Close

The Likely Suspect...

A project log for Goliath - A Gas Powered Quadcopter

A BIG Gas Powered Quadcopter

peter-mccloudPeter McCloud 06/26/2015 at 19:086 Comments

The last few tests have shown that under full power Goliath was unable to produce enough thrust to lift itself. Analysis shows that Goliath should have sufficient power to lift itself, but it's difficult to say why Goliath is not hovering without additional data on the actual thrust and engine power being produced. The electronics for measuring the thrust produced is almost complete. Measuring the engine power requires measuring the engine RPM and a hall effect sensor is being installed that will be triggered by the magnet on the flywheel.

Meanwhile the design analysis has been revisited again to make sure there wasn't something's that been missed. The power required calculations were shown to be sound, so a closer look was at the propeller design was next.

Originally when designing the shape of the propellers, analysis was performed using simplified blade element theory. This consisted of some code borrowed from a Matlab code that I got from a University of Cambridge website. An attempt to make a spreadsheet out of this was unsatisfactory and Prop Designer was tried instead. Aircraft propellers and helicopter rotors work on the same principle, but operate in different regimes. Since the hover condition (static thrust) was the design condition for Goliath, Prop Designer gave an answer, but the software warned it may not be a good answer. With the deadline for the 2014 Hackaday Prize looming, it was decided to push forward and design the propeller with an angle of attack at the maximum L/D of the airfoil to get an efficient design.

Taking a closer look at the propeller design required having a more accurate analysis. This time a python code was written to analyze the design and the issues encountered previously were resolved. While the new python code is giving the best results for the propeller design so far, it still needs to be validated with data. However if it is right, then the new analysis shows a reason why Goliath isn't flying and more importantly how I can change the design to get Goliath flying.

Below is a plot showing the predicted power curves for different propeller designs using the new code.

The current design has a angle varying from 20 degrees at the root to 12 degrees at the tip. The problem with the design could be that it produces too much thrust at lower RPMs. The predicted power is too much for the engine to get above 2400 RPM, limiting the power to 21 Hp. The predicted thrust is at this condition is 220 lbs. Goliath weighed 238 lbs when last tested, so this could be why Goliath isn't flying.

If this is indeed the case, then the fix is to lower the tip angle. The plot above shows 3 additional designs where the tip angle is decreased in increments of 2 degrees. The last design in the list has a tip angle of six degrees and looks to be the most promising. This design could allow the engine to run up to 3300 RPM generating 27 Hp and the predicted total thrust is 290 lbs which should provide more than sufficient thrust.

The next test will provide thrust data and possibly engine RPM data. This will help validate the software and provide a good path forward to get Goliath flying.

Discussions

romine.mark wrote 07/10/2015 at 00:17 point

If you are sure that you want to stay with a belt system instead of chains, you may want to consider shortening your belt lengths by adding an intermediate pulley junction. At the current lengths you are going to have to constantly readjust the tensioners and will be plagued with vibrations as the belts are torqued by throttling up and down. You could also increase the belt width to combat these vibrations. I would strongly recommend switching to chains with the aforementioned intermediate junction (with sprockets instead of pulleys). Finally, the propellers will need to have a larger diameter and a deeper profile, which it seems you are already looking into. This will increase the throttling torque variance on those belts.
Interesting 'sky mower'. Good luck!

  Are you sure? yes | no

Peter McCloud wrote 07/10/2015 at 19:43 point

Thanks for the input. I'll have to keep the pulley junctions in mind. Ideally, the tensioners should adjust to the changes in the system since they are spring loaded. The single-sided belt tensioner works well, but I haven't found an ideal configuration for the double-sided belt yet.  Wider belts would help, I've already had to switch from 20mm to 30mm wide belts. It's a matter of trading reliability for weight.  The next biggest width for 8mm pitch belts is 50 mm wide, so all of the pulleys would be approximately 60% heavier. 

The chains and sprockets aren't really an option for this project, however. In the details section, I have some information about why the chains won't work. Thanks for your interest in Goliath!

  Are you sure? yes | no

romine.mark wrote 07/10/2015 at 22:24 point

You may have already discussed this, but, be sure to plan on adding something to protect the belts from the prop wash to help with the vibrations. You might be able to use heat-shrink Mylar(used in RC model aircraft) to save on weight.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Josh wrote 06/29/2015 at 21:08 point

If the issue is truly an RPM mismatch issue, you can also change your gear ratios to accomplish the match. Simply draw a line across the chart above at the power level predicted to lift the craft, and look where it crosses the engine and prop graphs. This gives you 2 rpms that you can design a reduction gear ratio to manage. This is why you see small quad copters and mini planes that use the "pager vibrator" size motors with a tiny gear driving a large gear on the prop. 

For example: 
If you need all 30 Hp to lift, the engine must run at 3600 rpm and the current prop must run at 2700 rpm. So you need a pulley that allows the motor to run at a ratio of 3600:2700  or 4:3. 

The question becomes: is it easier to make new props with a lower pitch, or a new set of pulleys for the motor. 

  Are you sure? yes | no

Peter McCloud wrote 06/30/2015 at 18:45 point

A very good point.  Changing the gear ratio could accomplish the same thing.  I'll be keeping that in mind before I build any new hardware.

  Are you sure? yes | no

suicidal.banana wrote 06/29/2015 at 13:30 point

Cool to hear you've (on paper) overcome the lift issues, keep us posted :)

  Are you sure? yes | no