Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- projects:mihab:glider [2007/04/03 15:07] – laurenceb
+++ projects:mihab:glider [2008/07/19 23:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
  Following MiHAB 1 and 2, I've decided to try something new, hence the glider project. This project may merge with the
 UKHAS glider project, and I'm designing it to be applicable to other gliders.
+===== Mark #2 Glider ====
+With the glider used in flight 1 completely trashed, something new will be needed ;-) Having considered a 2 axis stabilised rigid glider (probably using thermopiles and an ARTF off ebay) and also a parafoil, I'll probably go for a semirigid rogallo. These are very stable and forgiving on control inputs, and also easy to make, and foldable for transport to the launch site. Parafoils also meet these criteria, but readily avaliable parafoil kites are harder to adjust and test unless you're good at sewing and have a nice high platform to test from.
+ Judging from the previous test flights, a "PIDR" loop with SIRF2 would almost certainly be adequate for a rogallo, but I'll try and be on the safe side (money and time allowing) and go for a rate gyro ( off spark fun) and kalman loop. This should be able to give an extremely accurate and responsive heading value for the PID loop. Temperature compensation of the gyro will be essential, but a peltier cooler system has been constructed for that purpose, and should be capable of -30 centigrade (-14 reached so far). One problem will be small steps in the Kalman filter output with each new GPS heading, which would mess up the D term in the PID controller unless it is turned off each time this happens. (i.e. turned off for one iteration of the Kalman filter)
+ A second, and more serious problem is the GPS lag, approx 1.1 seconds for a sirf2. Solving this may mean that the correct error treatment cannot be used in the kalman filter, but more work is required. Running the filter back and forwards to pick up each GPS heading is not an option as there will be insufficient recources (ie SRAM and clock cycles).
+ Here is an overview of the planned system, it would appear that there is a lot to do, but much of the work has already been done for flight #1, so it may not be as hard as it appears :-)
+{{projects:mihab:evil_plan_to_take_over_the_world.png|}}
+===== Rogallo experiments =====
+This RC rogallo is approx 1 meter long. The pitch control is not being used at present, but the "payload" is currently being rebuilt to include pitch control as well. The vertical and horizontal cross spars were added to improve the stability and remove the possible problem of the wing folding up or diving. It now seems extremely stable, and should fly in virtually any weather conditions.
+ {{projects:mihab:p4130055.jpg?700|}}
+It seems a rogallo can be made to descend vertically by moving the c of g well towards the back. This feature would be brilliant for landing. A small micro servo with pot removed for continuous rotation could be used to adjust the guy lines when the rogallo reaches 100 meters or so.
+[[http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-247659611589004030|Demonstration (unfortunatly a bit dark)]]
 ===== Flight 1 =====
@@ Line 10: / Line 32: @@
 == Lessons for future ==
-  * Unordered List Item
+  * Although the glider appreared quite stable in tests, a drop from a balloon is more violent, and there is a greater probability of the glider spiral diving.
+  * 9V lithium batteries cannot supply more than 100ma on a continuous basis
-* Although the glider appreared quite stable in tests, a drop from a balloon is more violent, and there is a greater probability of the glider spiral diving.
+  * Dividing up power supplies increases reliability i.e. flight computer and gps off a seperate battery from servo(s) and cutdown
-* 9V lithium batteries cannot supply more than 100ma on a continuous basis
+  * Only fly with 100% reliable code
-* Dividing up power supplies increases reliability i.e. flight computer and gps off a seperate battery from servo(s) and cutdown
+  * Use a high quality compiler
-* Only fly with 100% reliable code
+  * Unless the aerodynamics is thoroughly tested, rigid gliders are only reliable with thermopile stabilization. Rogallos and parafoils are c of g stabilized, so more stable in that respect
-* Use a high quality compiler
+  * A wing trailing edge dipole antenna works very well
-* Unless the aerodynamics is thoroughly tested, rigid gliders are only reliable with thermopile stabilization. Rogallos and parafoils are c of g stabilized, so more stable in that respect
+  * Tethered drops are useful as an intermediate stage between "hill" tests and drop tests.
-* A wing trailing edge dipole antenna works very well
+  * It's best to test in the calmest possible weather
-* Tethered drops are useful as an intermediate stage between "hill" tests and drop tests.
-* It's best to test in the calmest possible weather
 ===== Simulation =====