All Things That Fly #87! UAVs, and holy
, Jamie is flying Spektrum!
=== Diggs' Booty (for batteries) ===
Nice idea! I've been using a snipped female connector to cover the exposed ends, but your idea is much cheaper. Thanks!
=== Differential Thrust Versus Rudder ===
Yah, I've messed with this. Differential thrust seems to be the opposite of rudder: you get NOTHING at high speed, but at stall speed it'll spin like a top. I suppose the best solution is having both rudder and diff-thrust so that you have positive control for all speeds. However, I saw one twin-engine Northrop-style flying wing that had solid diff-thrust control at high speeds: he was using the V-P-P systems (variable-pitch-propeller). When you reverse-pitch one side at 80MPH, you WILL see an effect (and you better have altitude to recover). Fun as heck to mess with!
=== AR6000 versus AR6100 ===
I still use a bunch of AR6000, because they actually have the dual receivers! The AR6100 is just a single receiver with a dipole antenna. So, yes, I get much better range with the older AR6000. However, they don't have Model Match and they have larger lag-time than the AR6100 (but I can't tell). If you want reliability without the cost of getting a 6200, the AR6000 are quite nice. I think you have to be using a DX7 or better, though. I don't think the DX6i supports the older DSM protocol.
=== Interference! ===
So Diggs says that the Spektrum systems are getting massive hits from the nearby psychiatric hospital. Dang, man, to pump out that level of an EMP must require a great deal of shock therapy!
Seriously, though, this is a concern about NOT having a dedicated frequency to RC flying like the FM channels are. We use to only have to worry about other modelers. While all spread spectrum gear is suppose to check for a clear channel first, some equipment have a much stronger transmitter than receiver (Chinese wireless cameras are the worst for this). We'll see how future technology copes with this.
=== UAVs ==
Great to get the "hobbyist" view on this. Thank you for mentioning that in America we are required to maintain line-of-site with the aircraft. It's actually rather scary that the only thing different between an AMA-supported RC model and a UAV is that one requires you to watch it! Think of how stable your PC is...then imagine stuffing it into an airplane and sending it over streets and populated areas.
But...is that technology cool or what?!? If we could legally do it, I'd be chucking planes out my front window in a heart-beat!
The OSD on the eLogger (On Screen Display) makes this temptation even stronger...
However, I think we can get by this if we simply make the models harmless. It's one thing to get smacked in the face by an unmanned Slow-Stick, but what if it was one of these?
http://www.avinc.com/uas_product_details.asp?Prodid=4
(The company, Aerovironment, was started by a fellow Cal Poly Alumni!)
Oh heck...let's get serious here. Would anyone really cry if one of THESE landed on their hat?
http://www.delfly.nl/?site=DIII&menu=&lang=en
We just need to take the "Park Flyer" path here. Make it lighter and smaller until it is no longer threatening.
A big "Thank You" to Mr. Anderson for talking on the show. I'd envy you, if it wasn't for how all your RC prices are nearly double to ours!
Great show, guys!
- Jim