I just read that Trimble sold its UAS business Gatewing. What's up with that?
John Hamilton, post: 394752, member: 640 wrote: I just read that Trimble sold its UAS business Gatewing. What's up with that?
http://www.trimble.com/news/release.aspx?id=101016a
I don't see this as a bad thing, especially if Delair-Tech and Microdrones collaborate on improving hardware. I believe that the ultimate goal is a fixed wing VTOL platform with long range and BVLOS capability. It sounds like Trimble wants to focus on software solutions and let someone else with the resources to do so develop the hardware.
I believe it is a move by Trimble to focus on software development while giving us Trimble dealers better options for UAS aircraft. This should be a win win for users and dealers alike.
Geoline, post: 394776, member: 9338 wrote: I believe it is a move by Trimble to focus on software development while giving us Trimble dealers better options for UAS aircraft. This should be a win win for users and dealers alike.
More like they have decided they cant make real money in that market.
Too many other companies providing cheaper product that do the same thing or similar.
They're not going to make any money in the UAV sector. Way too many companies can produce flying cameras for way less. Plus, it's really all about the software.
Lose a Trimble drone and you're out $30k, lose a DJI and your out $1k
John Hamilton, post: 394752, member: 640 wrote: I just read that Trimble sold its UAS business Gatewing. What's up with that?
Well, the only Trimble flight demo near here involved it nosediving into the ground and exploding, in front of dozens of potential buyers.
Perhaps that was representative of their UAV's overall?
Not sure if other fixed wing UAV's land any better, BUT the Trimble one I have seen videos of basicly crash lands, looks like a hard landing every time.
SHG
Trimble does have a multi-rotor UAV as well. That doesn't seem to be a part of this. So I just take this as an indication that the 'copter option is winning the market.
Trimble performed a UAS demo for me. It flew fine and landed fine. But we never saw any of the data. They worked on it for a day, no data. They went home and worked on it for weeks, still no data. Its now been over a year, still no data. I think I scared them when I mentioned I had surveyed the site the week before and was anxious to compare the results.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Trimble UX5 and UX5-HP perform a belly landing, which is essentially a controlled crash. The aircraft knows where it's supposed to land, and reverses it's motor just prior to landing to reduce the speed and impact. They've released new firmware that's supposed to improve the landings but I haven't flown it yet.
There are two options for landing - a curved approach and a linear approach. The curved approach is much less impactful, but also requires a much larger area - not only does it come in low, but it's much more subject to the vagaries of the wind and other factors that affect how far it glides before touching down. The linear landing comes straight in and levels off just before touchdown; it tends to have a worse impact but it also can clear more obstacles and is more dependable as far as landing in more or less the right place. So there are times when each approach can be more desirable.
The UX5 and UX5-HP can take a beating. There's some magic German glue that does a wonderful job of repairing cracks to the Styrofoam, which is typically the worst damage that you'll incur. I don't see how a UX5 could "explode" - worst case, in an extremely hard impact (not the result of a normal landing), the avionics bay cover could fly off and the battery could fly out, or even the camera - but that would take one heck of an impact and would definitely not happen in normal operation. As for the body, there's a rigid carbon fiber frame, so again you'd have to crash it to really screw it up.
As far as the data, it's entirely possible that whomever conducted the demo didn't really know what they were doing. Also, it wouldn't be unusual to perform a demo without using GCPs, because setting and measuring them is a very significant part of the time and labor involved in flying. So you wouldn't want to compare the data - especially from a non-HP model - with surveyed data unless you understand that there will be offsets.
I've seen the Altavian plane, and it seems to land much better. It comes in more slowly, has huge wings that generate more lift, and has tail fins with rudders. So it has much more control over the glide path.
I was present during the Ground Control Point Survey. I even witnessed some of the processing. They didn't use the Trimble software to process it. They used another platform because it was quote @more robust". Smoke and mirrors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
summerprophet, post: 394835, member: 8874 wrote: Well, the only Trimble flight demo near here involved it nosediving into the ground and exploding
It's called a" controlled crash" and I think it ends badly more often than they're willing to admit.
BushAxe, post: 395245, member: 11897 wrote: I was present during the Ground Control Point Survey. I even witnessed some of the processing. They didn't use the Trimble software to process it. They used another platform because it was quote @more robust". Smoke and mirrors.
They may have used UAS Master if this was the early days of TBC UAS support. That's not a program you can dabble in.
geopro_consultants, post: 395279, member: 9959 wrote: It's called a" controlled crash" and I think it ends badly more often than they're willing to admit.
Yes, but "exploded" is still not realistic. I've seen plenty of landings, both good and bad, nothing is going to "explode".
Although I guess a LiPo battery could explode...we're pretty careful about how we handle those.
Lee D, post: 395285, member: 7971 wrote: nothing is going to "explode"
Put yourself in the position of the casual surveyor: He shows up to see a demo of the latest and greatest technology, he finds a styrofoam cooler with a propeller, painted black, that costs $50k. It launches, flies around for 20 minutes and then slams into the ground at a speed that exceeds gravity. During the impact, the carbon-fiber spar can't withstand the forces and a few components of the flying cooler shoot in opposing directions... rendering that expensive tool unairworthy.
It may not be an "explosion" but when the inexperience observer see the wings of an expensive airframe ripped off by a trained technician, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Calling it an "explosion" is pretty accurate, from that perspective.
This is very true but the scenario you describe wouldn't happen the way you describe it. The airframe is tough and can survive a pretty major hit with very little damage. And even in the event of a catastrophic accident, which I have some limited experience with (not our bird thankfully), the wing wasn't ripped off the bird. There's a carbon fiber subframe that makes that pretty much an impossibility. Without getting into any compromising detail, I'm aware of a situation where a UX5 hit something approximately the size and shape of a rifle barrel; the impact was right on the wing near where it joins the body. While the airframe was definitely damaged beyond being reusable, the trauma ended at the carbon fiber frame and the wing was never in danger of being ripped off.
I can definitely understand the negative impression that could be created by a bad landing in a demo situation, but I know from personal experience that the UX5 is an extremely durable airframe that can withstand a lot of punishment.
Unless you need to carry a specific payload or need to cover a really large area (VLoS starts to get in the way of that though) a smaller and cheaper UAS like the DJI Phantom 4 or Inspire will work fine for most applications. We use a 3DR Solo, and a DJI Inspire. We're about to buy a Phantom 4. These things cost between $1000-$5000. Even if you need more flight time or to carry different payloads you can get a DJI M600 with RTK GPS and multiple redundant systems for around $10k. The major surveying companies tried to cash in on this too late and they tried to gouge us to much. Unless you have a very specific need there isn't much of a reason to pay $30k-$60k for a drone. Also wasn't Trimble's fixed wing just a Sensfly eBee that was re-branded?
Now I understand why the fixed wing drone I saw Leica promoting has a parachute. It flies back to where it is supposed to be, the parachute pops open, and it floats to earth. Ha.
