PDA

View Full Version : Hi-tech remote flying eye in the sky



Bobh
17-09-2012, 10:09 AM
I saw this small remote-controlled aircraft in action taking shots of the outside of the Southland Museum last week. Most fascinating. I would say that it is much more high-tech than a model helicopter bought from Jaycars.

The machine that I saw in action was quite small being only about two foot across.

I want one of these but I doubt if I could afford it.

Read here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/small-business/7687872/Hi-tech-remote-flying-eye-in-the-sky?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines).

inphinity
17-09-2012, 10:38 AM
$499 - http://www.playtech.co.nz/afawcs0139235/CATID=808/ID=18278/SID=971803857/productdetails.html

wainuitech
17-09-2012, 10:48 AM
Be more the case could you fly it. They are not a toy , and require skills on how to fly them.

The technology / Concept is nothing new.

Years ago when I used to fly Radio controlled racers, a good friend of mine had a model shop in woodville ( near Palmerston North ), and they used to do aerial photo/filming all the time with RC Models either fixed wing or helicopters, that would have been at least ten years ago.

The shops closed now, but the web page still works ( kind of) Skycam (http://www.galtechmodels.com/SkycamSite/index.shtml)

Bobh
17-09-2012, 11:01 AM
Yes I think that a lot of time would be needed in learning how to fly it. In the article it stated that it was operated by a licensed pilot.

Trev
17-09-2012, 11:02 AM
Talking about RC Helicopters there is a site on the web where you can fly them online from your home using a Joy Stick or a RC controller.
:)

Gobe1
17-09-2012, 12:39 PM
they take 2 people to fly and use the camera, pretty cool though

R2x1
17-09-2012, 05:24 PM
My most recent one complete with video camera (HD) weighs 87 grams, ready to fly. That is around $1.30 per gram, and it seems to take most people about 15 minutes to get the hang of it (to the stage of being able to fly 5 minutes without hitting things).

decibel
18-09-2012, 11:51 PM
The photographer working for my real estate agent used a little one with camera to take a bird's eye view of the front of my house.

Bobh
19-09-2012, 12:03 AM
I found this one in Dick Smith's web site. This is a lot cheaper an might be easier for a beginner to fly. It has a built in camera.

Read here (http://www.dicksmith.co.nz/dsnz/navigation/product_details.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=8455244419 83885&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=282574488365570).

Bobh
19-09-2012, 01:57 PM
There appears to be safety concerns about these unmanned aerial vehicles.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/7696350/Drones-not-match-ready-Pilots-Association-says?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines

R2x1
19-09-2012, 06:11 PM
Yes, the hospitals are overflowing with victims. They orta make a law.

Agent_24
19-09-2012, 07:18 PM
There appears to be safety concerns about these unmanned aerial vehicles.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/7696350/Drones-not-match-ready-Pilots-Association-says?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines

Safety concerns? Certainly no more issues than currently exist!


"For instance, there are safety implications with drones, if they can interfere with other aircraft or power lines, or if they crash."

What about birds flying into jet engines? What about people driving cars into power poles? What about wind\trees knocking power lines over?


the authority had to be satisfied that the operation of UAVs or any form of aircraft did not endanger any person or property.

Since when did all currently used aircraft never endanger any person or property?


"Normal aircraft has years of testing before it is allowed to be certified"

And that's why "normal" aircraft never crash, is it?


"What happens if you lose control of one? Where does it go?"

What happens if you lose control of a normal aircraft? Where does it go? Or if you lose control or a car, bike, train, truck, or even your own legs?

I'd rather have a tiny little UAV land on my house out of control than a fully loaded 747!



"[UAVs] do not carry the required equipment to be seen by Air Traffic Control radar systems, so separation with other aircraft cannot be assured," he said.

They do have a point there, though....

wainuitech
19-09-2012, 07:19 PM
Those things are not toys. When I was flying models, seen plenty of accidents, those blades can really cut a person up and do a lot of damage. Most are some sort of Carbon Fibre with a mixture of other materials, and they don't break when coming into contact with human skin/bones.

They are only controlled by a radio signal, and when theres outside interference they can go on their own merry way.

I used to fly model pylon racers, the blades on those props are razor sharp ( not much to them but they can d a lot of damage), they could take your finger off and not even slow down. Seen some very nasty accidents when fingers get to close.
When flying those you need eyes everywhere,flying at speeds of approx 200MPH, if one or more go wild for what ever reason they could kill a person outright.

Safety within model clubs is usually strict.People taking these types of things and using them as a toy can do a lot of damage.

Agent_24
19-09-2012, 08:42 PM
But they are no more dangerous than a "real" aircraft if something goes wrong.

wainuitech
19-09-2012, 09:15 PM
Actually they are more dangerous when something goes wrong.

On a full size aircraft if something goes wrong, usually theres something the pilot can do, he/she has options with controls, engines its very rare a full size aircraft loses every control. With a radio model if you lose the signal thats it, theres nothing you can do apart from watch it disappear or hurtle towards the ground or what ever its going to hit. Even a slow flying device can cover a lot of ground fast when out of control.

In the 15 years I was flying models I've seen some very nasty crashes destroying property and hurting people.

Once years ago, we were at a place in Stratford, (this is the F3D pylon racers I'm talking about) One model, broke its wings, the body took off on its own, now these things weigh about 3.5KG, approx 1mtr in length, travel high speed, those days we were doing around 150 - 200MPH, slow compared to todays standards.

The plane couldn't be shut off as the wings breaking took out the radio, this thing went straight up out of site on a clear sky day in a matter of seconds, easily past the height any commercial airliner would be flying in the area, then no one could hear it ( these are loud by the way) about 2 minutes later you could hear it coming back down, out of control, engine winding up to god knows what revs, no way to shut it off. As "luck" would have it, it went straight though one of those heavy wooden picnic tables you see in camp grounds, And still managed to bury its self at least 5 feet down on the ground. Thats why I said before when flying them you need eyes everywhere.

Only got one left myself sitting in the roof of the shed. Awhhhh the good ol days of caster oil and methanol smells :wub

Agent_24
19-09-2012, 11:29 PM
Actually they are more dangerous when something goes wrong.

Tell that to the World Trade Center...


In the 15 years I was flying models I've seen some very nasty crashes destroying property and hurting people.

Once years ago, we were at a place in Stratford, (this is the F3D pylon racers I'm talking about) One model, broke its wings, the body took off on its own, now these things weigh about 3.5KG, approx 1mtr in length, travel high speed, those days we were doing around 150 - 200MPH, slow compared to todays standards.

The plane couldn't be shut off as the wings breaking took out the radio, this thing went straight up out of site on a clear sky day in a matter of seconds, easily past the height any commercial airliner would be flying in the area, then no one could hear it ( these are loud by the way) about 2 minutes later you could hear it coming back down, out of control, engine winding up to god knows what revs, no way to shut it off. As "luck" would have it, it went straight though one of those heavy wooden picnic tables you see in camp grounds, And still managed to bury its self at least 5 feet down on the ground.

And that was more dangerous than these incidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commerci al_aircraft ?

I am not saying that model planes are not dangerous at all, but I don't understand how you can say they are more dangerous than a normal plane when there is an accident.

8ftmetalhaed
19-09-2012, 11:40 PM
I would also think these would be particularly bad for spying on people through windows and the like. Random nudes of people getting in and out of 2nd story showers, for example, or with the high windows that people can't see into without jumping, but a quick snap with the little chopper and off it goes to god knows where.

Plus yeah the whole '**** it up and someone's gonna die' thing.

wainuitech
19-09-2012, 11:48 PM
Not saying a model is more dangerous in a crash than a full size.

There is more chance of a model actually causing a crash to full size aircraft than a full size on its own.

Just as an example: lets say there was one of those remote helicopters operating near an airport or an area of full size activity, and it went out of control and some how drifted across in front of a passenger aircraft, and it got sucked into one of the engines. While it may not bring the full size down, it sure may do some damage to the full size engine.

If the remote helicopter was in a built up area of a street, buildings, houses etc and it went out of control they can do serious damage to property and people.

I can tell you from personal experience, the CAA can really jump on ya when you do something outside of their rules or don't get written permission to do something, esp if its within the restricted airport space.

R2x1
19-09-2012, 11:57 PM
I'm tempted to say I'll have what he's drinking; but due to my kindly nature I won't.