Chief Delphi - Flying robots?

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Flying robots? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102161)

Re: Flying robots?

Quote:

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn (Post 1121514)

Bumper rule would be violated.

FIRST does have a collegiate pilot called "CARD" which is college level aerial robotics.

CARD is no longer affiliated with FIRST, but it is still effectively the same as it ever was.

Re: Flying robots?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall (Post 1121528)

Interesting. The International Aerial Robotics Competition (in 2007 and 2008, at least) took a different approach to safety.

Competitors were permitted to fly in much closer proximity to buildings, people and other equipment, because the challenge involved identifying and delivering payloads into a building. Nevertheless, there were certain areas designated as a restricted, and only event staff and vehicle crews were allowed in.

All vehicles were required to be "rendered ballistic" upon command, for safety. Is that what SAE Aero Design mandates?

Rendered ballistic seems dangerous, Design/Build/Fly requires full up elevator, right rudder and right aileron and throttle off in the event of a loss of signal. That way the airplane goes into a spin, and having seen a couple even if it failsafed over your head you would have time to get out of the way.

Spectators are lined up along one edge of the flightline about 100 feet back, except for the pilot, observer, and contest officials. This was not always the case. In particular, this video. (mild language, but these people are inches away from getting smashed by an r/c plane)

I think it would be very tough to fly slow enough with all of the essential mass you need to meet the definition of an FRC ROBOT. It would be an interesting conceptual design though... likely a biplane (might as well do a triplane for kicks) to get remotely close to the slow flight you'd need to stay in the field. It would be a very ugly airplane. :D

Re: Flying robots?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard (Post 1121703)

Given the dynamics of the ramp, I'll venture that we'll see quite a few flying robots this year.

Or did you mean "intentionally flying"?

Intentionally flying.

Re: Flying robots?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tytus Gerrish (Post 1121894)

stunt idea:cool:

As if Tytus hasn't already tried it. Just waitin' for the video.

Re: Flying robots?

only if you can do this: http://youtu.be/YQIMGV5vtd4
the fun begins at about 30 sec

Re: Flying robots?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1121685)

Actually, Tristan, I think a year or so after that, teams had gotten to the point where they changed the challenge--they skipped the "deliver" portion and had everyone focus on the "in the building" portion. (I'd have to ask the SDSM&T UAV team's veterans to be sure of what they're doing this year.) I know SDSM&T's team was one of the mid-size choppers, dropping a quadrotor.

I remember seeing SDSMT's system in action.

The 2008 IARC represented eight straight years of trying the same thing, with the prize money building up every time, but nobody succeeding. They announced early that year that it would be the last of that challenge, and that the prize money ($80 000 by that point) would be distributed by the judges if nobody succeeded outright. Georgia Tech came closest to a complete system with its RMAX, but failed (as did others). With that, they put an end to the outdoor challenge and split the prize money.

The year after (at which point I wasn't involved), it was mostly quadrotors in a school gym in Puerto Rico. Not quite so much fun, all things considered—in fact, much more like the scale of CARD, except autonomous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1121685)

When SAE does the Aero Design competition, they like to adhere to the AMA safety code at least to some extent. Nothing over 55lb (without a waiver, which SAE doesn't allow in competition), no flying over pits, no metal props, nothing beyond the safety line except flight crew/event staff. AMA's safety rule is nothing outdoors closer than 25' to anybody except the pilot and helpers on the flight line. (Indoors... well, usually the indoor flyers are much lighter and much less powerful than the outdoor birds.)

Ours wasn't legally a model plane. It carried a Transport Canada special flight operations certificate, and as such was limited by a set of binding agreements (rather than the voluntary AMA rules). We submitted design documents, and were approved for flight as a UAV under the Canadian Aviation Regulations in certain conditions and certain areas. When operating in Canada, we imposed a 30 m horizontal clearance requirement between inhabited structures and vehicles, and were not to overfly spectators (excluding support personnel).

When operating in the U.S., the competitors were guests of the Department of Defense at Fort Benning, and as such, were authorized to use military airspace for the purposes of the event. The event's own rules were in force, and they were somewhat less prescriptive.

(There have been longstanding issues with getting approval to fly large UAVs in the United States for non-military purposes. The equivalent to the SFOC is much more complicated, and among American teams, this may have driven all but the best-organized one to use modified R/C helicopters and planes.)

Re: Flying robots?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1121518)

...and provided that the bumper zone requirements were met...

...and provided that all size restrictions were met (including the absolute height this year)...

This is actually an interesting (albeit irrelevant) point. In response to a Q&A regarding the definitions of "tall" and "height", the GDC explained that "The vertical measurement is always in relation to the Robot", emphasis mine.

R29 also explains "Bumpers must be located entirely within the Bumper Zone when the Robot is standing normally on a flat floor", emphasis mine. (The Blue Box on R01-2 discusses the definition of "flat floor" but not the limitations of "standing": "The carpet, the Bridge surfaces, and Keys are considered the flat floors – and thus are the reference planes for the Bumper Zone requirements. A Robot in a transitory state of crossing onto/off of a Bridge or Barrier is not considered to be on a flat floor.)

As such, it seems that a <=60"/84" tall (with respect to itself) flying robot whose legal bumpers are fully within the bumper zone when it stands (presumably meaning 'in physical contact with') a Flat Floor would pass both the bumper and height requirements.

On the other hand, as a referee, I'd like to remind my inspector pals (not that they need reminding), that I would really like to avoid a 60", 154lb robot flying at my head. :yikes: