| Our Past Prototypes and Test Models |
First Model (1999-2000)
Prop diameter:
T/O weight:
T/O weight:
14"
4 lb.
4 lb.
There isn't much physical data
on this early model, except for its
list of components, and the fact it
couldn't hover for more than 3
seconds.
The problem was that, without
cyclic blade-pitch control or
some other control device beyond
on this early model, except for its
list of components, and the fact it
couldn't hover for more than 3
seconds.
The problem was that, without
cyclic blade-pitch control or
some other control device beyond
POCO I (2001-2003)
Prop diameter:
T/O weight:
Duration:
T/O weight:
Duration:
11.5"
17 oz.
3 min.
17 oz.
3 min.
POCO I
This was our first model that
could hover for the duration of its
battery pack, though not well. An
April 2002 Model Airplane News
article discusses how it received
could hover for the duration of its
battery pack, though not well. An
April 2002 Model Airplane News
article discusses how it received
40%-Scale, Gas-powered
Standing-pilot Model (2004-2005)
Standing-pilot Model (2004-2005)
Power:
Prop diameter:
T/O weight:
Duration:
Prop diameter:
T/O weight:
Duration:
5 HP, gas
16"
24 lb.
n/a
16"
24 lb.
n/a
This was an attempt at going
bigger, but drivetrain maintenance
and engine starting issues
prevented thorough testing and
development of this gas aircraft's
bigger, but drivetrain maintenance
and engine starting issues
prevented thorough testing and
development of this gas aircraft's
control system, adapted from POCO I. As well, the craft tended to fall over far too easily.
The project was abandoned in February 2005 with the appearance of new developments
in electric powered flight (see POCO II below) and the decision that future protoypes
would be seated.
The project was abandoned in February 2005 with the appearance of new developments
in electric powered flight (see POCO II below) and the decision that future protoypes
would be seated.
Span (between prop centers):
Length:
Prop diameter:
T/O weight:
Duration:
Length:
Prop diameter:
T/O weight:
Duration:
recent developments in electric powered flight for application to VTOL; outrunner
brushless motors (requiring no reduction gearboxes), programmable speed controllers,
lithium-polymer batteries, and efficient opposite-handed propellers. This project owes it's
beginnings to (then) high school student Andrew Freesh in California for informing us of
some of these developments.
As well, POCO II received a mechanically far simpler but more effective pitch control
system, evolved from POCO I's. And some interesting results from the work of Austrian
physics student Christoph Buchner - who modelled our concept using MATLAB and
Simulink for his thesis - made us realize the model's pitch gyro should not be a
conventional rate-type. But the non-synchronous signals from heading-hold gyros
caused havoc with any external control mixer we could find until we recalled Andrew
Freesh had also mentioned something about the new Omni mixer from VeeTail. E-mails
to and from David Coombs of VeeTail established that the Omni would indeed handle the
erroneous signals. So, with the appropriate changes and fine-tuning, our model had at
last the control, stability and flying characteristics of a micro-electric R/C helicopter -
without all the mechanics.
brushless motors (requiring no reduction gearboxes), programmable speed controllers,
lithium-polymer batteries, and efficient opposite-handed propellers. This project owes it's
beginnings to (then) high school student Andrew Freesh in California for informing us of
some of these developments.
As well, POCO II received a mechanically far simpler but more effective pitch control
system, evolved from POCO I's. And some interesting results from the work of Austrian
physics student Christoph Buchner - who modelled our concept using MATLAB and
Simulink for his thesis - made us realize the model's pitch gyro should not be a
conventional rate-type. But the non-synchronous signals from heading-hold gyros
caused havoc with any external control mixer we could find until we recalled Andrew
Freesh had also mentioned something about the new Omni mixer from VeeTail. E-mails
to and from David Coombs of VeeTail established that the Omni would indeed handle the
erroneous signals. So, with the appropriate changes and fine-tuning, our model had at
last the control, stability and flying characteristics of a micro-electric R/C helicopter -
without all the mechanics.
straight forward tilting of its prop-rotors, the aircraft had no stability in pitch. Roll stability
was obtained with collective pitch controls in conjunction with a piezo gyro.
was obtained with collective pitch controls in conjunction with a piezo gyro.
15"
20.5"
10"
13 oz.
12 min.
20.5"
10"
13 oz.
12 min.
POCO II (2005-2006), predecessor to MicroVader
some measure of stability in pitch. Light weight/low inertia Draganflyer (known at the
time as the Roswell Flyer) props from Spectrolutions and 100/30 throttle/aileron external
mixing, as suggested by Andrew (Doc) Watson of Australia (to allow the setting of gobs
of gyro gain, as he put it), finally enabled roll stability and control using just differential
motor speeds.
time as the Roswell Flyer) props from Spectrolutions and 100/30 throttle/aileron external
mixing, as suggested by Andrew (Doc) Watson of Australia (to allow the setting of gobs
of gyro gain, as he put it), finally enabled roll stability and control using just differential
motor speeds.
With a 40%-scale aircraft still our goal (now
the seated-pilot e-Vader), this micro-sized
and inexpensive reversion proved out all the
the seated-pilot e-Vader), this micro-sized
and inexpensive reversion proved out all the
| First Model visits the Kitchener-Waterloo, ON, R/C Helicopter Symposium, March 2000 |
e-Vader with scale PAV body (Sept 2006),
which added a whopping 5 lbs., is a thing
of the past - for now.
which added a whopping 5 lbs., is a thing
of the past - for now.
e-Vader with semi-scale body (Oct 2006),
with just 2 lbs. excess weight, is gone too.
It would take off okay, but the extra current
draw & consequent reduced battery voltage
- giving a slower motor response - hurt roll
stability.
with just 2 lbs. excess weight, is gone too.
It would take off okay, but the extra current
draw & consequent reduced battery voltage
- giving a slower motor response - hurt roll
stability.
but gone as well is the e-Vader without any
semblance of a body at all.
semblance of a body at all.
