Hi-Performance and Sailplanes RC hotliners, electric pylon racers, F5B, F5D, sailplanes and gliders

Super high altitude (100,000+ feet) glider

Old 05-20-2010, 03:36 AM
  #26  
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
 
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,883
Default

I'm thinking that the jet stream is 100mph. The boundary layers above and below would have turbulence that would rip anything extremely lightweight into quarter sized pieces of debris. It's possible that something built for dynamic soaring might stand a chance. But the longer the wings the more mechanical advantage that turbulence has to tear your aircraft apart.

As was said earlier, even a 1:1 glide ratio would give you enormous latitude for picking a place to land. I would think that you could get somewhere around 10:1 with a high speed configuration with relatively stubby wings, perhaps proportioned about twice the Space Shuttle's wingspan to length ratio, and still have enormous strength to deal with the immense aerodynamic forces that might be expected entering and leaving the jet stream and in any thunderheads you might be forced to encounter.
Rockin Robbins is offline  
Old 05-20-2010, 05:53 AM
  #27  
MadMonkey
OOGA BOOGA
 
MadMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, TX
Posts: 370
Default

Since the thread is still going on I'll post this...

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/...-money-budget/

This low-budget project hit 93k feet and landed 20 miles away from the launch site. I'd say with a little planning, an aircraft would have little trouble coming all the way home.

Man, I might have to try this one day...
MadMonkey is offline  
Old 05-20-2010, 07:45 AM
  #28  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,121
Default

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins View Post
I'm thinking that the jet stream is 100mph. The boundary layers above and below would have turbulence that would rip anything extremely lightweight into quarter sized pieces of debris.
I'm not thinking of gossamer light indoor duration type models, just ordinary light weight thermal/duration type freeflight gliders. These are despite their light weight actually very strong.

I don’t think turbulence should be a big issue, providing you picked a suitable launch time and site taking weather and atmospheric conditions into consideration. For starters the ascent vehicle is a fragile balloon.. If violent turbulence was the norm then that would get ripped to bits before it even got up to altitude.. Second it's been done already; NASA put the incredibly fragile Helios up to about 100,000 ft

Last point is that the glider would HAVE to be very lightweight otherwise the balloon could not lift it to the required altitude. This is a private project on a very limited budget. Vast balloons which would be needed to lift a heavy model to over 100,000 ft would be out of the question.

Steve
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 05-20-2010, 03:31 PM
  #29  
cynic
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Default

Actually I was gone but got a posting alert so I'm back.

Not sure if you guys saw the second launch using a much smaller gumstix computer and an HD video camera. http://icbnn.wordpress.com/2009/01/0...ch-number-two/ My math indicates the flight topped out at about 125,000 feet. The primary GPS failed due to RF interference. Antennas shifted on a rough launch and thank goodness for the backup GPS! You can also see the parachute failed due to the failure of a cut away circuit; the balloon fragments got wrapped into the parachute. Thanks goodness for the tree!

You can see a snippet of the video here - [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PD0GHcK5-Y[/media]The balloon pops at 6 minutes and 20 seconds. I thought that it was cool that the falls starts out silent and you pick up wind noise as it re-enters the denser atmosphere.

Anyway... I'm still tinkering with the idea of a glider. I might try to rebuild the flight system using an arduino board to reduce power consumption and weight. I've bought the boards but just haven't put it all together yet.

I've been reading on ardupilot - http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/ardupilot-main-page

This is a system that could control a glider or a rocket motor mounted to a gimbal. Gyros are a no go as gyroscopic drift would be a real problem so thermopile sensors are what I plan to use.

So yeah... I could use some help! Aomeone want to volunteer to build a glider that can house a small HD camera, has large wings to support stable flight from 100,000 to ~250,000 ? I'd like the glider to be boosted with a rocket. Maybe the rocket is a better way to go.

I've gone back and forth between an amateur rocket build and small glider to boost the flight close to 100KM. See what happens when your wife says "go ahead, build your own satellite" and rolls her eyes

Oh yeah... and the mach number is not a problem. Well unless I go with a rocket. Then I'd be pushing a top speed of 4000MPH and run into COCOM limits on the GPS. Its complicated but I've been thinking on it for two years now. I also need to keep the total payload to under 10 pounds. 6 pounds would be ideal. Baby steps and hide the receipts from my wife

Edit - One other thing. I have built a small vacuum chamber complete with a reversed bicycle pump. I can drop the pressure to -29 inches which is close to conditions at 100,000 I've not fired off an APCP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammoniu...ite_propellant) motor inside yet but I have done igniter tests which look promising. I'm pretty sure the APCP booster motors will ignite and burn in the near vacuum but wanted to make sure. I'll post a video when I get round to doing a test burn next week.

Last edited by cynic; 05-20-2010 at 04:22 PM.
cynic is offline  
Old 05-20-2010, 08:09 PM
  #30  
Octavius
Alien Surfer
 
Octavius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 675
Default

Wow, cool video. Question: How do you locate and recover the camera and how far was it from the launch point?

It would be nice (for the viewer) if you could figure out how to make it not spin.
Octavius is offline  
Old 05-20-2010, 09:17 PM
  #31  
cynic
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Default

Tracking is via voice communications with an SMS backup.

Yeah... the spinning needs to stop. You should see the whole video.
cynic is offline  
Old 05-21-2010, 11:32 AM
  #32  
ArneH
Balsa Builder
 
ArneH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Baerum Norway
Posts: 303
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by cynic View Post
Actually I was gone but got a posting alert so I'm back.

Not sure if you guys saw the second launch using a much smaller gumstix computer and an HD video camera. .
Interesting project. Please stay here to keep the readers updated about this adventure.
ArneH is offline  
Old 05-21-2010, 10:36 PM
  #33  
Old Tin Man
Member
 
Old Tin Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 123
Default

Man that is one of the very coolest videos that I have seen in a while. I know that I am new here but I would also like to see where your project goes.
Old Tin Man is offline  
Old 05-21-2010, 11:15 PM
  #34  
ArneH
Balsa Builder
 
ArneH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Baerum Norway
Posts: 303
Default

I was thinking of a smaller durable Discus Launch Glider type. Made of the modern composite materials. Something like this maybe:



They are light,and can be launched by the balloon. They also have good lift. Just thinking.
ArneH is offline  
Old 05-21-2010, 11:48 PM
  #35  
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
 
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,883
Default

OK, seeing the NASA solar project I'm convinced this is possible with what we do. I think the DLG wouldn't be able to hold the amount of equipment needed but the construction techniques are bang on. Composite is the way to go.

I like where this thing is headed. Now the FAA will have to rear its ugly head and regulations have to be investigated. If NASA can do it then it can be done. Just have to identify the hoops and jump through them...

Hey has anyone thought that by using a nose hook like a towed glider, the glider might become the stabilizer eliminating spin for the photography from the balloon?
Rockin Robbins is offline  
Old 05-22-2010, 03:53 AM
  #36  
cynic
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Default

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins View Post
OK, seeing the NASA solar project I'm convinced this is possible with what we do. I think the DLG wouldn't be able to hold the amount of equipment needed but the construction techniques are bang on. Composite is the way to go.

I like where this thing is headed. Now the FAA will have to rear its ugly head and regulations have to be investigated. If NASA can do it then it can be done. Just have to identify the hoops and jump through them...

Hey has anyone thought that by using a nose hook like a towed glider, the glider might become the stabilizer eliminating spin for the photography from the balloon?
I think the spinning was due in part to tension on the string between the balloon and payload.

Yes it MUST be composite. Nothing else in my price range will work.

Ultimately I'd like to have the glider fitted with a small APCP rocket motor(s) to boost the glider well beyond 100,000 feet.

If the glider could be made to be dynamically stable throughout a boost phase. For example... Given X thrust I'd calculate a nose up pitch angle of Y and a climb rate of Z then I might be able to get by with no active stabilization systems on board and rely on an altitude read on descent to activate a parachute and stop the glide.

I'd also tinkered with the idea of a stabilized (not guided ) rocket. Using thermopile sensors I could control a a gimbal mounted motor.

My calculations show drag to be pretty close to zero. I'm not sure which is better. A rocket or a glider. Still thinking.

Really I need to get the arduino system built. That should save on weight.
cynic is offline  
Old 05-22-2010, 04:35 AM
  #37  
Larry3215
Look out for that tree!!!
 
Larry3215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gig Harbor, Wa USA
Posts: 7,061
Default

I think your correct on the cause of the spinning. Maybe try using two or three strings attached at slightly different points. That should eliminate the coiling and uncoiling of the single string.
Larry3215 is offline  
Old 05-22-2010, 04:47 AM
  #38  
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
 
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,883
Default

OK, then you could just dispense with the balloon altogether! http://www.ddeville.com/derek/CSXT.htm


Lol. I thought your main aim was controlled return all the way to a chosen spot on earth. Guess I misread your real goal there.

You've already got 130k feet from a balloon alone. What's the gain from a rocket? Now with the glider, you couldn't go Mach 5. You'd have to have a long duration, relatively low impulse burn to get any reasonable increase in altitude. The rocket would end up being many times larger than the glider, which wouldn't necessarily be a problem.
Rockin Robbins is offline  
Old 05-22-2010, 01:06 PM
  #39  
ArneH
Balsa Builder
 
ArneH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Baerum Norway
Posts: 303
Default

There has been several gliders fitted with a rocket engine trough the history. So the concept is well known. But jet or rocket engines are expensive, if you don't make them your self then.
The little Messerschmidt 163 is a rocket powered glider. Maybe something like this?
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	me163.jpg
Views:	203
Size:	2.8 KB
ID:	128318  
ArneH is offline  
Old 05-22-2010, 07:29 PM
  #40  
Huffy01
Huffy01
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

NASA was experimenting with something called a "Lifting body" aircraft, I think it could have been in the 50's or 60's.
It was launched from the B-52 mothership and had powered and un-powered versions.
If you look in the aeronautics section www.nasa.gov you can see the prototype models launched from a RC mothership.
Huffy01 is offline  
Old 05-23-2010, 02:23 AM
  #41  
cynic
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Default

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins View Post

Lol. I thought your main aim was controlled return all the way to a chosen spot on earth. Guess I misread your real goal there.

You've already got 130k feet from a balloon alone. What's the gain from a rocket? Now with the glider, you couldn't go Mach 5. You'd have to have a long duration, relatively low impulse burn to get any reasonable increase in altitude. The rocket would end up being many times larger than the glider, which wouldn't necessarily be a problem.
I agree. I have no clear goal. Well, to put something into space is my goal I guess. And then from there orbit and obviously a moon base from which I build an army so that I can extort 1 million dollars from the UN.

But seriously, ardupilot on a free flying glider would be pretty cool. Anybody here tinkered with that?
cynic is offline  
Old 06-01-2010, 10:49 PM
  #42  
DragonWeezel
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 144
Default Whats really bad is how some of you treated this guy

Here is a guy who has been cleared for permission to launch some pretty High scale balloons. There was an article about him recently because NASA wanted to know how he got those pictures. Did yall look at those?

He did a lot with off the shelf parts.

His goal? Not much different than many of ours.

Basically all us boys have the same goal. see how far a paper airplane can fly when you release it from somewhere "REALLY" tall.

He's just going stratopheric on yall. Same thing, different scale, and he knows how to get permission.

I like the autopilot Idea, combined w/a few gyros to keep it at a perfect glide attitude. I bet you stay up for 3 days. Longer if you can teach the AP to ride thermals! Lots of stuff in the UAV section.

and there is this guy too: http://diydrones.com/ Which might help you out, but you've already seen that. Somehow I missed a whole page of this thread

Good luck!

Last edited by DragonWeezel; 06-01-2010 at 11:41 PM. Reason: addition.
DragonWeezel is offline  
Old 06-01-2010, 11:07 PM
  #43  
Octavius
Alien Surfer
 
Octavius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 675
Default

1 million-bazillion-fafilion-zubidu-zillion?
Octavius is offline  
Old 06-04-2010, 09:47 PM
  #44  
cynic
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Default

Hmmmm.... It looks like a glider using ardupliot to return to me may run afoul of FAA rules without a waiver. Sigh... would be a cool project. Maybe I'll build it and make a road trip to Canada for launch It's a shame. The whole thing would weigh less than 4 pounds so it's not much of a hazard to anything.
cynic is offline  
Old 06-13-2010, 10:51 PM
  #45  
cynic
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Default

Ok guys. I am in the correct place and I need some help.

I did some tests this afternoon to confirm that an APCP rocket motor will in fact ignite in a vacuum. It will

I've settled on using either Ardupilot or the FMA co-pilot for active stabilization. My rocket glider will not be guided so I think that takes care of FAA rules on UAVs and line of sight.

The plan is to pull the glider with camera to approximately 130,000 via a balloon. At that altitude the glider will separate from the balloon and small APCP rocket motors will push the glider up another 50,000 feet or so. Ardupilot will provide stabilization during the boost phase and a short glide phase after burnout. At some altitude prior to hitting the jet stream on the way down I will deploy a parachute to stop the glide and prevent the thing from landing too far away.

I'll track it in flight using a separate telemetry system that I've built and tested.

So my question is:

What kind of glider do I want? I may look for wing design software. I may look at a simple ARF foam RC aircraft. Suggestions? High wing loading and glider like aspect ratio?

Something cheap. I'm already into this project for waaaaayyy too much $$.

Thanks!
cynic is offline  
Old 06-13-2010, 11:43 PM
  #46  
Rockin Robbins
Super Contributor
 
Rockin Robbins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 1,883
Default

Well, it's time to calculate landing zones for different glide ratios. All depends on how long you have to chase it before you run out of land! You were already 1/3 of the way across Florida, so...

I can't wait to see what you come up with and how it turns out!
Rockin Robbins is offline  
Old 06-14-2010, 12:26 AM
  #47  
ArneH
Balsa Builder
 
ArneH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Baerum Norway
Posts: 303
Default

There are a lot of gliders to choose from. Need to now the size of the glider,and what materials preferred. Also need to know how much room there must be in the fuselage to install the electronic equipment and camera. I don't think you need a complicated big glider. But it must be a durable model. Now it is time to search the marked for simple solid, not so expensive gliders.
And give it some days, and i think we will come up with a suitable model. Maybe a EPP foam glider?
ArneH is offline  
Old 06-14-2010, 03:26 AM
  #48  
cynic
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Default

I need to have enough room to install a canon digital camera. Two arduino micro-controller boards. See the attached image for a size reference.

There will also be a backup SMS /GPS comm system. This is about about the size of a small cell phone. Then I will have batteries, think the size of two 9 volt batteries. Finally, a radio for communicating telemetry. See the attached picture although it has been stripped down to just a circuit board.

Oh yes... I'll need to bundle a small parachute to be deployed that will terminate the glide.

As for preferred materials. Foam is light and insulates electronics. Temperatures will plummet to as low as -60.

Expected weights follow:
Total weight on my payload should be about 750 grams.
Weight for APCP motors - 375 grams
Total - 1125 grams

I really need the total weight which includes payload, motors and glider to be under 6 pounds (2700 grams)

If I can keep the glider to 1000 grams that would be ideal.

One more important note - I need controllable ailerons and elevator surfaces. The glider will be a free flight glider but it will be actively stabilized for level flight and a pitch angle relative to the horizon that is Vy (Best rate of climb) Essentially, the pitch where the sum of induced and parasitic drag are lowest. As a rtesult of the active stabilization the glider does not have to be perfectly balanced. Just controllable.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	arduino_1.jpg
Views:	213
Size:	61.5 KB
ID:	130331   Click image for larger version

Name:	cobra.JPG
Views:	184
Size:	81.7 KB
ID:	130332  
cynic is offline  
Old 06-14-2010, 07:24 AM
  #49  
DragonWeezel
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 144
Default A boosted glider

could be Epp Foam, but would end up being reinforced by fiber glass or strapped tape. I think even something like the Radian if you took out the motor, prop, & batteries, and installed what you need, probably would be a simillar weight. You'd have room for your two boards, and Locator, and it could still carry more. No ailerons though, it's rudder and elevator.

You'll need some rough calculations on drag at that altitude.

What speed would the plane need to attain to hit that extra 50K mark? Anyone know what the effective drag is on a radian @ 40mph during a loop? <-- that's where the radian usually fails, but there wont' be so much air on it, nor should you be pulling G's in any direction but "backward." So if you aren't going over that limit, my guess is you could use a small foam plane.

I imagine that you'd climb fast during boost because you'll already be so far up, have less drag making it that much easier on the plane to move fast. But a burning motor will burn foam or a monocoat covered wood glider. You'd have to mount the motors on the outside bottom of the wings, getting alignment "just right."

I do have an old ABX fuselage somewhere, but it's probably too damaged / draggy for this. Those wings can hold a ton though.

You could also set up a stryker if you can eject the motors to keep weight down. People have rocket boosted those all over youtube. And it glides very well.

I can't wait to hear more.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGZhwGEoGDE[/media]
DragonWeezel is offline  
Old 06-14-2010, 02:32 PM
  #50  
cynic
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Default

Yeah.... There are two approaches here. One is to figure out how to use wing design software or an airfoil selector of some sort.

The other (which pretty well follows my design methodology so far) is to figure out which prebuilt foam (light and easy to cut payload bays into) RC airplane or glider weighs round about 1000 grams and is cheap enough.

I'm still taking suggestions

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/atmosi.html

The glider will weigh in about 1000 grams. Payload will be just under that. Motors will be almost 400 grams and provide an average of two pound of thrust. I may stage them such that I get a continuous two pounds of thrust for 30 seconds.
cynic is offline  

Quick Reply: Super high altitude (100,000+ feet) glider


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.17511 seconds with 14 queries