Off season FRC quadrocopter build

[ferret_guy]

I am considering building a quadrocopter in the off-season and while doing the math using this online calcutor, I don't know if I input all the numbers correctly becouse I am not familer with many of the terms used, and I got what I thought was an unreolistic flight time. here is my calculation.

[mman1506]

A 17AH battery is way too big for any reasonable quadcopter and will be way too heavy. A 5AH battery is around the top end for most quadcopters.

Also your motor input is incorrect. Most BL outrunner motors have way more poles than 2, what motors are you using? Your resistance is too low too.

Your propellers are also too large for most quadcopters. the normal is 8-12" in diameter.

BTW. 10-15 minutes is the longest flight times you'll get on a quad. Yes, people have flown longer but you need a very specific set-up to do that and it will not be very useful for anything else

[ferret_guy]

I should have specified, on a thread somewhere I saw an idea to make a quadrocopter robot legal for competition, and wanted to design one using primarily CIMs and the frc battery for fun. I have also tuned the specs (mostly using 28-16 props)

[mman1506]

It's not possible sadly. The CIM motors are not efficient enough and weigh too much. The lead acid battery will not supply enough voltage and current under load to make it work and weighs too much. The interface is unreliable and too slow for safe flying. The props would put it out of first legal sizing anyway.

In comparison the small brushless outrunners you see on a quad like a DJI F560 have the same amount of power as a cim at 1/10 of the weight.

Source: I have built 6 quads, one hexacopter and I am working on a y6

[Mk.32]

Did someone say Quadcopter :3

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/38277

And I agree with Marcus I would NEVER build one with FRC parts it would be way to impractical. You can get cheap brushless motors/ESCs and LiPo Batteries that would do a MUCH better job.

[EricH]

If you were doing a fixed-wing aircraft, I'd come right out and call you insane. Seeing as you're doing a rotary-wing bird... You're still insane, mainly for trying anything rotary-wing (they don't fly, the ground just repels them).

Be that as it may, the 15+lb of the FRC battery is not your friend. You're talking about designing a 20+lb quadcopter, and that's just the CIMs and battery. That's not easy! (I spent several years in SAE Aero Design, and most planes couldn't carry much more than about 20 lb, and that strained them.)

Now, I ran the same sim with slightly different numbers--including a much more realistic frame weight estimate. (<2 lb? When you're carrying the battery? Seriously? I bumped that up to about 6 and a quarter lb.) I got a 9 minute flight time, 25 minute hover, on 18-4.7 props.

If someone REALLY wanted, I might try to mock one up in my R/C flight simulator, battery and all (I can think of a few ways to go with that) and try to fly it (my rotary-wing flying skills almost never end in a great landing, though on simulator they're all good landings, by the standard pilot definitions).

[dcarr]

The Quadrotors I've worked with have all been built as light as possible, have an arduino/picoitx control system, and fly for around 10-15 minutes.

Building one out of FRC-sanctioned parts is an interesting challenge, but I have to ask, why? If you ever manage to get it off the ground, I'd be worried about safety, first off. Sure, you can fly it on a tether, but when a large, heavy object is flying around in close proximity to people and buildings, things can and will go wrong. Also, the advantage of having a light vehicle is that it's less likely to seriously damage itself when it falls.

I'd say some interesting design challenges when building a quadrotor are 1) Software: getting it to perform smoothly, perform stunts, and autonomous flight. 2) Weight - keeping it light and balanced 3) Reliability/Durability - build a vehicle that can crash and be recovered quickly with minimal trouble.

[ferret_guy]

Thanks all the input the biggest concern I have is safety, I am aware that it can be done easier but I wanted to do it with frc parts. The only problem with it is the props, is that the prices make me sad . My idea was to simply fly it very low after performing extensive static testing and whatnot. However by changing the props as EricH suggested the result was unable to lift off, could you provide more info on this?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by ferret_guy

parts. The only problem with it is the props, is that the prices make me sad . My idea was to simply fly it very low after performing extensive static testing and whatnot. However by changing the props as EricH suggested the result was unable to lift off, could you provide more info on this?

The props... I ran the simulator with basically the settings you had, but a heavier frame and smaller props (no hover) and then the same size props (short flight).


Speaking from the fixed-wing world, the right prop, especially for high weight, is a tough balancing act. You're looking for thrust, but you get that from three factors that are all integral to the propeller or the engine: RPM, Diameter, and Pitch. Too high of a pitch, and the RPM suffers due to drag (engine doesn't quite have enough torque). Too large of a diameter, and the motor might not have enough torque to turn it fast enough. Either one can really hurt performance.

Now, if your motor is fixed (ours had to be a certain type), you can get a few props of various sizes and do some testing. You're primarily looking for thrust, which can be measured with, say, a skateboard, a mount, and a fish scale and a stake, but how much power the engine is exerting can also be handy (but needs a dynamometer to measure).

You need enough thrust to lift off using 4 motors; you want some runtime in the air... It's a tough problem, and the props are extremely critical. No substitute for testing. (And yes, good props are expensive. I think props for our testing could run $20 or more a pop, and we used cheaper ones.)

[mman1506]

I don't want to be a dream crusher but to get the proper rpm to run a reasonable propeller(Cim tops out at about 3000 rpm under load) you would need a gearbox which would add more weight to the system.

To put it into perspective each motor on most quads have the same power as a cim and even with there lightweight, high discharge Li-Po batteries and electronics they still need 40-50% throttle to fly. To even make a cim copter hover you will be looking at using 90-100% throttle which won't leave any headroom for stabilization making a very unstable platform if it flies at all. Maybe if you used a LiPo battery and replaced the cRIO with a lighter controller it would fly but just barely.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by mman1506

I don't want to be a dream crusher but to get the proper rpm to run a reasonable propeller(Cim tops out at about 3000 rpm under load) you would need a gearbox which would add more weight to the system.

A quadcopter's motor loading is nothing like an FRC robot's motor loading. The closest approximation would be a shooter wheel with no shots going through. The CIMs should be running around 5000 RPM for quadcopter use. (This is lower than the free speed, but not by anywhere near 2000 RPM lower.)

I would say a gearbox might be helpful--I want to say a 1:2 or higher to get closer to a nitro engine--but I think there's something that would be even more helpful. It's called a BaneBots RS-775-18. You're allowed 4 of them in FRC, and they run reasonably high power and definitely high speed if you take the planetary gearbox off. They're similar power to a CIM, but aiming more on the speed side than the torque side, which is better for propeller usage, and they're lighter, which is better for flight usage. An RS-550 might also work.

[mman1506]

Originally Posted by EricH

I would say a gearbox might be helpful--I want to say a 1:2 or higher to get closer to a nitro engine--but I think there's something that would be even more helpful. It's called a BaneBots RS-775-18. You're allowed 4 of them in FRC, and they run reasonably high power and definitely high speed if you take the planetary gearbox off. They're similar power to a CIM, but aiming more on the speed side than the torque side, which is better for propeller usage, and they're lighter, which is better for flight usage. An RS-550 might also work.

+1 RS-775 would be much better suited. One of the few large brushed quad rotors I've seen used motors close to RS-775. I still seriously doubt that you will be able to pick up a 17AH battery, my 2100 watt hexa is not able to lift that amount while staying stable