hits.

As it started public, keep it public. If the public finds parts of the threads posting boring or too detail, they can easily unsubscribe just as easily as they may have subscribed to follow developments.

Having lived aboard for many years on Pacific coast I have followed and assisted in a few SAR myself.

[workshop]

Hey CaptnMike... I was discussing other matters with Dave Perry at U-Nav and he wrote me the following leter that I think may relate to the Navy's Widgeon project and indirectly yours...

Jeff,



I looked at your forum thread about your seaplane project and I'll be most interested in following your record flight.

You may be interested to know that UNAV put on a demonstration last fall for BLM. We used our 2 LB electric motor glider "EasyLander" (picture on our Gallery page). The flight was over Baker Lake, a remote mountain lake in northern Washington state, about 8 miles long. EasyLander is equipped with a PICOPILOT-N connected to the rudder (EasyLander has no ailerons).

PICOPILOT was programmed with 4 waypoints taken from a handheld GPS and the course was set to fly the centerline of the lake from the south end to the north end and then to return back to the south end (launch point). We used our 16 ft boat as a chase vehicle and it worked out great. It turns out that EasyLander would trim out for a cruise speed of 25mph and our boat will do 30mph.

Without any altitude control, we simply flew the plane to 100ft after launch and set the throttle for level flight and enabled PICOPILOT . The big advantage of using a boat to follow a UAV is that you can stay right underneath it throughout the flight. With a nice sunny day and 10,000 foot MtBaker in the background, the 45 minute flight went perfectly.

PICOPILOT flew the route exactly as programmed, to the end of the lake and then it turned the plane 180 ( 100ft radius ) and began the route back to the other end of the lake. Checkout the News page of our website for a listing of this flight.

It's no coincidence that the most successful small military UAV (to date) is a rudder only (has no ailerons) electric plane , the AeroViornment Raven. I've been preaching the "smaller, simpler UAV" theme for years now but the new guys always seem to want to start with an "RC model', usually some fast, aerobatic airframe. The reality is that a UAV airframe has much different requirements than the typical model airplane. A UAV needs to be stable, reliable, cost effective, easy to operate and maintain. I often remind guys that there is "no such thing as an aerobatic UAV".

With those factors in mind, PICOPILOT was specifically designed for a rudder-only electric motor-glider airframe. You might also be interested to know that UNAV is currently working on a US Coastguard contract for a "search and rescue" UAV. They started this project a couple years ago, using a 10ft scale model of a Grumman Widgeon, twin engine seaplane. After many expensive crashes, they finally came to the conclusion that it was way too complicated! They are now developing a much simpler, more stable airframe.

Feel free to distribute any part of this email.

Dave

UNAV

[captmike54]

The Navy just finished their latest seaplane a few weeks ago so I believe that Dave must be talking about some other project. There are more scheduled to come. The project is alive and well.

It would be an interesting coincidence if there were another Coast Guard 44 Widgeon project that has been going on for two years. We have had no crashes at all and did speak to U-Nav about this project but it seems that their product would not suit our needs. We have some specialized requirements that only this seaplane fulfills and we need an autopilot that works well for us. We are not in competition with other Coast Guard UAV projects.

You might like to read about an "RC model” that is very successful doing its’ job. These people are very happy and proud of their plane. http://www.auav.net/files/USGS1.pdf

It sounds like you have a fantastic plane but there are reasons that this electric plane that you speak of would not be suitable for the needs of this project. We have many reasons why we need the “complicated” plane that you speak of and truly believe that it will be inexpensive, relatively uncomplicated and fly well. I am certain that there is a place for your plane also in the needs of this country.

We think that we have found an autopilot system from a different source that talks to the charting software and other systems that we want to utilize and works well with the control system. So we will probably prototype it in the plane. To many technical people this concept is not at all complicated but some others find it mind boggling.

U-Nav is a fine company and they have a great product but when I discussed this project with them it was apparent that the Pico pilot would not work for us and even their 3400 might not do what we want it to do and would not integrate with other systems that we are utilizing. He did give me his opinion about simple electric planes.

You must understand that no one UAV “fits all”. Your plane can not do what mine can and mine can not do what yours can. This forum is not about plane verses plane; it was intended to ask for help from modelers that have some fantastic experience in these areas. I will not degenerate into anything other than that.

I really do not mean to be discourteous in any way to you but a few of the statements in your post are not accurate at all. The Navy project, the Coast Guard seaplane project and the fact that your way is the only way is really not true. I wish you the best of luck with your project but you must realize that there are considerations that you are not aware of that we are attempting to fulfill. You are obviously a bright person that is passionate about your project. You must realize that there are other bright people that are attempting to accomplish similar things and there is enough room for all.

Thanks,

Mike

[captmike54]

I will add some more facts about the autopilot and control system that we chose from Autonomous Unmanned Air Vehicles (AUAV). I spoke to Dave Jones and I was really impressed with his knowledge and understanding of our needs. He will soon be able to provide a product that we can upload information to that can immediately change the mission of the plane. He has avoidance systems that can help us to provide immediate response to a problem and his radio system will provide redundant contact with the plane on two different frequencies or even two different radio frequency spectrums. His attitude is fantastic as he tries to solve problems that we perceive rather than attempting to talk us into adapting to his system. He did not attempt to sell us one of his amazing planes but they are very interesting. See; http://www.auav.net/index.html

I really like this system.

Mike

[workshop]

Get a grip dude. I was just passing on a note from Dave at U-Nav. I don't care what you fly or sink. You're too "bright" for me.

Jeff

p.s. Read the posts. I never said ANYTHING about "The Navy project, the Coast Guard seaplane project and the fact that my way is the only way."

[captmike54]

Get a grip dude. I was just passing on a note from Dave at U-Nav. I don't care what you fly or sink. You're too "bright" for me.

Jeff

p.s. Read the posts. I never said ANYTHING about "The Navy project, the Coast Guard seaplane project and the fact that my way is the only way."

Anyone that can read simple English can see that my post simply stated the facts, disputing some of the statements made in your post. “I really do not mean to be discourteous in any way to you but a few of the statements in your post are not accurate at all. The Navy project, the Coast Guard seaplane project and the fact that your way is the only way is really not true”. I did not say that you personally made these statements anywhere in my post but you did present it to the forum for whatever reason. Your post was calling this entire forum a lie blaming the quote on the head of a company that we may or may not be doing business with and that makes me somewhat angry.

You can post any further nonsensical statements or quotes that you want to but I will not bother with you again. You can snipe from the sidelines.

Mike

[workshop]

"Your post was calling this entire forum a lie blaming the quote on the head of a company that we may or may not be doing business with and that makes me somewhat angry."

:confused:

I'm sure you're the only one who knows what that means... I'm off the sidelines Mike. You and your anger of unknown origin are free to progress without my input. Good luck with your project. Saving lives at sea is a noble goal.

Jeff

[kd7ost]

I know Jeff and just lately a little bit about Mike,

I think there's just been a Forum induced disconnect becasuse I think you're both well intended and helpful. I wouldn't be too angry at each other.

It's no place the rest of us haven't been if you become active here. ;)

If I only had a nickel for every time someone called me out when I really meant well, but understanding had broken down.

Dan

[Tale Spin]

Well stated Dan
Jeff & Mike both appear to be well intended talanted men. It would be a shame to have this project break down because of this.
Mike, Aside from the guidance & video systems have you deceided on an airframe and motors yet?

Jeff, I'm just finishing up an Electro Telemaster & I like what you've done with your Catalina Plane. Will your Catalina event draw media attention? Will you post the date?

[treehog]

double post

[treehog]

from monitering the succesful threads from the non successful threads

Its seems to me four things will generally handycap the succesfull UAV project

1/ If its scale or semi scale

2/ if it twin engine side by side instead of front rear

3/ if it has anthying to do with water landing take off and even
complicated landing on land solutions

4/ if there is a requirement to involve goverments changing
regulations



But the thread as threads go was very informative as to where the present state of the successful UAV operators are and their handles



Ralf

[Tale Spin]

Mike,
Many folks still interested in this project.
Any updates to post?

[captmike54]

The FAA has come out with their new rules for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). If it works, see below;

It seems that if we can come up with transponders and a decent collision avoidance system we might have a chance. I think that our airplane will be the type of aircraft that will survive because we can carry the payload that the FAA is going to require. I have someone that believes that he can miniaturize the transponder but the anti collision system is going to take a lot of work. I believe that the person that can come up with a functional anti collision module will be very famous in the UAS circle.

The rules are that you either follow the UAS in an aircraft of don’t let it out of your sight. We think that if we have redundant systems for telemetry (video) and control, a parachute option for loss of control or perhaps even anti collision method, redundant alternators with battery systems (thank goodness for twin engines), a transponder, operate between 100 to 400 feet and some method of dealing with airborne contacts that we will be allowed to go out of sight. The best thing that we have in our favor is that we are asking to operate over water and occasionally over uninhabited marsh to get to other water. If we operate safely over these areas for quite a few hours we will hopefully show a strong safe operating method that can be relied on.

We are going to proceed with our seaplane design (not about scale), modified to be tough, fly well and provide great video back to the control station. It will probably weigh 70 to 80 pounds (it has been tested with half of the horsepower at 74 pounds and performed fine). It will be overpowered for short take offs then cut power to a nice cruising speed and long range.. It will have considerable range that is limited by “line of sight” radio range (30 to 40 nautical miles) which mostly depends on the height of our repeater antenna for control and telemetry. At present the control station has a 120 foot antenna which transmits to a 670 foot antenna with a repeater and the plane is going to fly at 400 feet down to 150 feet. We are asking for two frequencies in the government 400 MHz range with two more in a second frequency spectrum for a redundant control and telemetry system. The system can utilize two frequencies in each frequency spectrum for redundant system that is awesome. You can unplug 1, 2 or 3 of the modules and the system still works.

If any of you would like to discuss existing or theoretical methods for reducing the size and weight of the transponder or ideas on the anti collision system, please respond. Any positive or constructive ideas are appreciated on any of the areas but I would like to hear why and what you propose that is a better idea for this project.

I will ask that those experts that only attempt to state why their way is the only way and this way couldn’t possibly work to start a new thread for their ideas and leave this to contributors.

I will not respond to any non productive comments that waste our time.

Thank all of you that contributed so much to the project. If this thread degenerates I will simply make it private and do it by private e-mail so we do not waste a lot of time.

Mike

FAA NOTICES FOLLOW

[4910-13]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
Docket No. FAA-2006-25714
Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of policy; opportunity for feedback.
SUMMARY: This notice clarifies the FAA’s current policy concerning operations of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth D. Davis, Manager, Unmanned Aircraft Program Office, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, (202) 385-4636, email: kenneth.d.davis@faa.gov.
Background
Simply stated, an unmanned aircraft is a device that is used, or is intended to be used, for flight in the air with no onboard pilot. These devices may be as simple as a remotely controlled model aircraft used for recreational purposes or as complex as surveillance aircraft flying over hostile areas in warfare. They may be controlled either manually or through an autopilot using a data link to connect the pilot to their aircraft. They may perform a variety of public services: surveillance, collection of air samples to determine levels of pollution, or rescue and recovery missions in crisis situations. They range in size from wingspans of six inches to 246 feet; and can weigh from approximately four ounces to over 25,600 pounds. The one thing they have in common is that their numbers and uses are growing dramatically. In the United States alone, approximately 50 companies, universities, and government organizations are developing and producing some 155 unmanned aircraft designs. Regulatory standards need to be developed to enable current technology for unmanned aircraft to comply with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The Federal Aviation Administration’s current policy is based on whether the
unmanned aircraft is used as a public aircraft, civil aircraft or as a model aircraft.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operating as Public Aircraft The most common public use of unmanned aircraft today in the United States is by
the Department of Defense. U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have fueled a huge increase in unmanned aircraft demand. In Iraq alone, more than 700 unmanned aircraft are in use for surveillance and weapons delivery.
Other agencies have also found public uses for unmanned aircraft. For example, the Customs and Border Protection uses them to patrol along the US/Mexican border. In the future, unmanned aircraft could be used to provide first responder reports of damage due to weather or other catastrophic causes.
In response to this growing demand for public use unmanned aircraft operations, the FAA developed guidance in a Memorandum titled “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U.S. National Airspace System – Interim Operational Approval Guidance” (UAS
Policy 05-01). In this document, the FAA set out guidance for public use of unmanned aircraft by defining a process for evaluating applications for Certificate(s) of Waiver or Authorization (COA’s) for unmanned aircraft to operate in the National Airspace System.
The concern was not only that unmanned aircraft operations might interfere with commercial and general aviation aircraft operations, but that they could also pose a safety problem for other airborne vehicles, and persons or property on the ground. The FAA guidance supports unmanned aircraft flight activity that can be conducted at an acceptable level of safety. In order to ensure this level of safety, the operator is required to establish the Unmanned Aircraft System’s (UAS) airworthiness either from FAA certification, a DOD airworthiness statement, or by other approved means. Applicants also have to demonstrate that a collision with another aircraft or other airspace user is extremely improbable as well as complying with appropriate cloud and terrain clearances as required. Key to the concept
are the roles of pilot-in-command (PIC) and observer. The PIC concept is essential to the safe operation of manned aircraft. The FAA’s UAS guidance applies this PIC concept to unmanned aircraft and includes minimum qualifications and currency requirements. The PIC is simply the person in control of, and responsible for, the UAS. The role of the observer is to observe the activity of the unmanned aircraft and surrounding airspace, either through line-of-sight on the ground or in the air by means of a chase aircraft. In general, this means the pilot or observer must be, in most cases, within 1 mile laterally and 3,000 feet vertically of the unmanned aircraft. Direct communication between the PIC and the observer must be maintained at all times. Unmanned aircraft flight above 18,000 feet must be conducted under Instrument Flight Rules, on an IFR flight plan, must obtain ATC clearance, be equipped with at least a Mode C transponder (preferably Mode S), operating navigation lights and / or collision avoidance lights and maintain communication between the PIC and Air Traffic Control (ATC). Unmanned aircraft flights below 18,000 feet have similar requirements, except that if operators choose to operate on other than an IFR flight plan, they may be required to pre-coordinate with ATC.
The FAA has issued more than 50 COA’s over the past 2 years and anticipates
issuing a record number of COA’s this year.
For more information, Memorandum on UAS Policy (05-01) and other policy
guidance is available at the FAA Website: http://www.faa.gov/uas.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operating as Civil Aircraft
Just as unmanned aircraft have a variety of uses in the public sector, their application in commercial or civil use is equally diverse. This is a quickly growing and important industry. Under FAA policy, operators who wish to fly an unmanned aircraft for civil use must obtain an FAA airworthiness certificate the same as any other type aircraft. The FAA is currently only issuing special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category.
Experimental certificates are issued with accompanying operational limitations (14 CFR § 91.319) that are appropriate to the applicant’s operation. The FAA has issued five experimental certificates for unmanned aircraft systems for the purposes of research and development, marketing surveys, or crew training. UAS issued experimental certificates may not be used for compensation or hire.
The applicable regulations for an experimental certificate are found in 14 CFR
§§21.191, 21.193, and 21.195. In general, the applicant must state the intended use for the UAS and provide sufficient information to satisfy the FAA that the aircraft can be operated safely. The time or number of flights must be specified along with a description of the areas over which the aircraft would operate. The application must also include drawings or
detailed photographs of the aircraft. An on-site review of the system and demonstration of the area of operation may be required. Additional information on how to apply for an experimental airworthiness certificate is available from Richard Posey, AIR-200, (202) 267-9538; email: richard.posey@faa.gov.
Recreational/Sport Use of Model Airplanes
In 1981, in recognition of the safety issues raised by the operation of model aircraft, the FAA published Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards for the purpose of providing guidance to persons interested in flying model aircraft as a hobby or for recreational use. This guidance encourages good judgment on the part of operators so that persons on the ground or other aircraft in flight will not be endangered. The AC contains among other things, guidance for site selection. Users are advised to avoid noise sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, and churches. Hobbyists are advised not to fly in the vicinity of spectators until they are confident that the model aircraft has been flight tested and proven airworthy. Model aircraft should be flown below 400 feet above the
surface to avoid other aircraft in flight. The FAA expects that hobbyists will operate these recreational model aircraft within visual line-of-sight. While the AC 91-57 was developed for model aircraft, some operators have used the AC as the basis for commercial flight operations.
Policy Statement
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57.
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
The FAA has undertaken a safety review that will examine the feasibility of creating a different category of unmanned “vehicles” that may be defined by the operator’s visual line of sight and are also small and slow enough to adequately mitigate hazards to other aircraft and persons on the ground. The end product of this analysis may be a new flight authorization instrument similar to AC 91-57, but focused on operations which do not qualify as sport and recreation, but also may not require a certificate of airworthiness. They
will, however, require compliance with applicable FAA regulations and guidance developed for this category.
Feedback regarding current FAA policy for Unmanned Aircraft Systems can be
submitted at www.faa.gov/uas. (Scroll down to the bottom of the page and find Contact UAPO. Click into this link.)
Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 2007
/s/ Nick Sabatini
Nicholas Sabatini
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety

[captmike54]

I tried to format the Adobe notices and got some good results but there are a few screw ups. Sorry!

Mike

[Airboatflyingshp]

Capt mike I'm glad your post bought this to my attention.............I'm going to read it more fully but there's a lot of themes here that I'm familiar with and a lot I'm not - the legal stuff is all yours to interpret, but one point I would make is that E power is the way to go for any multi motor model where reliability is a key issue as might be vibration and given the advances in battery technology.

Last year a very modest standard E power RC scale sport model- Tucano crossed the channel............at the end of the flight it was calculated there was enough power left in the packs to have gone a fair way back as well, had it not suffered a slightly hard blind landing in a French sand dune. :o

The amount of power required to maintain altitude and heading - loiter, is very often considerably less than to perform the rest of the flight - manoeuvres/ take off climb /fly actively............now many full size maritime patrol aircraft do this ie Gannet,Nimrods etc but with E power its so easy to do just switch off switch on , power up shut down even just pulse a burst of thrust to do whats needed on demand ...E gliders do this all the time you can even use folding props to cut drag on shut down - pushing or pulling.

In fact follow nature for how to do it properly and you end up with the Albatross family........and yes they do maintain an ability to land and take of from water ............to save energy when the wind drops.

Flying over water its always a damn fine idea in my book to be able to at least stay afloat ..JIC there's rather a lot of it and even on land it isn't that easy to find a flat bit big enough to hit .......sorry land!
So that said it it might also be nice to be able to land and take off from water as well. :cool: It also needs to be robust either way.

If you apply evolutionary principles and KISS to what makes a good flyer without external inputs you and constant fiddling you get back to free flight designs or early RC.
Now if I'm not completely mistaken what we are coming back to is a something like K Kusomas work :cool: or a SPAD version?

Now because you guys want these things to do things and go places.....some people are never happy :rolleyes: ;) ...............you have to haul an expensive load of widgetry around as well and that doesn't like seawater either but where there's a will .............. there's a water proof container and silicon sealant and duck tape :p

Let the thing define itself and you will get :) there but dont be supprised if it looks something like has already been built a long time ago :rolleyes: just buit in a slightly different way using a few new bits and materials ;)

[captmike54]

Hello to the “faithful”.

I am purchasing the plane next week and found out that we have a tremendous amount of space in the fuselage (18 inches X 16 inches X 6 + feet). A lot of space on the centerline will be devoted to fuel and we must install;
• a transponder (FAA)
• a TASE - A Low-Cost Stabilized Camera Gimbal see: http://www.cloudcaptech.com/gimbal.htm
• Frequency Redundant Digital Spread Spectrum R/C Control-Link see: http://www.auav.net/products.html (This is simply amazing because it is redundant squared).
• The auto pilot probably; http://www.auav.net/products.html or http://www.cloudcaptech.com/gimbal.htm and a full function computer
• A parachute
• 2 RC ignitions converted G62 Zenoah engines see: http://www.rcignitions.com with Sullivan starter/alternator see: http://www.sullivanuav.com/home.html
• 2 motorcycle size 12vdc ODYSSEY gel batteries with 4-6vdc servo batteries in a circuit to power all of the on board transmitters, receivers, transponder, video, telemetry, engine circuits, running lights, landing lights, servos, etc. All kept fully charged in two separate systems (1-12vdc – 2-6vdc each) by the Sullivan alternators.

I probably left out some stuff but this is most of it. We are still below 60 pounds with a maximum of 80 pounds possible. We are carrying a lot of fuel for these engines but we will fly at about half throttle when airborne but have the power to jump out of the water when needed.

I have also found some engines that qualify as “on board ship” acceptable but I can not discuss the source at this time. They are really outstanding engines.
We are still trying to develop an anti collision avoidance system that will give the FAA (and us) a “warm fuzzy feeling”. The transponder is part of this group. See: From www.Avweb.com
Navy Seeks Collision-Avoidance System for UAVs
The U.S. Navy published a request for proposals this week with the objective to develop a radar sensor compatible with small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) that would allow them to operate safely and reliably in civilian airspace. The Navy noted that UAV flights currently are "severely restricted" because of concerns they could collide with other aircraft. FAA regulations require that UAVs must demonstrate "an equivalent level of safety" comparable to see-and-avoid for manned aircraft before they can be allowed into the National Airspace System. The Navy is looking for an anti-collision system that would enable small UAVs (those with wingspans under 11 feet) to avoid all other air traffic, whether or not those aircraft are transponder-equipped. The see-and-avoid system shouldn't require any modifications to the air traffic control system, according to the requirements. The Navy is looking for a computer simulation, then a flying prototype that could obtain FAA certification for autonomous flight in civilian airspace. Ultimately the anti-collision system could also be used for civilian applications such as pipeline monitoring, firefighting, traffic surveillance and sky-based communication networks.

This plane will be an exciting, high value asset than can remain on scene working for over 8 hours and have plenty of fuel to return home. We are more limited by the radio range of 40 to 70 miles (depending on height of the transmitter antenna and the plane) than the fuel. Lucky for us we should operate no more than 40 miles away from the bases. We could operate for hundreds of miles in Autonomous mode but the FAA would not like this idea.

Thanks,
Mike

[Tale Spin]

Mike,

"...purchasing the plane next week and found out that we have a tremendous amount of space in the fuselage (18 inches X 16 inches X 6 + feet)."

Which plane did you deceide on?

[captmike54]

G-44 WIDGEON
1/4 Scale, Designed by Al Franklin

The floats are cloth reinforced mat fiberglass. The engine box design that holds the engines to the wing can be used in either cowl configuration.

The wing design includes 2 full depth 1/4 " AC ply spars capped with 1/2 X 1/4" spruce strips and then carbon fiber strand is glued on top of that with epoxy. The wing cores are designed to be sheeted with 1/64" ply. The spar slots are hot wired into the wing cores ready for construction. The tail group is foam cored. The horizontal stab uses a 1/4" AC ply spar and the vertical stab uses a 1/4" AC ply spar that goes from the top of the stab to the bottom of the hull. The hull has reinforcement box design stringers along the sides of the hull to keep the flat sides from being too flabby.

The kit includes fiberglass fuselage, floats, cowls and nacelles, foam wing, horizontal and vertical stab cores, spar joints, windshield and windows, step by step construction and flying video, full size plans and a construction book full of photos. This is an awesome great flying sea plane. You will never be sorry that you own one.

Price---------- $1200.00.
Wing Span 10'
Length 8 '
Weight 40 - 45 lbs
Wing area 15 Sq. ft
My Note: R.C. Ignition converted engines (2) Zenoah G62 (the manufacturer said that the Zenoah G62 will be a good engine because of the added weight that I will be putting into the plane) http://www.rcignitions.com/forum/vi...c.php?p=172#172
Landing Gear Scale and available from Robart
Construction epoxy over carbon fiber with kevlar in areas that need strength or stiffening. Fiberglass nacelles, and cowls. Both the original Ranger cowls are available and the Mckinnon conversion Lycoming cowls if desired.

Thank all of you for your help,

Mike Howell
Attached Images