2.4 Blog

Design

I experimented with both the lost hiker and aircraft crash site scenarios and thorough enjoyed the amount of options there were for each type of UAV chasis, sensor, powertrain and round control station.  This provided a great method to introduce all of the vital components that need to be considered when building an UAS.  While the auto-pilot made sense for the hiker scenario given the vast amount of land to be covered, I found the manual mode much more enjoyable to control for both the hiker and the aircraft crash site scenarios as it provided a true experience of how responsive the flight controls were given the commands inputted.  For the aircraft crash scenario, I ended up choosing the octocopter and compared it with the quadcopter.  A handheld GCS made the most sense in this case given the proximity of the start zone to the crash site and overall practicability for costs and resources involved.

Performance

In terms of performance, the quadcopter and octocopter were very similar.  The most notable difference I found was how much more robust the octocopter as there were a few instances where I would accidentally and purposefully bump into physical objects and obstacles. In all cases except for a very hard landing, the octocopter held up very well.  Even after damaging one of the blades by hitting the metal overpass, it would still function but slightly rotate in a counterclockwise motion.  The octocopter also allowed for a larger payload given its multiple rotors compared to the quadcopter which allowed for a normal and HD camera.  I really enjoyed switching the perspective to the pilot view and operating the UAV from this angle.  This provided much realism and even gave me an appreciation of what LOS flight would look like (as I have never owned a drone or quadcopter before) - I even took a selfie of me hard at work on the crash site!

Hard at work testing out the octocopter at the crash site.

Mission

For the actual mission, I found that the octocopter was the most useful choice of UAS given its robustness and bigger payload capability.  In the event of a strong wind or precipitation, I would have no doubts using the octocopter to gather evidence such as photographs or video of the crash site.  The main detriment was its shear size so it precluded entry into somewhat tights spaces such as inside the fuselage.  I tried my best to fit in the fuselage but had to settle for just sitting on top of one of the passenger chairs as seen in the picture below. Overall, I found the octocoper and quadcopter to be much more responsive than using the fixed wing asset during the hiker scenario.  This may have to do with the delay due to the uplink and downlink but that was a noticeable difference from my perspective as the user. The ability to hover in place for detailed data gathering is unmatched and is where the octocopter truly excels!  I am curious as to whether they are used in real flight safety scenarios such as NTSB investigations.

Attempting to land on the seat to get a more detailed view