Building (And Crashing) my Homemade Surveillance Drone

[@TJMartinek]

I just imagine some guy in the CIA building taking out a cigarette every time one of these videos is posted.

[@sergiogcollado]

😂 indeeed

[@arreshubham]

Russian or ukraine maybe

[@KD2HJP]

Learning is winning

[@EdsonYamamoto]

cigarette coffe e're we go boi

[@thomgizziz]

WTF are you talking about? He is building stuff that is already in service with the US military, he is literally copying others ideas so poorly that he is failing hard when the info to do this is already out there.

[@jonasprusek4511]

Ah yes, my favourite non-military engineer, building non-autonomous, IR guided, non-loitering munitions / non-cruise missile / non-air-intercept drone / non-autonomous recon platform. Jesus at this point you are just building next gen autonomous drone. Also i belive that you have exact ideas what can be put into that free space.

[@SpongeBob-xh8ir]

Then he will sell it to Ukraine and earn a ton of money

[@DC_DC_DC_DC]

candy, right?

[@RiwenX]

@@SpongeBob-xh8ir ukraine lol

[@KasanThe]

@@DC_DC_DC_DC yep, kacap killer candies

[@sierraecho884]

@@SpongeBob-xh8ir Almost all of the equipment is given not sold, they have basically no money.

[@PleasantNoob]

Do you happen to live in New Jersey?

[@NiteAtTheFort]

you beat me to it

[@FelonyVideos]

😂

[@haraldschurr1035]

no - otherwise it would fly.

[@ahmedkamel821]

As someone who builds a lot of RC planes, I’d recommend adding ailerons, and possibly flaps, to improve lift and control at lower speeds during takeoffs and landings. As you mentioned, the plane seems too heavy relative to the available thrust-using lightweight filaments would help a lot. Also, it’s unlikely you’ll be able to manually stabilize the plane quickly enough during takeoffs and landings, so I highly recommend adding a flight controller for automatic stabilization. Finally, it looks like the elevator authority might not be sufficient with just the vectored thrust setup. All that said, this plane looks absolutely stunning, and I can’t wait to see what you do with v2!

[@smellyboars4865]

I don't know too much about this field but would it not be extremely hard to add control surfaces as well as the servos to control them when the end goal is for them to fold?

[@belliduradespicio8009]

@@smellyboars4865 flaps would be a pain (and probably needed it if the wings are just bigger) but ailerons could added without too much extra complication... especially considering how complicated everything else on this is

[@neilfoster814]

Yes, it definitely needs ailerons, it has negative stability in the roll plane. A single micro servo would do that quite easily and cheaply. A rail/catapult launcher would certainly make getting it airborne a lot more consistent, and could be adjusted to give more/less speed on launch.

[@howlingwolven]

I disagree on the additional control surfaces, at least initially. Adding lightness is priority number 1, and ailerons aren’t really necessary when roll control can be carried out through X-.taik mixing. I’d instead move the wing up.

[@neilfoster814]

@@howlingwolven The X tail doesn't have enough of a control moment (force x distance) to be effective at low speed, maybe at Mach 1, but not at launch speeds. A micro servo is only about 2 grams in weight. Moving the wings up would certainly help.

[@BPSspace]

9:51 "in terms of fan blades... we have no fan blades" 😭😭😭

[@anactualeggplant6708]

Oh good! I was worried we would never get to loitering munitions but here we are

[@thomgizziz]

WTF are you talking about? He is building stuff that is already in service with the US military, he is literally copying others ideas so poorly that he is failing hard when the info to do this is already out there.

[@obama-gaming4796]

@@thomgizziz you are so nice and kind😊😊

[@fz5lb]

@@thomgizziz "the info is already out there" put up or shut up, ill see you in the warthunder forums

[@clydeberry8523]

munition? this is an... rc plane made for... filming

[@lezorn]

@@thomgizziz Jesus Christ my man.

[@Twangaming]

13:15 the way your friend is throwing it here is forcing the plane to pitch up. If he can hold it at COM and guide it into the air under the planes own power, you’ll be able to keep control. Alternatively maybe a rail like the V1 can help you eliminate variables here. Looking forward to seeing more!

[@tjibbeettema8759]

It seems like the drone is also way underpowered, as by the 2nd launch he didn't pitch it up much but the plane just fell like a rock

[@VincentGroenewold]

Rail indeed, but that needs thrust, even with too much weight it should have enough thrust to at least fly a meter or two.

[@eriknulty6392]

RAIL LAUNCH SYSTEM 100%. take human error out, add much needed speed!!! make it repeatable.

[@LoudRC]

@@eriknulty6392 Or even just a bungee/hi-start system like a lot of the EDF guys use.

[@thomgizziz]

No, no he can't. There isn't enough power and way too much weight. There is more than enough info out there that this dude should have figured this out before he failed like this.

[@d_savage9019]

Definitely reduce takeoff weight at least for early test flights. A rail launcher would be a game changer for getting you off the ground consistently with enough velocity to get enough lift out of the small wings. In addition, a rail launch would let you spin up your edf right before you launch. That way you are taking full advantage of your vectored thrust right as you leave the rail, when your control surfaces are going to really struggle giving you enough control authority.

[@patrickpendergast898]

Giant water balloon slingshot and pvc or wood rails

[@owenthompson4071]

Thinking vertical launch with a potato cannon style launcher

[@godotnor]

Rail launcher, and put a large net downrange to catch those early failures. Later you can use the net for soft landings.

[@mrploppers2269]

Welcome back switchblade 300

[@Charlie-gf4mv]

1. Take off weight is too large, well, at least for the wing area you have chosen which is pretty much fixed if they are going to fold out of the fuselage eventually. 2. CG and wing placement seem to be mismatched, dangle it on a string from the mean chord, quarter chord point as a sanity check. 3. Control surfaces are too small for realistically any control during takeoff, and the fact you do not have ailerons would mean that they would need increasing in size compared to a normal set. For roll control matching ref area isn't sufficient as the moments are what counts, that close to the fuselage the moment will be tiny. 4. I'm unsure about the thrust vectoring, there is so much vorticity coming from that ducted fan that redirecting that flow is probably doing nothing apart from obstructing it, which leads me to the final point.. 5. I don't think there is any thrust being made tbh. Compare just holding the plane at full throttle to what the fan is expected to produce. Really cool project, I hope you can make it fly!

[@polfornasalfonso3328]

Pretty good points, I was also going to point out the thrust vectoring and thrust issues, I feel that the thrust vectoring needs to be eliminated, and the inlet needs a big redesign to let a lot more are in and directing it accordingly, I would provably go with an all around inlet or 4 inlets similar to that of a cruise missile, but nonetheless it needs a lot of air going in just because its fan propulsion, there is no pressure differential created by combustion and the air needs to enter as easily as it can, that design could hinder the air flow.

[@alexandrevalentin8587]

My thoughts exactly aswell, i'd argue that he could make it a biplan to double the wing area but even that may not be enough, and comes with additional drawbacks.

[@VincentGroenewold]

Yes point 5 seemed almost obvious, but I could be mistaken. With enough trust I would expect it to at least fly a few meters even with all the other points being an issue as well. I would've expected a thrust test inside. :)

[@eriknulty6392]

RAIL LAUNCH SYSTEM 100%. take human error out, add much needed speed!!! make it repeatable.

[@thomgizziz]

Thrust vectoring is done with EDFs, stop it with the nonsense.

[@PatrickKQ4HBD]

Put it on a vertical test stand and measure thrust. I don't think you have NEARLY enough. It should be able to take off from your unlucky friend's hand.

[@PatrickKQ4HBD]

Related, maybe move to a 4" diameter? Bigger fan and fatter wings being the primary benefits.

[@macrumpton]

You should try a bungee launch. It is much faster and more predictable than a hand launch, especially with a new plane. Also before you risk your complex delicate powered drone, I suggest you create a simple unpowered model from a cardboard tube that is appropriately weighted and winged to perform the same as the real thing and try launching that as a glider. If it wont glide, at least a little then adjust things until it does.

[@hacked2123]

Make the entire rear fin section magnetically detachable and use pogo pins to provide it power back there. Buy a compound bow and use that to get it up to launch speed; could probably make a stand utilize a garage door sensor to activate the full throttle condition to prevent any false launch events. I would also magnetically attach the wings as well if it remains fixed winged. Probably could add a simple parachute for free fall conditions as well.

[@Upuauta]

Some thoughts: 1. Are Center of lift/Center of gravity at the right spot? 2. Is the air inlet sufficient enough to generate enough thrust? Look at pictures of older Tomahawk cruise missiles. They had some kind of duct sticking out below for good air intake. 3. Is the thrust even enough for the over all weight? From the video it seems quite a lot of weight in the front. 4. The steering rudders might be a bit small to give enough directional authority?

[@morbloe4559]

This guy almost certainly did this already before flying, that’s like RC planes 101. It’s just an inherently unstable design.

[@JustMinna]

I feel like with a set of canards (moveable or not) and a better inlet (or any way to produce more thrust), most of the issues could be fixed but that's just my guess, I'm no expert after all

[@olekXDDDD]

you summed up all my thoughts perfectly, especially the on with the air intake. Good Job man haha

[@Upuauta]

@@olekXDDDD Thanks ;-)

[@patrickpendergast898]

Add short canards at the front and back to help stabilize lift maybe? And recheck cg for main wing?

[@dallenlofgreen5331]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hatchet is meant to be initially launched via rocket with the EDF just keeping it in the air. As such, redesigning it to be hand-launched seems like a step in the wrong direction. I think a catapult is a better idea, as it can provide the higher launch speeds that are needed without having to deal with the complexities of rocket launches.

[@talyrath]

I think it needs to pass a glide test before you try powered flight. Make sure you've got the CG far enough forward to be stable and that the tail has enough downward pitch authority to keep the nose up.

[@bob2859]

Regarding your thoughts: 1. Yeah, your wing loading seems too high, especially considering you don't have highly cambered wings or flaps. You don't share numbers but for reference, a wing loading of 3.5 kg/m^3 will give a flight speed of 20mph at a coefficient of lift of 0.7. Printing your wings out of foaming filament can reduce their weight by like 40%, though you'd also want to incorporate a carbon spar. 2. Larger tail is necessary, but remember it doesn't all have to be all-moving control surfaces. If you want to experiment with stability margin, you could add a passive tail and reduce its size with progressive testing. 3. I agree rail launch with bungee is the safest way to get this thing up.

[@s197shelby]

I might consider a weighted test article to hash out launch and glide ratio. Same weight layout and construction just without all the electronics. Inherently unstable works for fighter jets but your drone should be able to track mostly straight and glide even a little bit without input. This will also allow you to adjust CG location to determine balanced flight profile.

[@ridebeer]

I am by no means an aerospace engineer, just a hobbyist drone/rc plane pilot. Here are my 2 cents: these first launch attempts look very similar to that I've experienced with my first rc plane (zohd nano talon). The problem with such planes is that they have a relatively high wing loading and are pretty hard to hand launch. I crashed my plane around 20 times before I figured out that you need to give it *much* more kick on the launch. Because of that I decided to bungee launch it. With bungee launcher it took off easily on the first try. My bungee setup consisted of 10 feet of rope attached to 10 feet of elastic band, the part with elastic band is attached to the hook on the ground. The other side with the rope has a loop which is attached to a hook mounted to the airplane. The hook should be mounted on the bottom of fuselage a bit forward of aircraft CG. Thanks for the great video. Best wishes from Ukraine.

[@kylebedrich8803]

I’ve been designing and building competitive RC planes for a couple years in SAE aero and here is my brain dump: 1. Thrust needs to be increased, EDFs are not known for their static/low speed thrust, especially those small ones. Make sure you have an adequate thrust to weight ratio. Decreasing takeoff weight is crucial since your wing area is a design constraint. Increase powertrain battery voltage if you can, you’ll have to sacrifice capacity to save weight though. 2. Use an analysis tool like XFLR5 instead of ecalc, it uses actual airfoil data and VLM to solve for lift, drag, and moment along CG. See how much lift you’re making at takeoff speeds near stall angle. Check CG also, it might be unstable (especially on launch 3) 3. Increase aft control surface size, they look pretty small and won’t do much at low speeds. The EDF should help, but looking at the video it’s not enough. The planes longitudinal inertia seems really high especially with the heavy batteries up front and large fuselage. 4. I believe you are close to/a little unstable in yaw because you don’t recover very fast at 13:11. You have almost equal stabilizing and destabilizing side area on the fuselage and the control surfaces don’t seem to help with that since they’re moving to control pitch and roll. Increase your aft side area, this will help you recover from a large sideslip which seems to be the biggest issue on takeoff at lower speeds. At a 90 degree sideslip on the 3rd attempt the plane seemed like it had no intention of recovering from it. This could be done by adding fixed fins that are not your control surfaces. You will also dutch roll during these thrown takeoffs if you dont have yaw damping. 5. Add ailerons because you have little roll authority at lower speeds. Roll authority increases if your control surfaces are further outward- those in the back aren’t gonna do much if you have a large lateral inertia from the wings, but this all depends on how heavy the wings are. Your plane rolled a lot during these takeoffs and didn’t seem to want to recover. Dihedral won’t solve this problem. Include a flap too for higher lift during takeoff. If you have any questions I’d be happy to answer in the reply comments or if you have a discord.

[@bacco0447]

I wonder, why a swept back wing design? Swept back wings are worse than straight wings as low speed lift goes, also they have less than ideal stall characteristics Also those control surfaces might be still a bit too small but im not sure

[@bacco0447]

Another thing, which airfoil are you using? I'd suggest to calculate a rough Reynolds number you'll be operating at and use an airfoil with a lower efficiency but better stall characteristics at first, then maybe move to a more efficient airfoil

[@thething-f7q]

yeah, swept back wings should just be better at high speed in terms of drag

[@ОлегКо-э9к]

Здравствуйте коллега -)

[@wire3989]

The swept angle isn’t that bad, imo it’s a tapered wing. I agree the surfaces are too small

[@timtebow155]

This is amazing dude. You casually made a Shahed-101. Looks like you learned why they use rocket assist take off. You also need a propeller about 3 times this size.

[@jamescarter3883]

I agree with the bungie launch /rail idea. You have to have sufficient air flow to activate that Bernoulli's type stuff, Haha! The device never gets close to positively breaching stall speed. You already know this. I'm just thinking out loud here! I enjoyed your vid. I'm here for the first time. AMAZING & fun journey young man!

[@mr_voron]

So for your first ever RC plane you naturally designed a DIY cruise missile. 😂 This is fully insane and I'm 100% here for it. Nice work.

[@DrippyPootis]

10:25 Would adding a tight mesh cover over the inlet not be a good idea to prevent that?

[@OrbitalRose_01]

A couple thoughts I had (although I don't do a lot of hobby drone stuff, I do work in aerospace) 1. 3d printed parts are probably not great for takeoff weight. It makes sense to use them for the aero surfaces where you need complex shapes, but you could probably cut down on their use in other places. The ball turret in particular strikes me as something that adds a lot of weight for something that still can't get a stable launch. Until you can get the prototype to reliably launch, maybe replace that and use a mass simulator to figure out what your mass budget for that payload is. 2. The inlet for the ducted fan looks like it's going to induce a pitch up moment that will vary with thrust, if possible, try replacing that with symmetric inlets so that you have more balanced aero forces. Also, having the inlet along the body like that makes me worry about losing thrust in high AoA situations, but at low speed, that's probably not as much of an issue. 3. I like the design of the control surfaces connected to thrust vector control vanes, but I worry about your proposed Y-tail idea. Non-symmetrical external control surfaces coupled to symmetrical internal control surfaces are going to require some complex control laws.

[@therebel2187]

Maybe try attaching it to an existing flight worthy model and deploy once its at altitude, kinda like the space shuttle

[@OrangeDurito]

Ooh I like this idea. In air deployment sounds cool. Although, given the use case which he outlined, it should still have the ability to hover at a constant altitude to track the rocket launch, so achieving stability at low speed is of paramount importance. But wait, how does he plan to hover again with TVC EDF firing at the rear and fixed wing?

[@CmdrSoyo]

i'll add some of my rc plane design experience here since i am also in the middle of designing a 3d printed edf plane. i ran into some very similar problems with my first designs. now i can't tell you specifically why it doesn't work because that can be a number of things. but overall to me it seems like this may be worth thinking about: - weight. like you already said you should probably reduce the takeoff weight. i agree. i learned quickly that building light first and not second is a big factor in what works and what doesn't. you have quite a lot of equipment on board. and you also chose some rather dense filament. from what i've seen you want to have about at least 70-80% as much thrust as weight. at least at this scale. more is always better. i had some prototypes closer to 50%. those flew. but only in ground effect. and going into a turn would always lead to a crash. getting a more powerful EDF and or a higher voltage battery could help here but this usualyl also increases the weight. - EDF aerodynamics. thrust verctoring is a cool idea. but here it may work against you. the TVC setup causes a rather significant disturbance in the airflow behind the EDF and probably creates a lot of drag and turbulence. which isn't ideal for thrust. in my models i learned that you get the highest thrust by having a very smooth EDF exhaust tube with geometry that starts with the diameter of the EDF and then becomes slightly thinner towards the end. something around 20% lower diameter. i also saw some very strong control effects from control surfaces like you have used at low speeds so the TVC may also just not be needed here. if the entire fin moves that has a larger effect than one might think. i was surprised by my own models. - filament slection. you mentioned you used PET-G. for rc planes this is not ideal if you want to build light. me and a lot of others use a filament type known as LW-PLA. i get mine from colorfabb. this filament can be printed with an extrusion multiplier of around 50% so it's about half air by volume. this makes it more like foam and less like plastic but the weight savings are amazing. it is noticeably weaker than other filaments of course so you may have to use some carbon rods for reinforcement. i have a video about how i personally print LW-PLA on my channel (shameless plug). - center of gravity. this is just from how hatchet was behaving when thrown. can be caused by a whole lot of other things but it looks like the CG might just be a little bit too far aft. i usually go with having it near the forward 1/3 of the wing measured at the root. i also sometimes make a glider model to verify the CG. where the model is entirely made out of LW pla and has no electronics installed so it's as light as possible. i then tape some small weight to the front or aft until it glides straight and then measure the CG. i hope some of this can help. i'm excited to see it fly one day.

[@nuferious36]

I love this idea, but there are some improvements I would consider. Firstly, I would use a launch rail because any fluctuation in launch direction is going to make it tumble, along with the high takeoff speed, it seems like the launch rail would help a lot. Secondly, I don't think the 4 fins on the back are a great choice for a horizontally moving aircraft, I would use 3 fins in the back (2 elevons and 1 rudder) and move the ailerons to the wings. Thirdly, I would find another way to mount the edf because it looks like it is barley getting any airflow with the side port. Fourthly, I would get rid of the thrust veins because it just looks like it is limiting thrust even more, and the added control isn't really needed because its not going as fast as a rocket. Fifthly, the round airframe is increasing the required takeoff speed even more, I would make the bottom side a little more flatter. I also want to clarify that I am not an expert and some of the suggestions I made may be incorrect. Also, I want to say that I love your videos and I am very exited to see this project will get completed! ❤

[@torpedan]

Seconding the need for a launch rail, the hand launches start the drone in a highly unstable condition and it doesn't have the control, speed, or altitude to recover from it.

[@madmax2069]

4:25 i like that design, you could use some lightweight material to pull out tight with the support to make it into a larger wing area. You could technically make the wing as large as you want without taking up much space when folded up into the body.

[@Ezio-Auditore94]

I don't think the drone has the thrust necessary for its weight, but I also believe that instead of throwing it like a paper plane you should accompany it by jogging a bit before letting it go with a smoother transition.

[@wildslothman1776]

As a college student studying aerospace engineering and apart of a college aircraft design / evaluation team here are some considerations possibly not mentioned. Material choice: because the cardboard tube offers a high level of rigidity don't worry about the internal parts being super strong, 3d printed parts can be small with ribs, if a part is to have a large cavity use low infill or even lightweight "foaming" filament. This will reduce the launch mass without suffering huge losses to internal structures. EDF Inlet: currently as the aircraft is flying the edf is trying to pull air out of the stream of air going around the plane. This is not only inefficient but could also be causing losses of with the tail section. As it currently stands a small bit of air is being pulled in by adhesion to the inlet and negative pressure caused by the fan. A proper inlet for the edf would go a long way especially once at cruising speed. This does not have to be much more than a little scoop that hinges down with the pivot point near where the current inlet stops. Additionally a thin grate could be added to help reduce injested objects and prevent the edf from exploding. The grate does not have to be super large or thick as where it is likely to pick stuff up (the ground) it should not be travelling super fast.

[@Raven3one]

I've been wanting to build this exact thing. thanks for getting to it before i did. I have a lot less thinking to do now

[@carsonholt6449]

I would recommend building a model as similar as possible out of dollar tree foamboard. It is important that you get the CG right, normally about 1/4 chord or slightly forward works great. Testing a foamboard model would allow you to have the lightweight model you need for takeoff and hand launching while also allowing you to gain an understanding where you are lacking in stability. It may not hurt to try and throw your model in XFLR5 without the fuselage and run a stability analysis with your current cg location and such to ensure your model is statically and dynamaically stable. This will also allow you to quickly change your model in software and give you a good place to start with real world testing. I do not recomend sweep for a model like this because it is not going fast enough for it to consider compressible factors. The things I recomended should give you a good starting point and understanding, giving you more time to come up with possibly more thrust for hand launching or bunge launching methods.

[@HelamanGile]

I want to help you build a scanner based camera for this project for ground mapping

[@Cyanfox3006]

Here are some ideas. 1. As general rule of tumb, place CoM slightly ahead of lift center, it improves stability but decreases controllability. If you put CoM behind, the aircraft is unstable but highly manoeuvrable, which requires good autopilot and thrust.' 2. Rail guide for takeoff. Even a simple rail would make takeoffs easier, plus you could add catapult mechanism to it for increased chances of success" 3. Remove thrust vectoring, it quite often destabilises simpler guidance systems at low speeds. *P.s. i have extremely low IRL experience, most of these thoughts come from the KSP experience and other KZbinrs of .

[@RogerTheJanitor]

I am back after seeing the early videos. Dude is still at it and its cool as heck!

[@sayedmuhammadidrees1453]

Please recalibrate the CG and CLs.

[@paxon57]

I have zero practical experience unfortunately due to lack of time and money but I did do a concept design for my Master's thesis and have some aerospace knowledge so some feedback from me: (Also I don't have much time so pardon me if I talk about something you already mentioned in video) 1. Try building the launch rail or do some figuring out how to hand launch properly. Launch 1 (I think, can't see much) and 2 you basically had a stall angle the moment it left Your friend's hand. I would avoid using the method in Launch 3 (pushing) as it basically asks for inducing a spin. 2. Looks tail heavy. Try moving CG forward or wings back. Now this is model aircraft world but in real world CG is placed in front of centre of lift. The main wing always creates a pitch down torque while the job of rear stabilizer is to create a pitch up torque. Since this is a model aircraft You could just aim to place CG perfectly at centre of lift. 3. Make sure that EDF of Yours is not limited by Your inlet. Hard to tell but looks a too small. EDFs are not compressors, they will struggle if inlet is too small. Ideally, area of cross section of Your inlet (at its smallest point) should be equal to the area the fan blades take. Additionally remember that walls of Your inlet will induce drag on the air coming in further limiting it (to consider when adding different twists and shapes in the inlet) 4. Looks very heavy and these wings look small. You want to minimize the weight as much as possible or increase the size of the wings., or both. Consider using a material like LW-PLA (Light Weight PLA) when 3D printing. It works by foaming when printing and at some cost of structural strength I've seen it able to reduce weight by up to 50% when setup properly. 5. Not sure if You did it but since You are 3D printing the wings You might as well optimize the wing by choosing a right airfoil. Go to airfoiltools.com , use a Raynolds Number Calculator and then use that number in their search options to find the right airfoil maximizing the lift or Cl/Cd while being structurally viable. 6. If You are using these fins alone and no ailerons on the wings then at slow speeds (when launching for example), especially considering the weight of this thing and the inertia in roll axis the wings give it, I would imagine You have zero roll control. Basically only thing giving You roll control at that point are the tiny fins behind the EDF. At slow speeds Your exterior fins do nothing and thrust vectoring does not impact roll axis. 7. And keep in mind the torque that EDF is introducing on Your roll axis, especially when launching at full power. These things can pack a punch. 8. To help with roll stability problem I would try introducing some dihedral to the wings. These are the points that came into my mind seeing the design and launches. I love Your channel and Your projects! And I fully expect to see this full idea (totally not cruise missile) flying! Even if it takes few simpler iterations first! Keep up the good work!

[@jamesbridges7750]

Honestly, with that endoframe- skip the intake duct and let the edf breathe, just open frame it without the intake. While the intake might be fine at speed, all of the airflow at takeoff is coming from the fan/ vacuum cleaner lol.

[@belliduradespicio8009]

great point

[@jordandegraaff]

I love it! Did you ever find the camera housing for the last rocket?

[@LafayetteSystems]

No :( it’s still Missing In Action

[@eriknulty6392]

@@LafayetteSystems RAIL LAUNCH SYSTEM 100%. take human error out, add much needed speed!!! make it repeatable.

[@thejeepguy-kd7wm]

I don't know where my reply are going

[@jordandegraaff]

@ if you’re speaking about my comment, I think I had an unstable internet connection and so it posted my comment twice. I’ll delete one to eliminate the confusion.

[@thejeepguy-kd7wm]

@@jordandegraaff Hello

[@ellieallen115]

In thrust we trust bruh. I think those TVC vanes are trashing your thrust. Obviously weight reduction is great but stick a flow meter behind the thing and see what’s up before you go tearing it apart.

[@howlingwolven]

For test launches you can bungee launch or discus launch it if chucking doesn’t work. Saves you from building a launch rail right away. For a bungee launch, a slot in the bottom of the airframe engages a hook on the launch rope which is elastic. Stretch out and let go, and Hatchet will fly off. For the discus method, ensure your wing spar is rigidly installed. Put a finger hook through the wing tip, hold Hatchet on the pads of your index and middle fingers, and spin it around like you’re throwing a discus. You can throw a lot harder that way.

[@repalmore]

Missing fan blades? I'm guessing that's why most of the intakes are on top of jet drones. Keep up the great work.

[@nerdicorgi]

I would recommend two things: First, a slingshot launcher utilizing a small pen located under the center of mass. Secondly, I would suggest splitting the intake into two intakes and angling them off to the sides so you're not literally pulling yourself towards the ground or off balancing yourself in one constant direction.

[@justanothercomment416]

Catapult launch systems (giant rubber band) are normal for these types of high wing loading designs with ducted fans. The available trust is generally subpar until you have some speed behind it to feed the fan. This also provides enough air over the wings to provide lift. Your stabilization also appears lacking in authority which is not allowing it to track straight, which in turn is upending whatever lift is available.

[@ercnsmsk84]

At the flight attemps your friend seems to be trying to launch/throw the drone off its center of gravity which naturally puts its in an unstable state causing it to stall/drop. I'm no expert on RC planes but I've flown and thrown them enough to know how not to launch a RC Plane/Drone. Always try to throw them FROM their center of gravity or mass. at 13:15 your friend also seems to be thrusting it from the exhaust which gives it an unstable amount of force pushing the center of thrust way back and increasing the AoA of the wings in return causing a stall. Another thing that he seems to be throwing the drone in a curve which should not do; what he should do instead is thrust/throw the drone as straight forward as he can without altering the drones course/orientation. If I weren't able to explain things good enough; please pardon me for my English as it is not my native language :)

[@gregkostensky8756]

Awesome work

[@smokeydops]

My ideas: 1. Takeoff weight can help, just ensure your center of mass is just barely a tiny bit behind the center of lift with control surfaces at neutral. Then, adjust trim on the control surfaces so that the "new neutral" is adjusting the center of lift a tiny bit in front of the center of mass. What I am seeing your plane do is immediately stall; it seems like your center of mass is too far backwards? I don't know, it seems physically to be quite front heavy... A stable aircraft should pitch slightly down naturally, to avoid stalling. 2. Yes, it does seem like you don't have enough elevator authority. I would honestly just ditch the thrust vectoring entirely as it probably introduces a vortex behind the existing control surfaces, making them less effective. A bigger, traditional tailplane with trim is needed. And as posted by other comments, to make #1 possible, you need flaps on the wings to carry that kind of takeoff weight (and adjust the center of lift appropriately). You will also need ailerons, or else you won't be able to get it to fly level. 3. A rail launch can help, but bar none you must glide test the airframe to make sure it can fly before you try powered launches. Going straight to powered launches with a loaded airframe was ambitious to say the least!

[@letsflipp]

ah damn, i was planning on building pretty much exactly the same thing! now i can just copy you

[@61umbrellas]

Congratulations man!

[@strixerxl]

That’s not an RC plane. That looks like a glide bomb designed to do surveillance. Even though you couldn’t get it to fly, it still looks amazing and it’s a marvel of tech in my book. Keep up the amazing work!

[@nicolasa.4438]

I would definitely move the NACA inlet to the top for reasons you’ve already stated. There’s no reason to keep a failure point if it can be avoided. To address the wingtip camber; maybe make the wingtip spring loaded so that when it’s inside the fuselage profile it’s facing downwards (because of the upward NACA inlet) and when the wings pop out the springs force the rotation upwards so you get the same profile. (Think clothes hanger spring)

[@LoudRC]

A few observations: The swept crescent wing is always a bit of a tricky approach, I built a few high speed slope soarers with that planform a few decades ago and they were super sensitive to CG positioning. Looking at your screen shot of the eCalc data, your 'Stabilizier Volume (Vbar)' is 0.16. From the eCalc page: The Stabilizer Volume (Vbar) is a value for manoeuvrability. The lower the more agile the aircraft gets. Typical values are: 0.5...0.9 Trainer 0.3...0.6 Aerobatic 0.5...0.8 Glider 0.5...1.1 High-lift Jet 0.3...0.5 Combat Jet 0.0 for Delta & Flying Wing (due missing Stabilizer) It is possible that your choice of wing aerofoil is creating a nose up pitching moment, and the tail is insufficiently sized to counteract it, quickly/instantly leading to a stall. Also remember that the V-tail will have less authority than a true horizontal stabiliser. So when entering the values for it into eCalc used the projected plan view for span. Perhaps choose a reflexed aerofoil for the wing, it will have a much lower pitching moment, so you can get away with small tail surfaces. Launch speed looks far too slow. As other have said, look at a rail launch, or even something as simple as a bungee/hi-start launch. A lot of scale EDF guys use these to get heavy underpowered jets into the sky safely. Owlplane has a download for a launcher if you're looking for inspiration. It generate 25kg/50+lb of pull. owlplane.gumroad.com/l/tsqpe

[@belliduradespicio8009]

Hmm, but he's not using a V-tail but a cruciform tail, i wonder if he just used V-tail data and divided it by 2 as he doubled it?

[@LoudRC]

@@belliduradespicio8009 Very true. What I meant was that the 'V' of the tail surfaces would result in a much less efficient lift vector, due to being inclined at 45° to the direction it is needed. The resulting component is going to be much less than would be achieved with a proper horizontal stabiliser. A V-tail equipped aircraft often needs 10-15% more surface area than a conventional horizontal-stabiliser equipped aircraft would.

[@dynamixsystems]

Insanely amazing! 👏👏👏

[@katanamd]

Lowering the weight and raising airspeed as you said will really help. You can use a flight controller to get some artificial stabilization to help you out. Larger tail feathers will also really help you out. I recommend not investing into Spektrum too much. Get an inexpensive Radiomaster radio and use ELRS. The receivers are much lighter, less expensive, and better range. They are also more compatible with flight controllers.

[@natep121]

Two things. 1, if launching by hand, don't throw it. Run and then let go. Throwing almost always pushes the nose around. 2. You don't need all four fins on the back. Many aircraft use the V-tail design with just two on the top.

[@tony_T_]

I think this is overall a really cool project, but I just have some thoughts: What I think you should do is slim down the design a little bit to make it more narrow and long instead of short and thick. Probably ditch the folding wing design and increase wing span significantly, as well as place the control surfaces ON the wings instead of on the back, and just add stabilizing surfaces in the back like an actual plane. Along with that, get rid of the enclosed thruster design and go with a much larger, higher surface area propeller in the back to increase thrust. I love your videos a lot and the way that you format them makes them great to watch! I wish yall the best and can't wait to see your future projects

[@wisersquire9051]

Really cool idea. Can't wait for it to takeoff. For the fins you can also have the bottom two fins planar to the wing like with a F-22 or F-35 fighter jet. That should give you more control authority than two smaller fins 90 degrees from each other on the bottom

[@TheElectronicDilettante]

To launch, maybe try releasing from a quadcopter with sufficient payload capacity. If not that, find two trees and get some surgical tubing. Scale up a water balloon launcher to use as a catapult launcher. You’re not getting airspeed by throwing it. And verify your CoG. Instead of taking apart your prototype to save weight, build a clone that is identical in weight and balance and CoG with only the EDF and Flight control. Get use to launching that , then start hurling all those hours of painstaking work into the air. Good luck!!

[@mannythehunter]

It might be a little heavy!!! But it looks awesome!

[@JánosKovicz]

i love the design!!! dont give up on this one!

[@SmallStormFinatic]

rail launcher (steam powered like an aircraft carrier if possible) and lighter winds sounds like the best way to go

[@sgtbrown4273]

Great job! Your 3D printing skills are top-notch. My little bit of advice is you need about 3 times more thrust. With your current weight, it will be hard to achieve with this diameter housing. Your other option is to slash your weight. As fun and cool as 3D printing is, you may need to use more lightweight building techniques. Now all this advice relies on the fact that you are going to hand throw this aircraft With the rocket assist take off the unit may fly but will have an extremely high stall speed. Personally , I think more power is your best bet. Good luck! 😊

[@leomathguy]

First! Love your videos, extremely underrated channel

[@DrippyPootis]

For the takeoff, if you want to use a rail launcher, I saw this idea where someone made a rail launcher that used physical electronic contacts on the car holding the plane to switch electromagnets to make a sort of railgun plane launcher; it worked really well in their tests and also if you want that visual appeal it looked pretty awesome.

[@fabrilabcommunications4305]

There is a bunch of excellent design on this. Keep at it. I bet you get it flying well!

[@mikevegeto1101]

This is sick, awesome project

[@ErikPelyukhno]

Every nation is scrambling to become more self sufficient with developing their own drones with high performance and low cost. You’re tapping into a growing market!

[@unstoppablee361]

What did you major in the university? Btw I like those stuff keep the good work

[@dashs2597]

Aero eng & rc enthusiast here. First of all, dope project. Second of all, I think your solution ideas will work. The issue you have is a result of your tail fins being too small; look into tail volume coefficients to size them. Also, I’m sure you already know this, but CG should be located right abt quarter chord on the main wing or more forward. Further forward it is, higher cruise speed will be. Finally, make sure your TWR is above ~0.5, higher the better. Good luck!

[@1kreature]

A proper check for COG/COL seems to be in order as well as calculating the stall speed. The way it "glided" (or how it didn't glide) when thrown seemed to indicate something is seriously off with these factors.

[@gsfjohndoe]

Why do you use lidar for altitude keeping rather than GPS or barometric pressure?

[@DVRGNT]

Future TERCOM module?

[@budgetdrift6403]

Dude this is so fucking cool I’ve been waiting for someone to make something like this for awhile!!!!!

[@hugocollector]

Love it. You’re my guy.

[@gazorbpazorbian]

I feel offended and betrayed on how youtube hasn't suggested me this channel before

[@MRblazedBEANS]

So this is where the New Jersey drones are coming from!!!

[@senorjp21]

Extremely ambitious extremely cool project

[@rustlerboi1052]

Several things. The main fuselage planform area is relatively large compared to the wing planform area. Increase wing planform area or decrease fuselage planform area. Be sure CoG is at the quarter chord of the wings. Reduce takeoff weight or increase wing planform area/wingpspan. Also might literally not have enough thrust to maintain a high enough cruising speed, or take off.

[@TheRocketN00b]

How have I not seen this channel before???

[@futureaerospace7229]

I think a rail launcher would be the best idea since the final design is going to be launched from a silo It would allow you to test the wing deployment system in the earlier phases of development Also it would be interesting

[@Steve-nz6ek]

Wow, what a project! Making this completely by yourself is impressive.

[@thomgizziz]

No, not really. I have seen people make smaller versions of this in days and it worked the first time... this is actually a piss poor showing with how many tools and how much info is available he should have had some success, he literally grasped failure from the jaws of victory.

[@Steve-nz6ek]

@@thomgizziz Get a life! I'll wait for your video of a better one that works first time. Doubt you could even CAD the design.

[@manin10]

I've built several small drones. A way to get a better idea of speed and handling it from the sunroof af a car. You lose a lot of thrush by having a centreline engine with a NACA duct intake. I'd go for two externally mounted engines (like a bizjet). and more conventional controls. Yours looks like a rocket without the power of a rocket!

[@larryslobster7881]

crazy work, look into hot wired foam wings with CF spars should help mass a lot

[@dimoichi5841]

My honest suggestion, If you have the ability to print in CF, that would be much lighter, stronger, and gives decent flexibility overall. Rocket assist, bunge launch, or ait cannon style launch like an aircraft carrier launchers. They use high pressure steam, you can do the same thing on a much smaller scale and use high pressure compressed air with a rapid dump valve.

[@x_sable2308]

i am certain this man builds a missile and then sits and thinks for like 30 minutes about how to make it seem like its for amateur rocketry(i would do the same)

[@x_sable2308]

also: i would make it a stealthier cross section and put the inlet on the top.....ermmm i mean make it a lifting body and put the inlet on top to avoid FOD

[@darkslatesky]

Keep up the good works

[@nox6559]

hi love your work. I agree weight so also check center of gravity. Next Air intake might be a reason normal airplanes and drones have an air intake that points forward? I am not stating that your solution might drag the rear of the drone down but checking might be a good idea. Try hanging the drone in some strings to find the center and look at the power profile while its relative stationary. I am looking forward to see you next video.

[@divgill6062]

rail launch makes the most sense to me, especially if the final idea is to launches using rocket motors. Rail launch will get you that high take off speed which the rocket motor will also give you. Lighteining the payload offcourse helps a lot but then you are not really doing full testing of your control system when your payload isn't there. You want to tune your control system with full payload (gimbals moving around creating moments that need to be resisted, all the inertia of the payload batteries messing with response times). Also rail launch is cool

[@janindujanindu7928]

Same thing happend to me with the edf .Something sucked in and crushed it's blades. Good thing is KT boad protected me .If it didn't I lost my eye that day.Also I think hatchet need more thrust. That EDF isn't enough.

[@gustavskavacs9991]

All ideas does sound legit. I have flown aircraft that was unlaunchable from they landing gears using a launcher, but I would suggest finding a friend with a drone to launch it from high altitude, but I understand if thats not an option. Further I'd suggest doing a test model, basically the same thing with a prop, because the Edfs are often way worse for slow speed scenarios.aybe getting a simple prop Infront or aft would be a good test bed, that would also take away the need for a launcher. Good luck and thank you for the video!

[@jeffrapp7278]

Amazing😊

[@kilo_kilo]

Great video, you really need to yeet that thing hard because the EDF won't have enough static thrust to get something so heavy moving from a standstill.

[@Twangaming]

Excellent as always

[@onsitevideoservices9552]

You have a really high wing load, which puts your stall speed upwards of 40 mph, plus. I can see it’s slightly tail heavy and will make the controls sluggish once you get above stall speed. Thrust from ducted fans are slow in coming up to speed, but if you got this flying in it’s current state your are looking at minimums speeds of 80-120 mph. This would make an insane rocket boost glider using a G or an H in the booster stage and easily could handle rocket motor speeds of 200 mph+. For now, I would rebuild a prototype as a glider with a 5” pusher prop on a 2200Kv+ motor and no payload using the tube, current wings, and V tail control. Then you can work out the weight & balance and have controls that you can keep up with while figuring out how to fly it, and it will survive all ground hits as you figure it out. Once you have a light weight prototype like that is working and you piloting skills up to par, you can begin to add the more complex elements in. You could scale up in size and keep the wing load down and have slower flight speeds, otherwise it will be scary fast and you will need a very large area to test in.

[@jbmodparts4562]

Super cool! Looks like it could use ailerons, and definitely making it lighter will help the most, but it also seems tail heavy.

[@BionicTrone]

I think the problem is the weight distribution in the body content and enough power for the engine, aerodynamic accuracy etc... but I like it. Don't forget the rear wings they are very small, they are suitable for rocket concepts and not the planes.😅

[@johnschoolfield9339]

You've correctly diagnosed that you don't have enough tail area. You need to triple or quadruple it at least. (btw, the lingo is "V" tail rather than a "Y" tail) V-tails are good solutions to the tail strike problem. Also, you're tail heavy. Ecalc is a good starting point to get you in the general ballpark, but don't blindly trust the numbers it gives you. Another thing to consider is, your EDF inlet is under the tail. So you are sucking air up into the fan, which will produce a downward force, giving a pitch up input with increased throttle. In low speed, high thrust regimes, you'll be relying a lot on your thrust vectoring to counter the pitch up tendency from the inlet. Notice, on each launch, the nose pitched up and the plane rolled over. This suggests you are tail heavy, exacerbated by the force from the inlet. This leads to a tip stall, rolling the plane over. Additionally, your control fins could be inducing a roll moment if they are not perfectly aligned. But this would be small because they are so close to the axis of rotation. I saw a comment in the comments about adding ailerons. I would second that comment. Ailerons will make your life a lot easier. Get your control surfaces as far from the axis of rotation as possible. This also allows you to correct for any twist in the wing. (notice the plane always rolled to the left. I would guess that the left wing has a higher angle of attack than the right. So the left wing stalls first, causing the plane to roll violently to the left)

[@anricedeybat]

Every time I have seen an R/C plane or glider 'launched' it is, for lack of a better description, pulled into the air from a point forward of its center of gravity. Where as, unless I missed it, these attempts always looked to be pushed from the very back. Other potential issues aside, I would give this version another go and hold it forward of the wings when launching and see if it can just glide in a relatively stable manner. Interesting vid as always.

[@Biokemist-o3k]

Why are you not trying 2 stroke engines like we use in remote control airplanes and helicopters.. It is almost like they have not crossed over to liquid fuel...Thanks for sharing---John