|
RE: Drone filming. If you dont care about stability, and you dont care about a zoom lens, you dont need to fly for more then 10 minutes, and you dont care about your camera, go for it!  Saw so many drone failures working with Brain Farm last week. Thats a $60,000 camera body sitting in that pile of CF in the gutter. They are fun toys, and have some very specific uses for filming, but they just arent anywhere close to replacing a proper helicopter and camera system for anything thats not a really really really cheap project. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI77vDkMsJo D C fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Mar 25, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
D C posted:RE: Drone filming. They're going to have to make and sell a lot of snowboarding films to make up for the loss of that gear  Has anyone seen this? Happened awhile ago but drives the point that some regulation needs to be placed before drones swarm en masse over our heads http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=_NOar22TX2k
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
There was a GBS poster who hunted boars with a drone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
TFR. He did so with a spear. I don't understand why anyone thinks it's appropriate for an unlicensed hobbiest to be operating an aircraft at all, just because said hobbiest isn't aboard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:There was a GBS poster who hunted boars with a drone. It's Uncle Bushman. Some of the drone videos are on his youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9UKFTbJ470 He use the drone for target spotting only. It's unarmed. Here's his Dehogaflier surviving intense AA-fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0YfTjrH0Co Sir Cornelius fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Sir Cornelius posted:It's Uncle Caveman. Some of the drone videos are on his youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9UKFTbJ470 Bushman, not Uncle Caveman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
ming-the-mazdaless posted:Bushman, not Uncle Caveman. I stand corrected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
D C posted:RE: Drone filming. I've noticed a tendency that most dual control systems are still piloted by someone with very little RC heli experience. Flight controllers work great about 90% of the time but having the ability to use manual mode to land instead of dealing with a flyaway or uncontrolled drift is important. National geographic hired Bobby Watts, a 3d pilot who could hover a camera rig inverted while sleeping, to fly their slow motion camera over the water in South Africa for shark week. They hot swapped battery packs every 8-15 minutes to keep flying with a trex 700e. Big single rotor dual control rigs are stable, fast, and predictable. Though if they do crash it is typically a total loss. Their current setup uses a red epic on a 800mm bladed Gaui similar to this.  Speaking of manned rc helicopter flight someone was stupid enough to lift a lady using a pair of these large 3d helicopters a few months ago
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
tehk posted:I've noticed a tendency that most dual control systems are still piloted by someone with very little RC heli experience. Flight controllers work great about 90% of the time but having the ability to use manual mode to land instead of dealing with a flyaway or uncontrolled drift is important. National geographic hired Bobby Watts, a 3d pilot who could hover a camera rig inverted while sleeping, to fly their slow motion camera over the water in South Africa for shark week. They hot swapped battery packs every 8-15 minutes to keep flying with a trex 700e. Big single rotor dual control rigs are stable, fast, and predictable. Though if they do crash it is typically a total loss. Their current setup uses a red epic on a 800mm bladed Gaui similar to this. That's basically a 1/12 scale Bell 47.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
At least it didn't end in a decapitation.Phy posted:Reminds me of the old "This is a lighthouse" joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Aviation stuff costs what it does not because it's so advanced, but because it's tested, certified, proven reliable. Any technical solution that gives unmanned aircraft the burden to see and avoid will suffer from the same cost issues. The problem is that the FAA is just lumping everything in as "drones". Whether I want to send a camera 150 feet in the air to get a picture, or fly a drone three miles away, they're all considered "the same thing", insomuch as if they're all used for a commercial purpose, they're all commercial drones. So when we're talking about very different things, such as someone sending up a drone with a 100 meter range for a few minute, and someone flying a drone 1000 feet in the air for half an hour, they'd all be covered under the same legislation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:The problem is that the FAA is just lumping everything in as "drones". Whether I want to send a camera 150 feet in the air to get a picture, or fly a drone three miles away, they're all considered "the same thing", insomuch as if they're all used for a commercial purpose, they're all commercial drones. So when we're talking about very different things, such as someone sending up a drone with a 100 meter range for a few minute, and someone flying a drone 1000 feet in the air for half an hour, they'd all be covered under the same legislation. If you're flying a gopro around a soccer field then just buy something that leaves an r/c controller in the loop for manual override and you're no different than any other park flyer. I'm not saying the FAA is doing their job perfectly in that instance, just that if you're going to release an untethered aircraft that has the capability to interfere with manned flight and nobody's in the loop it doesn't really matter if it weighs 3 pounds or 300; if I have to foot the bill for a damaged rotor blade due to a rogue quad copter, I'd be upset that there's no system in place to notify, license, insure, or certify any of that equipment or their operators. Ambihelical Hexnut fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Dronechat is fascinating, but a hat tip to the human that pulled this landing off in a Dash 8. One of the crazier crosswind landings I've seen in a time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQCtNHKvDjI Stolen from here today: http://sploid.gizmodo.com/i-cant-believe-this-twisting-plane-managed-to-land-in-1550920878/@caseychan
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
I feel like I would shake that pilot's hand and then never fly that airline again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
onezero posted:Dronechat is fascinating, but a hat tip to the human that pulled this landing off in a Dash 8. One of the crazier crosswind landings I've seen in a time: I saw that this morning, that is a HELL of a crosswind, I would've gone around. He did great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Fun fact: turbine blades are actually grown from a single metal crystal, not machined! That fact was right, right up until you said "not machined!" They're still machined. The process by which you create a single crystal leaves a long, long sprue. That sprue gets trimmed (by machining!) to create the "tree" of the blade. That is what engages with the turbine disk. Machinign processes work just fine on single crystal castings. Computer chips are built on a single crystal too. (known as a boule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boule_%28crystal%29) They're then sliced (machining) into wafers and eventually cut into dies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:If you're flying a gopro around a soccer field then just buy something that leaves an r/c controller in the loop for manual override and you're no different than any other park flyer. The problem is that the FAA says that anyone who uses one of these for a commercial purpose, for whatever reason in whatever way, is a drone operator and must abide by the exact same rules. So I'm an R/C flyer right up until the point where I try to sell my picture I took off the soccer field, and then I immediately become a "Drone Operator" And holy gently caress, I have no idea how that dude saved that plane. Is a landing angle that steep in any way common? gently caress the crosswind, he almost stood that thing on it's nose!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Some planes approach the runway fairly nose-low. Especially in gusty conditions, though, keeping the nose low helps prevent the possibility of windshear causing a stall. As long as you work it out before the wheels touch pavement, you're ok. You want to avoid touching the nose gear first, because that will cause a porpoise effect and/or damage the nose gear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:The problem is that the FAA says that anyone who uses one of these for a commercial purpose, for whatever reason in whatever way, is a drone operator and must abide by the exact same rules. So I'm an R/C flyer right up until the point where I try to sell my picture I took off the soccer field, and then I immediately become a "Drone Operator" And if you fly your friends for free, then you're a "private pilot," but the minute they start paying you, all of a sudden the licensing requirements go way up. Commercial operators have much greater incentives to cut corners on safety, because it's just a business transaction. You've probably seen the bit from Fight Club where the narrator explains how safety only makes business sense when the probability of an incident times the cost of the incident outweighs the cost of preventing it. The same calculus is at work here. Also, commercial operators tend to work in populated areas, because that's where the customers are. Hobbyists are usually content to stay away from people. The only reason that we have a safe, effective system of commercial aviation, that very rarely results in machines falling out of the sky and onto people, is because there is stringent regulation surrounding the entire thing. If UAVs are going to be common in populated areas, they need to have similar levels of regulation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Some planes approach the runway fairly nose-low. It still impresses me watching a Fokker 50 coming in to EGLC (London City) (steep approach, about 5.5 degrees if I recall correctly). Approach is very much nose-down. Flare is barely more than level, and by the time it touches the ground it's pretty much at taxi speed. I half expected one today to use the runway exit less than half way down the runway...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Some planes approach the runway fairly nose-low. Especially in gusty conditions, though, keeping the nose low helps prevent the possibility of windshear causing a stall. "Every" plane comes in nose low (with flaps), and then pulls back as flaring. Think of the chord line between the leading and trailing edges of the wing; to maintain attitude as the flaps descend, the nose has to drop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Captain Bravo posted:The problem is that the FAA says that anyone who uses one of these for a commercial purpose, for whatever reason in whatever way, is a drone operator and must abide by the exact same rules. So I'm an R/C flyer right up until the point where I try to sell my picture I took off the soccer field, and then I immediately become a "Drone Operator" Yea. If you're gonna run a for-profit business based on sending a vehicle into the NAS that occupies charted airspace which manned aircraft may be occupying, you should be subject to stringent regulation. Yes this will make it more difficult for a dude to run a shady non-tax-paying internet aerial photography company by sending his DSLR up around buildings and stuff, but so what? That guy has financial incentive to roll the dice on safety, combined with the potential to hurt people and damage property that doesn't belong to him. Like the guy above me mentioned you can't take paid passengers on your plane without being certified and subject to regs, just like you can't haul commercial freight on public roads without being certified and subject to different requirements. When I fly high power rockets (which, oddly have mostly self-regulated their industry by establishing standards) I am operating within FAA rules, through a club that has submitted notification to the FAA, and under the million dollar insurance policy of a national organization that has certified me, my equipment, and the field to a minimum level of safety. These procedures mitigate the potentially severe damage I can cause. I think R/C fliers have a similar set of rules (maybe insurance?) under AMA. No such organization that I'm aware of has taken the reigns on chinese quadcopters, availability is outpacing safety, someone please think of the children!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:When I fly high power rockets (which, oddly have mostly self-regulated their industry by establishing standards) I am operating within FAA rules, through a club that has submitted notification to the FAA, and under the million dollar insurance policy of a national organization that has certified me, my equipment, and the field to a minimum level of safety. Just out of curiosity: what is a high-powered hobby rocket? What kind of rules do you have to follow?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Just out of curiosity: High powered rockets are unguided rockets that exceed the definition of a model rocket by total weight, propellant weight, or both. I don't remember the exact limits off-hand, I think it's something like 1500g total weight and 125g of propellant producing less than 160Ns thrust. The typical HPR sport rocket will weigh somewhere around 5-15 pounds on the pad, and will go 300+mph on the way up to 2-5000 feet AGL. There are two governing bodies (NAR and Tripoli) each of which divide high power rockets into three levels based on total installed impulse, so at level 1 you could fly an HPR made of cardboard and balsa with no electronics and simple parachute recovery, or something much more exotic if the motor will get it safely up, and at level 3 you could build a several hundred pound scale model that makes a lot of noise, or do some crazy triple staged ablatives/carbon fiber deal that breaks mach 2 and goes 70,000 feet in the air with long distance radio telemetry. In any case rockets are flown and safely recovered under the coordination of a local club that abides by the rules of one of those two governing agencies. Motors are only sold to people qualified to fly their impulse level, as registered by those agencies. Here is someone else's very big and loud rocket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ugc_BZgGWw
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:High powered rockets are unguided rockets that exceed the definition of a model rocket by total weight, propellant weight, or both. I don't remember the exact limits off-hand, I think it's something like 1500g total weight and 125g of propellant producing less than 160Ns thrust. The typical HPR sport rocket will weigh somewhere around 5-15 pounds on the pad, and will go 300+mph on the way up to 2-5000 feet AGL. There are two governing bodies (NAR and Tripoli) each of which divide high power rockets into three levels based on total installed impulse, so at level 1 you could fly an HPR made of cardboard and balsa with no electronics and simple parachute recovery, or something much more exotic if the motor will get it safely up, and at level 3 you could build a several hundred pound scale model that makes a lot of noise, or do some crazy triple staged ablatives/carbon fiber deal that breaks mach 2 and goes 70,000 feet in the air with long distance radio telemetry. In any case rockets are flown and safely recovered under the coordination of a local club that abides by the rules of one of those two governing agencies. Motors are only sold to people qualified to fly their impulse level, as registered by those agencies. That's great, but the point is that current legislation would have the same rules for your m2 beast as it would for a quadcopter lifting a go-pro up to treetop level. That's the issue. No one's arguing that people running reaper-style drones should be certified. The problem is that as it stands right now *all* drones must be regulated. Yes, including the lovely little rc copter that won't make it 50 feet off the ground. (Although an amateur rocket that breaks mach 2 at that altitude is still bitchin' as all hell.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Those are already flown within FAA rules (formal notification, VMC, airspace considerations), so how specifically are things that are not "drones" (like r/c, rockets, etc) proposed to be any more limited than they already are? Edit: I read more better. I guess I just don't agree that every upper middle class kid on Christmas morning should be allowed by the FAA to send their quad copter in airspace that contains legally flying manned aircraft (or within slant range of buildings/etc) if the vehicle is designed to operate out of visual range. They're just going to do it anyways, since the risk of screwing off in a soccer field is so low, just like I do if I fly an r/c plane over an empty construction site or whatever instead of under AMA's rules. I'm certainly not going to care much when I see it, but I am never going to agree that the rulebook should allow loose operation of unregulated, uninsured UAS since some retard is going to make a GPS guided gopro foamie that does low passes over their downtown area and ends up hurting someone or breaking something. I've had a scaneagle come drat near under my rotor disk, heading in the opposite direction at about 150kts closing speed between us. That was with a professional operator under ATC control. Careless, unlicensed operators need more structure, not less, and a 3 pound quad copter can still kill someone in an aircraft or on the ground. Ambihelical Hexnut fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Those are already flown within FAA rules (formal notification, VMC, airspace considerations), so how specifically are things that are not "drones" (like r/c, rockets, etc) proposed to be any more limited than they already are? He's saying that stuff like high powered rockets is more analogous to a larger Reaper style RPA and that the rules shouldn't apply to small drones. Flew Delta the other day, they're still rocking their '80s safety video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eduNjwNvcH4
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
To break up the UAVchat a little, a sad note: the end of an era for the Lockheed TriStar with the RAF: http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Lockheed-L-1011-385-3-TriStar/2414808/L/&sid=53a595d125a74a46884bacca1c3cd698 I hope they'll save at least one of them, and I still wish I could see one flying sometime, unlikely though that may be. (Although, on a  note, there was a Jordanian charter company that operated a pair of TriStars registered to an address in Youngstown, Ohio, which appeared to have been a laundromat, the last time I checked it. Both have now since been deregistered as exported to Peru, though I find it comically unlikely either one has been within a hundred miles of the US for years.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:"Every" plane comes in nose low (with flaps), and then pulls back as flaring. Think of the chord line between the leading and trailing edges of the wing; to maintain attitude as the flaps descend, the nose has to drop. Does it have to drop past parallel with the horizon? Many look pretty nose-high to me when they're on final. They flare over the runway which increases the angle even more, yes, but nose low attitudes on final are not something I see with every airplane. This looks noise-high to me, even before the flare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKx_6Ktg37M And this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCIJ0F62og4 And that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVQDRiLjufg Maybe it's just an optical illusion to me, but those look a lot different than this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwIK7gW2TDM That thing looks like it's diving in nose low. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Does it have to drop past parallel with the horizon? Many look pretty nose-high to me when they're on final. They flare over the runway which increases the angle even more, yes, but nose low attitudes on final are not something I see with every airplane. That's apparently a CRJ thing: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/print.main?id=2002390
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
I saw this reading Weibo this morning. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Aero737 posted:I saw this reading Weibo this morning. Is the frigging cover still over the static port?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:Is the frigging cover still over the static port? Sure as hell looks that way!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
I'm stunned and amazed they managed not to fly it into the ground. Where did you find this gem? I can't seem to find it. Tsuru fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Every IFR certificated aircraft has two static ports and sources. Thankfully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
To revisit MH370 for a moment, looks like a debris field has been found with over 122 object of various shapes or sizes. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-satellite-spots-possible-debris-field-1.2586654
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
slidebite posted:To revisit MH370 for a moment, looks like a debris field has been found with over 122 object of various shapes or sizes. quote:Malaysia announced Monday that a mathematical analysis of the final known satellite signals from the plane showed that it had crashed in the sea, killing everyone on board. That's some clear wording 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:Every IFR certificated aircraft has two static ports and sources. Thankfully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:The location where the red tag is fluttering has both the two main static ports (cap+FO) on it, but thankfully there is also a separate standby static source below it. There's dupes on the FO's side, but I wouldn't want to be flying around with two of them covered. They probably left the gear pins in, too. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
For the uninformed, what do those ports do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:06
|
|
