aerial photos

A friend of mine, David Lussey (who founded Softswitch/Peratech) made an aerial photography rig out of a large, slow model aircraft about 20 years ago. He mounted a standard 35mm Nikon F (rugged and cheap second hand at the time) with a 200 exposure bulk film pack and used a timer to trigger exposures at preset intervals such that at the model's altitude of about 200ft he got 50% frame overlap. It was mainly used for photographing large houses and grounds Kites were tried but without success (never enough wind when you needed it and a tenancy to crash) as were blimps (too much wind for them). Model helicopter was useless as far too much vibration and also difficult to fly. The large slow model was the best choice.

For commercial aerial photography from model aircraft CAA authorisation is required

formatting link
results from the model were good and far better than vastly more expensive video dowlinked equipment of the time. Controlling the aircraft was quite easy, there was no navigation equipment in it - it was just done by eye.

I would have thought the same idea - a large, stable, model with a downward looking digital camera , big memory card and timer would work as well. GPS info could locate the aircraft track either by using a stand alone gps as a track logger or using a camera with a GPS interface to record position from a stand alone receiver to EXIF data on each image.

The new Nikon P6000 weighs about 8 oz and has a built in GPS receiver as well as IR remote trigger so looks idea for the job.

formatting link
may also have a time lapse setting so no external trigger would be needed)

The advantage of keeping the images in the aircraft is of course vastly better image quality than you could achieve on a downlink. With about 250 photos per battery that would give more than enough coverage and the geotagging would enable you to know the aircraft position when the photo was taken.

Assume

Reply to
Peter Parry
Loading thread data ...

Yes: currently we tend to use electric aircraft as they can both be lower vibration initially, and also the motor can be completely stopped and restarted.

This is not hard on a large model up to about 1000 meters..beyond that its hard tpo tell which way its pointing. My colleague who does this more, has a GPS system, but ts not always reliable. Last time he had to peer hard at the video to identify where it had come down..

People are now actually using software to gyro stabilise and send the model to a given GPS point, and return fron it. Landings are normally done under manual control.

But for most purposes its enough to find a patch of ground within a kilometer of where you want to photo, send it up and take a succession of shots and come back under manual control.

formatting link
(it may also have a time lapse setting so no external trigger would be

The weight is no issue: I am currently designing an 8ft span plane that could in theory carry around 4-6lb of payload. Will be avialable as a balsa kit in due course.

Probably around £300-£500 for the airframe motor and RC equipment and batteries and chargers..

formatting link

I expect around 45 minutes or more from my aircraft.

Google multiplex Easy Star for what my friend uses..boy it is ugly..has head up display gear bolted on, but it flies.

And takes videos for miles around.

formatting link
might be worth reading.

>
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I seem to miss a lot of posts recently. A lot of those I'm sending out are vanishing too. Methinks the news server is playing up again. :(

Reply to
Alang

electric one can lift the camera. I'm fascinated by the camera with gps but cannot afford it. I've been cycling around with a gps mapmaking and it would be a good aide memoire.

One of the recreational uses of the common is model flying but all the guys I knew at the club are departed. I'll have to re acquaint myself, mind forty five years ago I only kept a control line model in the air for a few seconds before things got expensive.

AJH

Reply to
AJH

Wots that?

AJH

Reply to
AJH

For my use a kite may work but my mate wants to be more versatile so I think something powered and hand launched would be more his style.

AJH

Reply to
AJH

formatting link

Reply to
Spamlet

ps. Check out programme contributor Chris Going's site too:

formatting link

Reply to
Spamlet

Standard survey / mapping methodology for vegetation communities. TBH if you are trying to track vegetation community change (ie, is this sphagnum bog shrinking or growing) then hammering a bit of steel rebar into the ground and going back with a metal detector every year or two may be a better way to do it. Other than that I suspect that kite aerial photography is going to be the cheapest you can get, but I suspect if you can't DIY it, it'll still be a £200-£300 job to pay for a pro's time and mileage.

Reply to
Doki

MikroKopter/Quadrokopter - 4 rotor gyro stabilized copter. not a lot like a heli. can be launched from your hand and land back in it

formatting link
footage it can take
formatting link

hands-off hovering - impressive!!

formatting link
seem to be developed in germany.

Phil

Reply to
Phil Addison

The asking price is several thousand us dollars, so he is going to research a D-I-Y method. Size isn't a big issue but it looks like hand launching is necessary. Given that doesn't it make sense to land by circling a spot, killing the motor and dropping by parachute?

Fine but don't you need to allow for the camera to have time to go through a shoot and store cycle? I was thinking it would need to move over the target in a series of overlapping circles.

Can you guess on a maximum payload for a model with 10 minute flight duration? What wingspan would that need?

AJH

>
Reply to
AJH

Quite a few large models are quite happy to hand launch. You just need a low stall speed and reasonable power.

With a low stall speed you can afford to let it stall land. Parachute for a model isn't reliable and vertical impact velocities often exceed stall land ones. If its is to hand launch a boat form hull and no undercarriage on the air vehicle will give it good engine off landing characteristics in grass and foliage (but not trees!).

For most reasonable cameras that doesn't exceed a few seconds. At the altitude and flight speed you should be looking at that won't be an issue.

The usual pattern is parallel tracks - for vertical imagery it makes orienting the images much simpler than spiral. It also allows the airframe to remain level, circling involves banking and compensating for the bank angle which increases as the circle radius decreases.

Parallel track also allows for easy interpolated GPS positioning. Before flight synchronise the camera clock with a cheap stand alone GPS receiver in the airframe (or note the offset) . After flight the GPS track is downloaded and position/time points noted. The EXIF data on the digital photos stores time and correlating with the GPS track data gives you the approximate position of the air vehicle for each photo. Establishing the position of a few landmarks accurately on the ground gives you check points.

Reply to
Peter Parry

Its not really necessary. If you want to parachute down vertically just use 'crow' braking. Essentially full inboard flaps DOWN and both ailerons UP.

Most gliders come down at about 45 degree angle ...and a couple of mph.

Dunno, My nikon will shoot 5 frames a second..

Well the 8 footer I am working on should be able to stay up for the best part off an hour and carry 3-5lb easily. So a full blown 12Mpx digital SLR with autofocus is definitely possible. I was at the biggest model show of the year toady, and theres an onboard video camera for 45 quid..good enough for broadast standards anyway. Couple of oz..

To stay up longer, add more battery!

Seriously, airframes are no problem - plenty of large load carrying models exist..the trickier part is the GPS and auto stabilisation stuff.

Gyros exist and are cheap, and they can keep a model straight and more or less level through mild turbulence..I am less sure how a GPS is used to steer the model on a given track. And maintain a given altitude. If GPS can give you altitude position and heading, then its not too hard to do the rest with a small microcontroller.

Must have a go sometime...

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

GPS does provide all that but with a several metre error, though with a bit of averaging you can probably get it all down a metre or so. Altitude is above MSL not the local ground and is not quite as good as position. I think that down to the model that GPS uses for the shape of the globe.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

formatting link
sure how you interface it through a micro to control the model

Reply to
Kevin

formatting link
"RC Groups > Aircraft - General > Aerial Photography The aerial photography forum contains information on how to do AP using RC models."

formatting link
"Gallery - Post your AP web sites here List your web site and cameras used. AWSOME talent!!!"

Reply to
Phil Addison

Raw GPS altitude is the users' distance from the centre of the space vehicles orbits. The receiver usually has a rough geodetic model of the earth and corrects against this so the displayed altitude is more against the WGS84 spheroid rather than AMSL. The NMEA specification calls for altitude referenced to AMSL and some receivers incorporate a secondary correction lookup table for NMEA data output (and sometimes displayed value) however this is far from universal. SiRF chipsets in particular have ignored or mangled the geoid separation differently in various versions.

In the UK this error is about 10m (If I remember correctly). Altitude accuracy is never better than 1.5 x horizontal error and frequently very much worse. It's down to the satellite geometry. The WGS 84 spheroid and either Airy ellipsoid or real world differences are not significant.

GPS altitude really cannot be reliably used for height maintenance for a low flying model as it can vary considerably from second to second if satellites with different configurations are chosen by the receiver during flight (for example when turning).

Reply to
Peter Parry

The message from "Dave Liquorice" contains these words:

I have been using hand held GPSs for walking for a number of years now and have also used one for in-car navigation before I got a dedicated one for that purpose. The gps readout for speed doesn't fluctuate and if the specification is to be believed is much more accurate than a car speedo. (Can't find the destructions atm but I think the accuracy is +/-

0.5 mph). The positional accuracy is much less accurate but the recorded track shows that errors can be constant for considerable periods and vary only slowly as different satellites are picked up.

As Peter says height errors are at least 1.5 times horizontal errors but some modern GPSs include an averaging function and others rely to a certain extent on barometric altimeters, but the later have their own problems in gusty weather. (But would you want to fly a model plane in such circumstances?) Perhaps the hardest problem with using a gps is getting the information out in a usable format. :-)

Reply to
Roger

This is usually the easy bit - most GPS units output both a proprietary (and usually fairly useless) data stream but also a 4800 baud text stream on a two wire serial link in NMEA format

formatting link
.

Reply to
Peter Parry

15 meters is good enough to do survey work: you would normally be at around 100 meters plus anyway. So +-15% is no big deal.

Have a look here

formatting link
what is being developed.

I also found a module with an air pressure sensor that would enable even better altitude accuracy.

formatting link

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.