Comment by the__alchemist
Comment by the__alchemist 6 days ago
I'm curious how this compares to foam-frame designs. Being able to customize it is obviously a big advantage, as is the non-solid-infill of 3d-printed parts. I think for stiffness, 3d-printed frames don't work well for quadcopters compared to carbon fiber, but they sound like a nice alternative to foam for fixed-wing. I think the stiffness concern comes up in quads mainly when they do high-performance maneuvers that aren't a concern for the takeoff and landing this device does in that mode. (e.g. high accelerations/manevers of racing-style drones)
If anyone wants to try this: The parts he uses are all standard Chinese-made COTS you can buy on amazon and similar.
The ArduPilot firmware he uses is very flexible and robust, but setting it up is one of the worst UXs I've experienced. Commercial UASs almost universally use PX4 instead.
Yes I used single wall foaming PLA which is much less impact resistant and more brittle vs any foam, even cheap foamcore and especially EPP or EPO. This has definitely been an issue with crashing and rebuilding.
But my first and only other VTOL build was foamcore Readyboard and that took a 12 ft drop onto asphalt with only a slight compression in the fuselage. Never replaced it.
I would add dovetails or other clips for printed sections if I did another printed build.
Yes avionics and propulsion parts are COTS for speed, the Amprius pack is US manufactured but others are all made in China.
I'm starting to see some more Ardupilot used commercially too but yes the UX is janky and unintuitive.