New poster, new copter

[Billchuck]

Earlier this year I got an Aeroquad Typhoon kit, put it together, and flew it around for bit. This isn't about that kit.

While trying to learn to fly the Typhoon, I poked around online and came across David's tricopter design, and FliteTest. I liked the design and ordered parts to build it. Good thing, too; accumulated crash damage and straightening of the aluminum arms led to metal fatigue and cracks. It's not flyable again unless I get some replacement arms.

Building the tri went quick; I got the frame ready last week, and after (most of) the electronics arrived Friday I started on the wiring. I finished it up Sunday and got in some low flying in the back yard.



Given the description of longer-armed tricopters as "slushy" and "slow", it sounded like an excellent way for a learning pilot to learn how to fly rather than crash. I used 24" arms, putting the motors way out there. It flies, but it's rough. I think the culprit is one of the motors, with a bent shaft. New motors are on order, but were out of stock. I'll put them on when I can.

There's one major thing I changed. I figure, if the camera tray noticeably smooths the vibrations out for a camera, it can do the same for the flight controller. So I inverted it, putting the tray above the frame. The battery hangs underneath, and the controller sits on top. We'll see if it works out once I get new motors on.

 

[colorex]

Please report if it works! Sounds very interesting to me.

Welcome!

 

[FlyingMonkey]

I don't think this will give you the results you're looking for. The motion dampening, and resulting delay will likely make it impossible for the flight controller to do what it has to do.

I'll be interested to hear how it works out in reality though.

 

[Cyberdactyl]

I don't think this will give you the results you're looking for. The motion dampening, and resulting delay will likely make it impossible for the flight controller to do what it has to do.

I don't think that setup will make much difference to the FC's axial orientation. Movement out of alignment of the main frame from such a bent wire damping system such as this is in the order of a few thousandths of an inch at most.

Now, if it was very thin piano wire. . .or bent springs. . .or a column of foam two inches high, where the the FC & platform's inertia could cause a lag of alignment in an axis of a few tenths of an inch on an extreme input. . .maybe.

 

[Billchuck]

I don't think this will give you the results you're looking for. The motion dampening, and resulting delay will likely make it impossible for the flight controller to do what it has to do.

I'll be interested to hear how it works out in reality though.

We will see. The idea here is that the spring wire will just damp out the high frequency vibrations, but it will stay "in formation" to the frame as it moves. Once I get the new motors, I can compare this against putting the FC on the frame itself, see how much of a difference there is.

I want to rebuild it, though. (I always want to rebuild it, it's a bad habit. It doesn't matter what "it" is, I'm sure it needs to be rebuilt. ) I think it'll be more stable if I use V-shaped supports rather than U-shaped, and angle them so they make an X shape. It ought to keep the tray from wobbling fore/aft while still isolating the frame vibrations. I'll fly this one for a while, then try the new configuration.

I'd really like to collect data to compare, but I don't think I can with the KK2. Eventually I'll get a new aeroquad board or something else that lets me play with the code, and then I can try running some numbers.