Discussions

Replies

  • Kaan Ozgen October 20, 2016 at 2:09am

    Hi Forest,

    I very much appreciate your comment. This kind of exchange was exactly what I was hoping from this forum. But turns out a lot of people finds it easier and "ethical" to accuse one just like that without even respecting the time and energy put into this product. Funny is also that nobody asked me "how did you do it"...

    Anyway, thank you Olivier to you too, it is a good point to test the ESC's lifetime. They make the one hour flight but I don't know yet for how many flights. And this kinda stuff is what we need to test before hanging a price tag.

    Take care,

    Kaan

     


    Forrest Frantz said:

    Kaan - 

    I'm a two time world record holder for flight duration. So as you can imagine, I've done years of research on what is possible and as such found out what is not possible.

    Please do not try to convince this forum that a ship with 11" props can fly for 1 hour.  Not possible given existing rotor and battery technology (LiPo, LiHV, LiIon, LiS, Hydrogen Cell). 

    If you want to make a solid contribution to this forum and industry, up your prop size to 15" then design a lighter and stiffer frame. I suggest an X. Then 1+ hrs using LiHV 10C batteries is a possibility (but not easy).

    You obviously have good design engineering skills to make sleek and pleasing lines. But marry that ability with someone with solid mechanical design.  An H design weighs too much for a duration ship and this forum knows it.

    A safe bet is to go with T-Motor 17" props + MN3508-29 motor + DYS 40A ESC so then you more duration margin and can incorporate more "design", which always has a weight penalty--less flight time.  So pretty and 1+ hr is possible.

    The only thing that can beat the 17" is a U8 swinging 28 - 30" props. But start small, my friend, and learn before you go big. 

  • Olivier October 19, 2016 at 11:33pm

    Complete scam, first answers said it all, (repeat) but thanks for the fun, interesting  how this forum regularly gets some of these ... Guess price of entry is close to zero.

    This one looks  like it's getting traction,  complete with "Hi ,.,, thank you for ..." responses.  Sea lion,

    Did like the "monobuild carbon airframe", GPS and ESC's will have a great time underneath. And loved the "use of Halback arrays"  in motors, complete with render with CF circular top plate. Of course! But  "drone killer" beats it.

    42AH?  Ah, detail, detail. What, scammers are not allowed typos?

    Zero engineering, yet cute render. You can fool all people sometimes, some people all of the times.

    Thanks but no thanks in advance about signing up for your scam newsletter.

    Wrong forum.

  • MR60
    Forrest Frantz October 19, 2016 at 8:57pm

    Kaan - 

    I'm a two time world record holder for flight duration. So as you can imagine, I've done years of research on what is possible and as such found out what is not possible.

    Please do not try to convince this forum that a ship with 11" props can fly for 1 hour.  Not possible given existing rotor and battery technology (LiPo, LiHV, LiIon, LiS, Hydrogen Cell). 

    If you want to make a solid contribution to this forum and industry, up your prop size to 15" then design a lighter and stiffer frame. I suggest an X. Then 1+ hrs using LiHV 10C batteries is a possibility (but not easy).

    You obviously have good design engineering skills to make sleek and pleasing lines. But marry that ability with someone with solid mechanical design.  An H design weighs too much for a duration ship and this forum knows it.

    A safe bet is to go with T-Motor 17" props + MN3508-29 motor + DYS 40A ESC so then you more duration margin and can incorporate more "design", which always has a weight penalty--less flight time.  So pretty and 1+ hr is possible.

    The only thing that can beat the 17" is a U8 swinging 28 - 30" props. But start small, my friend, and learn before you go big. 

  • Kaan Ozgen October 19, 2016 at 8:35am
    Hi Dmitry, sorry, didn't know it was Ukrainian. Thank you for the correction.
  • Dmitry Prokhorov October 19, 2016 at 8:32am


    Hi,

    Antonov was soviet company but now it is Ukrainian. Love their planes and it's sad to know we are not in a same team anymore. That's for Mi-26 it's real giant with really specific market niche. So I totally agree with your point, every vehicle can have its own niche.


    Kaan Ozgen said:

    Andrew got an interesting point. The focus may change between the types, but there will always be a niche for each airframe type.
    Just like Russian Mi-26 and Antonov. They are not the best sellers but there's still need in the market...

    About the efficiency, we've focused on the overall system, measuring the flight efficiency. Putting the most efficient Plettenberg motors doesn't necessarily contribute to the flight time as they are heavy. Vice verse the props. As the size of the propeller grows, so does your airframe... enlarging the system has no limits. We've stopped where we've achieved 1 hour flight time...
  • Kaan Ozgen October 19, 2016 at 12:38am
    Nice hexa
  • Kaan Ozgen October 19, 2016 at 12:34am
    Andrew got an interesting point. The focus may change between the types, but there will always be a niche for each airframe type.
    Just like Russian Mi-26 and Antonov. They are not the best sellers but there's still need in the market...

    About the efficiency, we've focused on the overall system, measuring the flight efficiency. Putting the most efficient Plettenberg motors doesn't necessarily contribute to the flight time as they are heavy. Vice verse the props. As the size of the propeller grows, so does your airframe... enlarging the system has no limits. We've stopped where we've achieved 1 hour flight time...
  • Rainer K. October 19, 2016 at 12:34am

    https://youtu.be/tqP6CyFyI84

    This hexa flies without loading 55 minutes.With 1 KG load 30 minutes. 10000 mAh

  • Luc Maximilien October 19, 2016 at 12:19am

    I do not know if it is a joke but to have 60 minutes flightime with 11' props you need a motor/prop combination with almost 4 times the efficiency of motor/prop actually on the market.

    Rainer K. said:

    The part is a joke, the discussion is superfluous

  • Luc Maximilien October 19, 2016 at 12:17am

    I do not think so because multirotors have some advantage if you consider payload vs size of aircraft .

    Multirotors are much more easier to pilot because they do not fly they rather translate in the air and they can fly better with wind.

    When a quad flies 50 minutes with 250 grams of payload it covers a lot of needs so the fixed wing become the right choice only if you need more flightime

    So for a lot of applications the multirotor will continue to be a winning solution.



    Andrew Rabbitt said:

    ...and as soon as these fixed-wing airframes become VTOL, the dedicated multirotor is going to be pushed into an increasingly smaller segment of the marketplace.

This reply was deleted.

Activity