UAVs in engineering education
Moderator
Thread Starter
UAVs in engineering education
Last week, after a visit for other reasons, I got dragged into yet another university "UAV lab" - actually, like every other I've seen, it was basically a toy aeroplane workshop. Collections of lightweight foam vehicles, with a standard model engine and undercarriage, and a janet-and-john microprocessor autopilot.
And yet again, the academics were deeply enthusiastic about the benefits to the students, and the huge research opportunities.
Except that I just can't see it. I'm all in favour of university aeronautical engineering students getting some direct contact with hardware, getting them out of the lecture theatre and computer room. But, every single one of these setups I've seen is carefully ignoring...
- Realistic powerplant design.
- Any form of design certification
- Any formalised testing methodology
- Any form of design or configuration control
- Any manufacturing techniques we'd use in the real world.
- An obvious mission requirement
In other words, most of the big complexities that make *real* flight vehicles what they are.
So I end up, every time, concluding that these things are, just about every time, a bunch of academics playing with toys, and in doing so, deluding themselves that they understand real aeroplanes. I think that the only exception I've met that does come close to providing real educational benefits, is the Heavy Lift Challenge.
Or am I missing something?
G
And yet again, the academics were deeply enthusiastic about the benefits to the students, and the huge research opportunities.
Except that I just can't see it. I'm all in favour of university aeronautical engineering students getting some direct contact with hardware, getting them out of the lecture theatre and computer room. But, every single one of these setups I've seen is carefully ignoring...
- Realistic powerplant design.
- Any form of design certification
- Any formalised testing methodology
- Any form of design or configuration control
- Any manufacturing techniques we'd use in the real world.
- An obvious mission requirement
In other words, most of the big complexities that make *real* flight vehicles what they are.
So I end up, every time, concluding that these things are, just about every time, a bunch of academics playing with toys, and in doing so, deluding themselves that they understand real aeroplanes. I think that the only exception I've met that does come close to providing real educational benefits, is the Heavy Lift Challenge.
Or am I missing something?
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
woptb, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. But I think that if universities are going to participate in UAVs either educationally for their students or in a research context they'll have to do better than off-the-shelf toys bouncing off the walls.
Genghis,
Speaking as someone back at college 30 years after my first visit, what you have to appreciate is that most of the students have had precious little contact with things that actually fly.
For my parents' generation, test pilots were held in the same regard as footballers and other 'celebrities' and teenagers could identify the myriad of new aircraft types produced each year. My generation built Airfix models and a few built flying models. For the current lot, PC-based flight simulators are about as close as most get to flying.
I agree that it all seems a bit 'cart before the horse' to start with the platform and not the mission, but if the objective is to learn what the building blocks are for a UAV system, then the actual payload is secondary.
There are some organisations coming up with truly innovative UAV technology, but for now, anything that gets students 'hands-on' with something that actually flies is a big contribution to their education.
Its very easy for pilots (such as the bulk of the Pprune contributors) to get hung up on the airframe or engine design, but the hardware and software in the flight control and communications, as well as the payload, are the real challenge with UAVs. In fact, the lack of a 'See and Avoid' system, which is not reliant on transmissions from the other aircraft or object, is the biggest single issue preventing the widespread use of UAVs.
Everybody has to start somewhere, so making a UAV from off the shelf components to learn what can and can't be done is just the first step. Then students can move on to the clever stuff like this:
Ultimately what is needed is three or four year courses dedicated to all aspects of unmanned air systems, then the students will have a chance to progress beyond the basics.
As for:
The Desert Hawk, currently in use in Afganistan, uses technology very close to what you might find in your local model shop in it airframe and propulsion. It may not bear much resemblence to what came out of Kingston, Hatfield or Warton, but its one of the directions that aviation is going, like it or not.
Speaking as someone back at college 30 years after my first visit, what you have to appreciate is that most of the students have had precious little contact with things that actually fly.
For my parents' generation, test pilots were held in the same regard as footballers and other 'celebrities' and teenagers could identify the myriad of new aircraft types produced each year. My generation built Airfix models and a few built flying models. For the current lot, PC-based flight simulators are about as close as most get to flying.
I agree that it all seems a bit 'cart before the horse' to start with the platform and not the mission, but if the objective is to learn what the building blocks are for a UAV system, then the actual payload is secondary.
There are some organisations coming up with truly innovative UAV technology, but for now, anything that gets students 'hands-on' with something that actually flies is a big contribution to their education.
Its very easy for pilots (such as the bulk of the Pprune contributors) to get hung up on the airframe or engine design, but the hardware and software in the flight control and communications, as well as the payload, are the real challenge with UAVs. In fact, the lack of a 'See and Avoid' system, which is not reliant on transmissions from the other aircraft or object, is the biggest single issue preventing the widespread use of UAVs.
Everybody has to start somewhere, so making a UAV from off the shelf components to learn what can and can't be done is just the first step. Then students can move on to the clever stuff like this:
Ultimately what is needed is three or four year courses dedicated to all aspects of unmanned air systems, then the students will have a chance to progress beyond the basics.
As for:
Any manufacturing techniques we'd use in the real world
The Desert Hawk, currently in use in Afganistan, uses technology very close to what you might find in your local model shop in it airframe and propulsion. It may not bear much resemblence to what came out of Kingston, Hatfield or Warton, but its one of the directions that aviation is going, like it or not.
Last edited by Mechta; 12th Feb 2011 at 22:49.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mechta & Genghis
UAV's are the wave of the future. Designs vary in size from as big as a WWII fighter (maybe larger), to ones that are no bigger than a canary. Someone has to envision and design them. It is hard to believe that someone sits in a control room in Nebraska, USA piloting a UVA in Pakistan, but that is what is happening. Not only that, the USAF is hard pressed to come up with enough "pilots" to fly these things, they way they have had the position defined. Here is the latest for the US Navy. I think the world is passing us by, in a hurry
YouTube - Navy's new UAV, this thing looks very cool!!
Turbine D
UAV's are the wave of the future. Designs vary in size from as big as a WWII fighter (maybe larger), to ones that are no bigger than a canary. Someone has to envision and design them. It is hard to believe that someone sits in a control room in Nebraska, USA piloting a UVA in Pakistan, but that is what is happening. Not only that, the USAF is hard pressed to come up with enough "pilots" to fly these things, they way they have had the position defined. Here is the latest for the US Navy. I think the world is passing us by, in a hurry
YouTube - Navy's new UAV, this thing looks very cool!!
Turbine D
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: South Africa
Age: 56
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I did some hands on flying for a student last at a certain aviation University where they are not allowed to fly at the airfield they are based on. That is in itself madness.
I was surprised at just how far behind their projects were.
What the lad was trying to achive was a task set every year that I thought was interesting, in a project I am involved in that started from scratch last January we have replicated and gone past what he was trying to show. OpenPilot - Open Source UAV Platform
But then all these that are lead by scientists tend to lean towards functionality thats not needed in real world tasks.
CAP 722 is changing in April, so perhaps there will be some better guidance on build standards for people like me that are building sUAS for general consumption UK CAA to update CAP 722, April 2011 | sUAS News but basically below 20kg they are not going to look much more than a model aircraft.
You can do some pretty cool things with model planes these days.
Brayfield House Octo - Photosynth
Thats from last year and its not the images coming together thats interesting, its the point cloud you can make. There are now ways of geo referencing them and hey presto a 3D model made from standard photos.
Not Lidar standard yet...
I think it won't be the aviation side of universities that get excited about UAS, it will be the geographers.
I was surprised at just how far behind their projects were.
What the lad was trying to achive was a task set every year that I thought was interesting, in a project I am involved in that started from scratch last January we have replicated and gone past what he was trying to show. OpenPilot - Open Source UAV Platform
But then all these that are lead by scientists tend to lean towards functionality thats not needed in real world tasks.
CAP 722 is changing in April, so perhaps there will be some better guidance on build standards for people like me that are building sUAS for general consumption UK CAA to update CAP 722, April 2011 | sUAS News but basically below 20kg they are not going to look much more than a model aircraft.
You can do some pretty cool things with model planes these days.
Brayfield House Octo - Photosynth
Thats from last year and its not the images coming together thats interesting, its the point cloud you can make. There are now ways of geo referencing them and hey presto a 3D model made from standard photos.
Not Lidar standard yet...
I think it won't be the aviation side of universities that get excited about UAS, it will be the geographers.
Moderator
Thread Starter
I think that you chaps (two most recent posters) misunderstand me a bit - I don't disagree with the use of UAVs in engineering education, nor do I have a particular issue with the programmes to some extent being centred on the flight vehicle. After all, aeronautical engineers surely should be expected to put the flight vehicle first to a greater or lesser extent. Also, whilst I admit to finding manned vehicles a lot more fun, I've also worked on UAV programmes, and agree that they are going to continue to be a very important part of our industry.
What I'm objecting to is the gross simplification of the complex issues of a "non-toy" flight vehicle, to the point where I don't believe that the students are getting a genuine appreciation of the deep and complex aeronautical issues that are equally applicable to commissioning a Global Hawk replacement, or a B737 replacement - or even a small mission capable palmtop MAV: but one to do a real job.
I highlighted the Heavy Lift Challenge, because I think it does buck the trend - forcing students to concentrate on design optimisation, mission fit, and certification issues (and having talked to a few teams doing these, the students have a shedload of fun as well). But this is not, in my opinion, typical of how many universities are doing it - who are changing a potentially valuable educational tool, into, frankly, a toy aeroplane.
G
What I'm objecting to is the gross simplification of the complex issues of a "non-toy" flight vehicle, to the point where I don't believe that the students are getting a genuine appreciation of the deep and complex aeronautical issues that are equally applicable to commissioning a Global Hawk replacement, or a B737 replacement - or even a small mission capable palmtop MAV: but one to do a real job.
I highlighted the Heavy Lift Challenge, because I think it does buck the trend - forcing students to concentrate on design optimisation, mission fit, and certification issues (and having talked to a few teams doing these, the students have a shedload of fun as well). But this is not, in my opinion, typical of how many universities are doing it - who are changing a potentially valuable educational tool, into, frankly, a toy aeroplane.
G
Genghis, There is, or will be, a course of the type you describe:
MSc Unmanned Vehicle Systems Design :: School of Engineering Sciences
The BMFA Heavy Lift Challenge you mention is certainly a very good project. The design optimisation part certainly does get the students thinking, but the detail design and construction is to a large extent dependent on having or finding people with the requisite model building and flying skills. Being able to screw together an Almost-Ready-To-Fly model is a long way from designing and building a serious contender for the heavy lift challenge.
I think it is fair to say that what the universities are doing is operating within the sphere of knowledge of their lecturers and lab technicians. If they have the knowledge they explore new designs, otherwise they take proven equipment and add their payload and flight control system. An awful lot can be learned about why a platform is not ideal that way, and then set about improving it.
Another factor is that a lot of the students doing UAV projects are not studying aeronautical engineering. They could be doing robotics, computer vision or software. The UAV is just a tool to achieve their project goal as much as their computer monitor or keyboard is.
MSc Unmanned Vehicle Systems Design :: School of Engineering Sciences
The BMFA Heavy Lift Challenge you mention is certainly a very good project. The design optimisation part certainly does get the students thinking, but the detail design and construction is to a large extent dependent on having or finding people with the requisite model building and flying skills. Being able to screw together an Almost-Ready-To-Fly model is a long way from designing and building a serious contender for the heavy lift challenge.
I think it is fair to say that what the universities are doing is operating within the sphere of knowledge of their lecturers and lab technicians. If they have the knowledge they explore new designs, otherwise they take proven equipment and add their payload and flight control system. An awful lot can be learned about why a platform is not ideal that way, and then set about improving it.
Another factor is that a lot of the students doing UAV projects are not studying aeronautical engineering. They could be doing robotics, computer vision or software. The UAV is just a tool to achieve their project goal as much as their computer monitor or keyboard is.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I end up, every time, concluding that these things are, just about every time, a bunch of academics playing with toys
Little thread drift off UAV.
On target, UAV reliability was crap on operating units, little life liability and military freedom "cost" being a factor. Once the cost issue finally was accounted for, I believe the operational requirements were further scrutinized giving better reliability. Are you flying an aeroplane or flight sim/toy aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: CAMBRIDGE
Age: 44
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's funny to see the same people on this site that also post in the FPV/UAV forums on RCGroups.
I do think that a lot of the college courses appear to be a bit detached from real world applications, but I'm sure if you look past the 'toy plane' you will see that the science is good.
I do think that a lot of the college courses appear to be a bit detached from real world applications, but I'm sure if you look past the 'toy plane' you will see that the science is good.
Lovegroove
That's because new applications keep coming along. The only common thread with UAVs is what the three letters stand for, and the last one is pretty vague anyway. As no man is required onboard, the size can be the smallest that is needed to do the job. A UAV doesn't have to be Global Hawk or even Desert Hawk size to have a serious application.
When one thinks of the most widely used computer applications these days, they are more than likely not to be the ones that were forecast thirty years ago. For all we know in 30 years time, the best selling UAV might be a 'flying duster' that goes around room gathering cobwebs. The video game industry grew out of flight simulator graphics technology, and I would hazard a guess that the video game industry is worth a fair bit more than its parent now.
I do think that a lot of the college courses appear to be a bit detached from real world applications
When one thinks of the most widely used computer applications these days, they are more than likely not to be the ones that were forecast thirty years ago. For all we know in 30 years time, the best selling UAV might be a 'flying duster' that goes around room gathering cobwebs. The video game industry grew out of flight simulator graphics technology, and I would hazard a guess that the video game industry is worth a fair bit more than its parent now.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Lovegroove
That's because new applications keep coming along. The only common thread with UAVs is what the three letters stand for, and the last one is pretty vague anyway. As no man is required onboard, the size can be the smallest that is needed to do the job. A UAV doesn't have to be Global Hawk or even Desert Hawk size to have a serious application.
When one thinks of the most widely used computer applications these days, they are more than likely not to be the ones that were forecast thirty years ago. For all we know in 30 years time, the best selling UAV might be a 'flying duster' that goes around room gathering cobwebs. The video game industry grew out of flight simulator graphics technology, and I would hazard a guess that the video game industry is worth a fair bit more than its parent now.
That's because new applications keep coming along. The only common thread with UAVs is what the three letters stand for, and the last one is pretty vague anyway. As no man is required onboard, the size can be the smallest that is needed to do the job. A UAV doesn't have to be Global Hawk or even Desert Hawk size to have a serious application.
When one thinks of the most widely used computer applications these days, they are more than likely not to be the ones that were forecast thirty years ago. For all we know in 30 years time, the best selling UAV might be a 'flying duster' that goes around room gathering cobwebs. The video game industry grew out of flight simulator graphics technology, and I would hazard a guess that the video game industry is worth a fair bit more than its parent now.
G
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the UAV is small enough and light enough that it would cause minimal damage if it crashed. In that case, there is obviously less need for high-reliability systems and the associated paperwork.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Plus that users may well want high reliability, even if public safety doesn't.
G
