Comment by Chris McNair on August 27, 2010 at 12:06pm

Its missing the wings! Cool project. Looking forward to seeing the AP for it!

Moderator Comment by Alex on August 27, 2010 at 12:34pm

Yeah i think is cool especially since its fairly unique and sweet looking, but was wondering why it would be any better than a quad, other than maybe the cost, since a quad is much more simple and easier to build as-well as having more lifting capacity due to 4 motors?

Comment by Chris Paulson on August 27, 2010 at 1:52pm

I'll have one soon. I ordered it several months ago and am waiting on it to ship. Gary told me it should ship this week or next. I'm interested in using an APM with the setup. If there are any APM experts in the Bay Area interested in trying this out as an airframe, get in touch and we can fly.

Comment by Öncü Kayalar on August 27, 2010 at 2:54pm

see picture on the left :))

Comment by Mathew krawczun on August 27, 2010 at 8:36pm

all an airframeneeds to have to be a good uav is

1) can it fly?

2) does it carry the weight of the auto pilot and any other pay load you wish to add to it and still fly?

if both answers are yes then it doesn't matter how many motors it has or what it looks like anything can be a good UAV. everthing else comes down to personal tastes and mission specs, you wouldn''t be using this for long duration flights but it would make a good maneuverable short range eye in the sky.

Comment by Leon on August 28, 2010 at 12:52am

I think it would be better with wings. It could fly over long distances, and save batteries.

Comment by Larry Lukis on August 29, 2010 at 7:48pm

I like it. For a VTOL airframe, it seems like a simpler solution than either a conventional helicopter or the quad. And the control issue makes for an interesting problem.

If you don't care about VTOL, then yes, you should definitely use wings.

Comment by Öncü Kayalar on August 30, 2010 at 12:52am

I tried it. Quad is much robust and simpler. Mechanics of a tilt rotor system should be near perfect.. This means you have to remove the deadzone (space between) links as much as possible.

Comment by Larry Lukis on August 30, 2010 at 4:34am

Ah, backlash. Good point. I can see that zero backlash would be important for closed loop stability.

Comment by Larry Lukis on October 16, 2010 at 4:40pm

Chris, I'd be interested in your experience with the Gress Aero platform. Any progress? I just got an nVader. Haven't done much with it yet, but hope to implement an IMU based attitude stabilization for it.

Comment