21–30 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not tested! But minimum I would say 70 mph. If designing for speed, I'd be looking at a cruise motor and prop that maximizes the thrust output rather than cruise efficiency edit: at least 70 mph
Probably significantly higher even? A normal quad will hit 100Mph +.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably significantly higher even? A normal quad will hit 100Mph +.
Could be right! Really depends because the quad motors on freestyle say have massive throttle upside they can tap but it increases power draw and reduces flight time by multiples.
I'm curious how this compares to foam-frame designs. Being able to customize it is obviously a big advantage, as is the non-solid-infill of 3d-printed parts. I think for stiffness, 3d-printed frames don't work well for quadcopters compared to carbon fiber, but they sound like a nice alternative to foam for fixed-wing. I think the stiffness concern comes up in quads mainly when they do high-performance maneuvers that…
Yes I used single wall foaming PLA which is much less impact resistant and more brittle vs any foam, even cheap foamcore and especially EPP or EPO. This has definitely been an issue with crashing and rebuilding. But my first and only other VTOL build was foamcore Readyboard and that took a 12 ft drop onto asphalt with only a slight compression in the fuselage. Never replaced it. I would add dovetails or other clips f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I used single wall foaming PLA which is much less impact resistant and more brittle vs any foam, even cheap foamcore and especially EPP or EPO. This has definitely been an issue with crashing and rebuilding. But my first and only other VTOL build was foamcore Readyboard and that took a 12 ft drop onto asphalt with only a slight compression in the fuselage. Never replaced it. I would add dovetails or other clips f…
Hopefully now that it's in a polished state, you don't need to worry as much about impact resistance as you did when designing/tuning.
It's an impressive achievement for an amateur. He has separate motors for vertical and horizontal flights, which simplifies the design, but creates a rather bad inefficiency, the vertical motors create lots of drag during the horizontal flight. Maybe it's not a big deal, I'm not sure. Making motors rotate would add weight for sure, thus reducing the range.
Very similar design already used by Wing. I'm guessing they did a fair bit of analysis and modeling of the cost, range, complexity, safety, etc. etc. tradeoffs before settling on what they're using currently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Aviation#/media/File:Wing...
Adam Savage did a video tour of their factory recently, worth a watch
Pretty impressive! what's the BOM here. That battery seems expensive (most expensive part?)
> That battery seems expensive (most expensive part?) At first, I was like "Nah, just looks like my RC car battery", but then I Googled it...and it's a whopping $1,305 [0]. I looked closer at the specs and they're insane for a battery as small as it is. They have double the energy density as measured by both volume and mass compared to my RC car batteries [1]. [0] https://www.upgradeenergytech.com/product-page/gold-v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could be right! Really depends because the quad motors on freestyle say have massive throttle upside they can tap but it increases power draw and reduces flight time by multiples.
Yea def! You could also get into questions of cruise speed with level altitude vs in a dive etc, and you burn through batteries fast when max-performing quads!