Gliding Parachute Systems

the model rocket show
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
That looks really interesting. I had some vague thoughts about developing a similar system a few years ago, and it's interesting that they decided to use a Rogallo wing instead of a parafoil. I was planning on using a similar design for my wing, mostly for ease of sewing.

I know that there are some people working on developing autonomous systems that will return to the pad, which I think would be amazing to have.
 
This looks really cool. I don't think I'll jump onto version 1.0, but I'm going to definitely keep an eye on this and look forward to seeing reviews from people trying it out.

cheers - mark
 
There was a young fellow on this forum from France that added a GPS setup and on-board capability for the rocket to find it's own way back. I'm considering it for my heavy lifter, if I can ever get back to designing and building again... to say nothing of actually launching!

I though maybe he and Apogee had come to a marketing agreement, but this is standard RC.
 
Blast it Tom! said:
There was a young fellow on this forum from France that added a GPS setup and on-board capability for the rocket to find it's own way back. I'm considering it for my heavy lifter, if I can ever get back to designing and building again... to say nothing of actually launching!

I though maybe he and Apogee had come to a marketing agreement, but this is standard RC.
Click to expand...

Very impressive:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...ketry-and-weather-balloon.162520/post-2185460
 
Blast it Tom! said:
There was a young fellow on this forum from France that added a GPS setup and on-board capability for the rocket to find it's own way back. I'm considering it for my heavy lifter, if I can ever get back to designing and building again... to say nothing of actually launching!

I though maybe he and Apogee had come to a marketing agreement, but this is standard RC.
Click to expand...
TVM said in the new POF that supply chain problems got in the way of making it GPS-controlled, and that if/when things change they could possibly offer a GPS auto-homing system.
 
I disagree with the way Apogee is bringing this to market. TVM labels this as "experimental" so the customer should expect bugs and technical difficulties. He also says in his unboxing video that customers should report their experiences and what works and doesn't work. In other words he wants the paying customers to be beta testers. He also says that if you have any technical questions regarding the RC hardware don't ask them, they know only as much as you do.
IMHO this is just bass ackwards. If you're selling something for big bucks it should have the bugs worked out first. Beta testers should not have to pay for the privilege of troubleshooting YOUR product. If anything it should be the other way around. On top of it all he says that the chute patterns did not print to their quality standards. And yet he is including them in the kits. Labelling something as "experimental" does not absolve a manufacturer of producing a high quality WORKING and tested product.
No thanks, I don't want to be a guinea pig.
 
kuririn said:
I disagree with the way Apogee is bringing this to market. TVM labels this as "experimental" so the customer should expect bugs and technical difficulties. He also says in his unboxing video that customers should report their experiences and what works and doesn't work. In other words he wants the paying customers to be beta testers. He also says that if you have any technical questions regarding the RC hardware don't ask them, they know only as much as you do.
IMHO this is just bass ackwards. If you're selling something for big bucks it should have the bugs worked out first. Beta testers should not have to pay for the privilege of troubleshooting YOUR product. If anything it should be the other way around. On top of it all he says that the chute patterns did not print to their quality standards. And yet he is including them in the kits. Labelling something as "experimental" does not absolve a manufacturer of producing a high quality WORKING and tested product.
No thanks, I don't want to be a guinea pig.
Click to expand...
"Big bucks"?.....the system is between $150-$160. Maybe that's big money for someone flying low power on a budget.....but medium or high power? Tim is being upfront about it and putting out there. Those that want to experiment and help advance recovery technology are being invited to do so if they want. BTW, the guy is also in business, he has to recover his fixed costs of all his overhead, building, etc. plus the variable costs of what goes into his products, then Uncle Sam and Colorado (and probably Colorado Springs) get their cut as "silent partners" and then, after everyone else has been paid, whatever is left over is maybe his to keep. My guess is when you factor in the value of his time and all the other costs he is incurring he isnt making much "take home" money at all on this offering. My 0.02.
 
schworer said:
"Big bucks"?.....the system is between $150-$160.
Click to expand...
Not all of us drive Teslas. Yeah, big bucks for me.
BTW, transmitter and receiver not included. Last time I checked a good transmitter cost a couple hundred bucks easy.
schworer said:
Those that want to experiment and help advance recovery technology are being invited to do so if they want.
Click to expand...
On their dime, not the company's.
schworer said:
BTW, the guy is also in business, he has to recover his fixed costs of all his overhead, building, etc. plus the variable costs of what goes into his products, then Uncle Sam and Colorado (and probably Colorado Springs) get their cut as "silent partners" and then, after everyone else has been paid, whatever is left over is maybe his to keep. My guess is when you factor in the value of his time and all the other costs he is incurring he isnt making much "take home" money at all on this offering.
Click to expand...
You said it: "Your guess".
Same as every other rocketry vendor.
And I don't see them putting out partially tested kits and products.
Oops, it was unstable? Thanks for letting us know!
Like I said, bass ackwards.
 
Last edited:
tsmith1315 said:
I don’t know if I could afford either one, but R/C ain’t for me. I visualize flying it in the wrong direction for miles…
Click to expand...
That's me, too. When it's coming at me, I'll screw the left-right thing up every time. It takes a while to break that, but it can be done... I just don't want to develop my skill on a very expensive rocket/recovery system. There are simulators out there for your home confuser, er, computer, but that isn't cheap either... I imagine it'd be fun flying your rocket back once your learned how to do it.

I am facinated by the R2Home thing, that seems to be an incredible piece of engineering, mastering a variety of skill including feedback control and such subjects. I want to pursue that and possible get it as small as possible to help out us small-field guys. What am I saying? I hardly have time to post on here! Ah, but winter is coming, I'm inside today because of foul weather.
 
Blast it Tom! said:
There are simulators out there for your home confuser, er, computer, but that isn't cheap either... I imagine it'd be fun flying your rocket back once your learned how to do it.
Click to expand...

You make a good point, thanks for that.

Blast it Tom! said:
I am facinated by the R2Home thing, that seems to be an incredible piece of engineering, mastering a variety of skill including feedback control and such subjects.
Click to expand...

It’s humbling to see that was done by a 17 year old. A very bright, inspiring young man.
 
As said somewhere else already, I think it's pretty cool that Apogee is making a kit available, as expensive as it could be, I'm sure a bunch of people are going to experiment with it and good things will come out of it.

I wish I was able to do something similar already but getting to something that's clean and reliable enough to be put in someone else's hands is really hard and taking a lot of time, even more with this kind of system.

I think Apogee decided to go with a rogallo wing because it makes the deployment much easier meaning you don't have to teach more complexe packing methods to the customer and the configuration in the rocket is easier, but once the deployment is done, a rogallo wing has much worse flight perfomances than a good parafoil wing. A low forward speed and glide ratio will make GPS navigation much harder, and give you less return to launch site capability.

I'm not entirely sure the chip shortage is the first reason for this RC manual control version, getting an autonomous control system to work perfectly with different wing loadings, on a wing with low forward speed and high turn rate is quite challenging and would require a lot of testing. You can get it to work once but if you want to make a product you need it to work most of the time, with multiple different rockets, and different wind situations.. With this option the human in control is very good at adapting the control with "visual feedback", and if he fails.. well there is no product or code to blame.

The limitation to this version is obviously that you need to see the system in the sky to bring it back. But again, if you have that money to spend and are looking for a starting point to experiment with guided recovery.. this is technically the best COTS option available to my knowledge.

If anyone is getting one and wants to try to add autonomous return to launch point (or any given point) I'd happily help you with existing code and hardware. I'm currently working on very high altitude flights, when we start flying with a wind model to perform more advanced navigation methods. I still plan on releasing a clean version for model rockets between now and summer 2023.
 
Yohan H said:
As said somewhere else already, I think it's pretty cool that Apogee is making a kit available, as expensive as it could be, I'm sure a bunch of people are going to experiment with it and good things will come out of it.

I wish I was able to do something similar already but getting to something that's clean and reliable enough to be put in someone else's hands is really hard and taking a lot of time, even more with this kind of system.

I think Apogee decided to go with a rogallo wing because it makes the deployment much easier meaning you don't have to teach more complexe packing methods to the customer and the configuration in the rocket is easier, but once the deployment is done, a rogallo wing has much worse flight perfomances than a good parafoil wing. A low forward speed and glide ratio will make GPS navigation much harder, and give you less return to launch site capability.

I'm not entirely sure the chip shortage is the first reason for this RC manual control version, getting an autonomous control system to work perfectly with different wing loadings, on a wing with low forward speed and high turn rate is quite challenging and would require a lot of testing. You can get it to work once but if you want to make a product you need it to work most of the time, with multiple different rockets, and different wind situations.. With this option the human in control is very good at adapting the control with "visual feedback", and if he fails.. well there is no product or code to blame.

The limitation to this version is obviously that you need to see the system in the sky to bring it back. But again, if you have that money to spend and are looking for a starting point to experiment with guided recovery.. this is technically the best COTS option available to my knowledge.

If anyone is getting one and wants to try to add autonomous return to launch point (or any given point) I'd happily help you with existing code and hardware. I'm currently working on very high altitude flights, when we start flying with a wind model to perform more advanced navigation methods. I still plan on releasing a clean version for model rockets between now and summer 2023.
Click to expand...
Young fellow, that's a tough call to make. As you said, code/hardware that works for you may not be quite ready for prime time (Hope you're up on English idioms - from an English idiot!). And making code robust enough for almost any circumstance is a tough task, I've even it go 10x in size/complexity.

On the other hand, a friend once pointed out to me that " 'Done' is better than 'perfect'!" It seems to me that you have a marketable system, possibly with several patents applicable - you'd need to talk with a patent expert there. There's nothing wrong with protecting your intellectual property rights, you've worked long and hard to get this working and have every right to the commercial success. And if you don't, someone else will take it and the resulting revenue stream. You've been quite altruistic about this but such things will become increasingly important if you have hungry little mouths to feed!

Somewhat illustrative story: I was dumb enough to quit college at age 19. 10 years later, we were living paycheck to paycheck, my wife was carrying our 5th child, I'd just wrecked the car the previous winter, we had new appliances in the box in the basement when they called us in and said the mill I was working in was closing permanently in 3 months. I worked every overtime shift they offered and made as much that 1/2 of a year as I had the previous year! When I was able to return to college, I had to work to keep the food on the table and had to attend classes full-time as well. The normal-age students couldn't believe my performance - they would complain about the course load and I would simply point out that they are trying to put as many tools in our toolboxes as possible. You wouldn't go to the store and buy a tool set, take it to the counter, pay full price for it and then start handing them tools back saying, "I don't need this, or this or..." I hope the illustration stuck with some of them!

But make the most of your youth, both in training/education/craftmaship and in increasing your future financial prospects.

(Old man lecture complete!)
(minor edits)
 
kuririn said:
I disagree with the way Apogee is bringing this to market. TVM labels this as "experimental" so the customer should expect bugs and technical difficulties. He also says in his unboxing video that customers should report their experiences and what works and doesn't work. In other words he wants the paying customers to be beta testers. He also says that if you have any technical questions regarding the RC hardware don't ask them, they know only as much as you do.
IMHO this is just bass ackwards. If you're selling something for big bucks it should have the bugs worked out first. Beta testers should not have to pay for the privilege of troubleshooting YOUR product. If anything it should be the other way around. On top of it all he says that the chute patterns did not print to their quality standards. And yet he is including them in the kits. Labelling something as "experimental" does not absolve a manufacturer of producing a high quality WORKING and tested product.
No thanks, I don't want to be a guinea pig.
Click to expand...
"Big Bucks"? LOL. I spend more on motors. Being a former skydiver I kinda like it and might just give it a whirl. I already have R/C equipment on hand.

Mike
 
MikeT said:
"Big Bucks"? LOL. I spend more on motors. Being a former skydiver I kinda like it and might just give it a whirl. I already have R/C equipment on hand.

Mike
Click to expand...
So do I. I'm not knocking the product, just the way it's being brought to market before the acknowledged bugs have been worked out. But hey, go ahead and purchase one and let us know how it is. Don't forget to give Apogee feedback as well. Then after you and other generous folks like you have worked things out, if ever, then I might get one myself.
 
kuririn said:
So do I. I'm not knocking the product, just the way it's being brought to market before the acknowledged bugs have been worked out. But hey, go ahead and purchase one and let us know how it is. Don't forget to give Apogee feedback as well. Then after you and other generous folks like you have worked things out, if ever, then I might get one myself.
Click to expand...
Almost every thing I do rocketry wise involves "working the bugs out" , IMO that's part of the fun , figuring things out. Right now I'm working on dual deploy , sure there are step by step builds out there but I enjoy the challenge of making it "my own" . I know enough about how chutes work to see that this System isn't as hard to build and get trimmed out as many would think. It's a very straight forward set up. Just another part of the hobby I can play with.

Mike
 
Admittedly I've not paid close attention to the changes to R/C aircraft operation and the FAA imposed altitude limits that were enacted largely as a result of irresponsible drone operator behavior, but the last I recall the established 'ceiling' for R/C aircraft was 400' AGL.

If those rules are still in place, are rocket hobbyists using this system at risk of fines, etc. imposed by the authorities; or has the AMA worked with the FAA to overturn those altitude limitations and I am 'making much ado about nothing'?
 
David_Stack said:
Admittedly I've not paid close attention to the changes to R/C aircraft operation and the FAA imposed altitude limits that were enacted largely as a result of irresponsible drone operator behavior, but the last I recall the established 'ceiling' for R/C aircraft was 400' AGL.

If those rules are still in place, are rocket hobbyists using this system at risk of fines, etc. imposed by the authorities; or has the AMA worked with the FAA to overturn those altitude limitations and I am 'making much ado about nothing'?
Click to expand...
Short answer, the future looks grim for model aviation.
 

Similar threads

brentius
Recovery system- will this work?
Replies
17
Views
648
Voyager1
Voyager1
U
Help with servo-release parachute deployment!
Replies
1
Views
291
Voyager1
Voyager1
ljwilley
ULTIMATE LIST OF ALL PARACHUTE MANUFACTURERS
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
spaceisthebeginning
S
SuperNova-Rocketry
2 parachutes exiting from the nose cone
Replies
15
Views
651
SolarYellow
SolarYellow
H
Questions regarding equations for calculating the force of a parachute opening.
Replies
24
Views
1K
Spacedog49Krell
Spacedog49Krell

Latest posts

Back
Top