Solo Parachute System

Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
487
Reaction score
395
Its been spoken about for a while, well, here it is.

Strap a parachute onto your drone with the ParaZero SafeAir

screen-shot-2016-03-14-at-9-04-49-am.png


giphy-2.gif


To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Payload is 450 g, or ~1 lb (120 g beyond Solo Gimbal and GoPro) according to specs. Its over 130 g most likely mobility and battery life will be affected. But what the heck its still cool though.:D I don't know of any parachute system for any other sUAV yet. SOLO keeps evolving like promised.
 
I like the concept a lot and the deployment system. I'm sure it will sell in time. Just needs a larger "Solo" with more horse power...and they'll have a winner-winner....chicken dinner.

On the present config, it does block the GPS cover however....just saying.
 
I'm kinda partial to "ballistic" parachutes, having trusted my butt to them for years flying ultralights.
Seems to me that the ease of installation - just strap on in seconds - makes this one very viable. Remember, there are lots of examples of Solo flying very well carrying far more than officially intended, including carrying another Solo!
I'd likely not use it every flight, but rather for instances I'd be flying in near proximity to possible collateral damage (people, animals, etc.. while filming an event for someone). Over water, too, but I'm not sure why!
Basically it'd be a "just in case" piece of gear. Better have it and not need it than vice versa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian [P13]
I like the concept a lot and the deployment system. I'm sure it will sell in time. Just needs a larger "Solo" with more horse power...and they'll have a winner-winner....chicken dinner.

On the present config, it does block the GPS cover however....just saying.
Would be nice but I believe Larger battery capacity and beefier motor pods could do the trick for payload issue without buying a whole new Solo.
 
I love technology, this is really cool!

But being an owner, it's hard to think of any place that I fly where I could use this, considering the added weight and cost.

The only place I could see this being useful is in a place where I should not fly, perhaps over a crowd, or other place that would be catastrophic if Solo lost the ability to remain under full control and able to safely land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rycoh
I love technology, this is really cool!

But being an owner, it's hard to think of any place that I fly where I could use this, considering the added weight and cost.

The only place I could see this being useful is in a place where I should not fly, perhaps over a crowd, or other place that would be catastrophic if Solo lost the ability to remain under full control and able to safely land.
This is a good point, not every flight justifies having a parachute.
Although it would put us at ease to know the parachute is there, even if we don't plan to need it.
 
I just wish they would implement the algorithms that would allow the Solo (or any quad) to fly on 2 or 3 props if 1 or 2 motors fail. The code exists. Its just code - no hardware or extra mods. It would require NO extra weight and consumes NO extra battery. If 1 or 2 motors fail, it just switches how it uses the other working motors and can still fly and land safely, although looking a bit drunk lol.

See about 6:10 in this vid (the whole vid is amazing).
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I'm not gonna reduce my already small window of flight time by adding something this heavy on the very small chance something might happen to solo and it falls out of the sky.
 
I just wish they would implement the algorithms that would allow the Solo (or any quad) to fly on 2 or 3 props if 1 or 2 motors fail. The code exists. Its just code - no hardware or extra mods. It would require NO extra weight and consumes NO extra battery. If 1 or 2 motors fail, it just switches how it uses the other working motors and can still fly and land safely, although looking a bit drunk lol.

See about 6:10 in this vid (the whole vid is amazing).
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I'm not gonna reduce my already small window of flight time by adding something this heavy on the very small chance something might happen to solo and it falls out of the sky.

I'm with you Steve. Utilizing remaining motors would be the solution I'd be interested in. The majority of our personal "crisis" scenarios we've experienced involve a single motor failing. The only time I could think of all 4 failing is total depletion of battery power which more likely is pilot error than a faulty battery. I'd be willing to bet that if you had a single motor failure, and fired a parachute, you'd end up with a tangled mess falling to the earth maybe even faster than it would otherwise now that the remaining rotating motors have seized up because of parachute cord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PdxSteve
This is really for commercial users not for hobby use, most people I think would buy this to get concessions from regulators, i.e. being able to film in city centres or closer to large crowds where doing so currently would often get refused. It's basically a mitigating factor to use in a safety case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackHawk
I just wish they would implement the algorithms that would allow the Solo (or any quad) to fly on 2 or 3 props if 1 or 2 motors fail.

Sorry to say this technology doesn't extend to what is Solo currently or to other Quad type RTF's for that matter. What was demonstrated is typically a very uniform platform regarding dimensions and CoG. Solo/Gimbal combo is quite nose heavy in comparison. Further any free moving components, the gimbal, would further complicate these abilities. There is another video showing the same, but with a fixed mount camera.

I agree with Ian, the parachute is intended for commercial application to show some level of a failsafe if things do go bad. I'd venture to bet a landing with gimbal would be a little more dramatic than what was depicted without the gimbal. One size will not fit all....

I do like both ideas, but physics rules in both examples.
 
How do you propose some code changes make a quad remain in controlled flight with one or two motors failed. Remaining in control with two out is a fantasy. Remaining in control with one out is not just a matter of adding some fancy code. You can't alter the weight and balance of an aircraft with code. Are you going to reverse the opposite motor to push down, lifting the opposite arm? The quad will be tumbling before that ever kicks in.
 
How do you propose some code changes make a quad remain in controlled flight with one or two motors failed. Remaining in control with two out is a fantasy. Remaining in control with one out is not just a matter of adding some fancy code. You can't alter the weight and balance of an aircraft with code. Are you going to reverse the opposite motor to push down, lifting the opposite arm? The quad will be tumbling before that ever kicks in.
The algorithm for 1 or 2 motors lost on a quad has been demonstrated. This isn't the video I was thinking of, but same result.
 
Sure, in a small nicely balanced quad with no paylod, taking off from a the ground, in a controlled environment. Attach a 4S battery and gimbal to that thing and see how well it works. Kill a motor or break a propeller in flight and see what happens, because that's the circumstance that needs to be addressed. The moment a motor or prop fails in flight on a quad, it will tumble over. I don't see there being time for a human or flight controller to react to that.

The principle of sacrificing yaw control to maintain rough attitude control is great. It would need to switch to headless control (simple mode in Arducopter). A motor failure on a octo, hex or X8 or Y6 can result in this, and maintain control in flight. I just don't think the FC or human pilot can recognize and react before it is unrecoverable in a quad..

This is a video of my old quad losing a propeller in flight. I think the hub failed. It went from stable to tumbling over instantly.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
How do you propose some code changes make a quad remain in controlled flight with one or two motors failed. Remaining in control with two out is a fantasy. Remaining in control with one out is not just a matter of adding some fancy code. You can't alter the weight and balance of an aircraft with code. Are you going to reverse the opposite motor to push down, lifting the opposite arm? The quad will be tumbling before that ever kicks in.
I guess you didn't watch the video...
 
I guess you didn't watch the video...
Actually yes I did. I guess you didn't read my replies. lol.

And like I already said, losing a motor/prop in flight is totally different than taking off with it already failed. That video, and the other one above, both show failing the motor/props on the ground where it is already stable. None of these videos demonstrate killing a motor or failing a prop in flight where the FC or human have to recognize and take action in a small fraction of a second before it tumbles.
 
None of these videos demonstrate killing a motor or failing a prop in flight where the FC
I've seen a video demonstrating an in-flight motor failure using the/an algorithm to have controlled flight, even spinning like a top. And again the frame and appendages were symmetrical and I assume the CoG was tweaked to provide the hoped results.

Raffaello D'Andrea showed in a recent TED demonstrating a single motor unit in flight. It was an interesting feat of engineering to say the least. However, even though a task can be demonstrated, does not make it plausible in the real world application. I do believe it will be done in the future, the research displayed says it can be done in the optimal conditions. They will build upon what they've learned.

I disagree with your statement that an FC can't react quick enough, It does it now throughout your entire flight. A gust of wind is just one example.
 
Actually yes I did. I guess you didn't read my replies. lol.

And like I already said, losing a motor/prop in flight is totally different than taking off with it already failed. That video, and the other one above, both show failing the motor/props on the ground where it is already stable. None of these videos demonstrate killing a motor or failing a prop in flight where the FC or human have to recognize and take action in a small fraction of a second before it tumbles.
Fact is, some folks do have reaction times that fast.
You're making a lot of assumptions here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solo Keith

New Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
13,088
Messages
147,709
Members
16,028
Latest member
DXR