MR60

Round tubes offer the following pros:

  • handle twist better than square tubes.  Thus for the strength, are far lighter.
  • are more readily available (pipes, tubes, arrows, kite frames, golf clubs and sticks of all materials).
  • easier to cut (square tubing can twist and be damaged by cutting forces)
  • easier to peg (fits into a drilled hole and easy to find extenders)
  • less expensive

Round tubes are thought to have the following cons:

  • difficult to mount motors
  • difficult to join

None of the cons are real if you know how to work with tubes.  Mounting round tubes to motors is easier and faster than with square tubing.  Round tubes are also faster and easier to join together.  The resulting joins are also far lighter and better.

In the H-frame forum, I was asked to share these build techniques so have decided to demonstrate the methods on the most complex multi-copter one can build, an Octa-V.  I'll do this step by step.  The result will be a multi-copter that reduces frame, screw, gusset, and motor mount weights by more than 40%.

The steps will be Design, Assembly, Charmin Test, and Flight Test

Installment 1:  Design

First, both simple and complex multi-copters share something in common.  When using round tubes for arms, there is no reason to cut a perfectly good tube in half for each arm.  And then add a bunch of weight and fasteners to hold the halves together.  How this is done will become evident in the third installment, the Charmin Test.  For now, just know that each tube is continuous (no breaks, no joins).  Opposite rotors share the same boom in a quad, hexa, or octa.  All of those fasteners are gone.  The cross beams on a V or H are also continuous.  Assembly and disassembly is quick.

Most quads are so simple that one grabs two pieces of wood the same size and slap them together.  Done.  If the angle of view isn't good, just move the camera forward a bit.  But, if you want to know the exact length of a quad boom based on prop diameter and platform size so you can minimize weight to get longer flights, then I've attached a worksheet that does the math.

An Octa V is a bit more complex.  It is specifically used for camera work.  So you need to optimize the motor boom angle and aspect ratio of the frame to achieve the desired Field-of-View for the camera (void of propellers),  It also uses 8 motors so that if one dies, the copter can return to the ground with the $12K of camera/lens in tact.  You also need to minimize platform vibration, so the platform needs to be large enough for the electronics, gimbal mount, and at least 1.2" (30mm) from the prop radius.

I've attached an Excel worksheet that does all of the calculations for optimizing weight.  There is an instruction sheet if you want to ever build one and calculations for a Quad X, Quad +, Quad Spider, and Octa V.

The next installment will be Assembly.

P.S.  I'm not experienced nor am I an expert.  I'm just a tinkerer like many of you. There are builders out there with far more experience and wisdom. I'm hoping that this blog will allow us all to share ideas on building strong, fast, and light not only for initial build, but also for crash repair.

Multi-Copter Design.xlsx

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Email me when people reply –

Replies

    • Hi Forrest & Greg

      Many thanks for the detailed information. So far I have identified that Farnell in the UK sell it in 2oz tubes 2216 B/A which according to the technical data is identical to EC-2216. I noted your comments about nylon bolts and already have a selection of different sizes.

      Basically I started with absolutely zero knowledge on copters, motors, AV, transmitters/receivers etc. a few months ago, spent many many hours reading the forums trying to identify what I needed. I ended up with a Pixhawk (luckily before the export ban) Taranis transmitter, ESC32's and MN4010 motors using 4s batteries. All this to get a camera up in the air so I can take pictures from a different angle. I think I'm hooked. So much more to learn. Currently in the process of making an undercarriage for my current quadcopter so I can try it out with a camera. By the way the masts are 10mm square pultruded carbon (I didn't know at the time that pultruded was a bad idea.) I have got wood beams going through the centre of the masts to strengthen them.

      I like the new method of cutting and re-joining the second mast. I think I will go this route it will look far neater.

      I was given two metres of 20mm woven carbon tubing 1mm thick which should be 86.5 gms/m.

      so I will most likely use this. Googled braided tubing but didn't find a source in the UK

      Many thanks for your advice.

      Jon

    • MR60

      Well done and congrats for joining the few and the brave that build their own.

      The 20mm woven carbon tubing sounds really strong.  The only problem with it is getting the nylon screws into the base of the motor without adding weight (the mast blocks access when over 16 to 18mm in diameter).  But solvable by adding weight (use the X motor mounts with matching larger motor mounts and then screw those together).

      Pultruded can work, especially for your first copter.  If you bond a cap to the end, that will hold the end fibers together.  On the inner wood beam, balsa wood is great.  Very lightly lather the sides with the adhesive and then that too will also help hold the fibers from splitting down the side.

      Which ever mast you use,

      - place it on a table so about 0,5 meters hangs out over the edge.

      - hold the other end firmly down with one hand.

      - pluck the overhanging part downward (like a cello string on its side).

      - if it vibrates for more a half second, it probably isn't stiff enough.

      Best of luck and keep us in touch with your build.  This is how we all learn.

    • Hi Forrest

      Thanks, though I've already built the quad with the pultruded masts.  I put hardwood through the masts extending it past the end of the carbon to protect the props. They all snapped off after a few mishaps so I wired them back on. I'm in the process of tuning it. I've looked at the vibrations in Mission Planner and they don't seem too bad but every now and again there appears a large spike. Basically this quad is the test one where hopefully I learn from my mistakes and then on to making a lighter better quad.

      Do you think the 20mm tubing is overkill? I've located a 12mm woven tube with a thickness of 0.5mm weight 30.3 gm/m. Do you think that this tubing may be a bit too weak for a quad weighing approx 3 to 3.5 Kg (weight including camera and gimbal)

      Thanks

      Jon

      3702898722?profile=original

    • MR60
      Sounds like Gary is able to hand mix with good results.  Definitely the least expensive method.
      Adding to Gary's comment on CF tubing.
      The optimal CF tube has a large diameter and a thin skin.  I've bought well over $1K of tubes to test them.  My favorite for a quad can be found here:
      Tube Fabric 45525
      This tube gives the ship:
      - x/y/z vibrations all less than the 0.1g level (depending on battery weight) when hard fixing the flight computer to the frame and battery without using dampeners (which will increase vibrations).
      - when tuned, hover with a stability of pitch and roll (wobble) of less than 1 degree.
      I have yet to see builds of any type give results like that.  Yes, that is a challenge to anyone reading this as I want to learn better build methods.  So if you have a better method, please, no silly trash talk.  Let your hover file do the talking.  See what a CF bonded tube quad does below.
      Vibration test at a free 5' hover for about 4 minutes carrying a 4S5P Li-Ion battery.
      3689612877?profile=original
      Same hover showing Pitch and Roll stability.
      3689612902?profile=original
      As a side note, the frame using that tube with motor mounts and electronics platform is far stronger and durable than normal multi-copters and weighs only 62 grams.
  • MR60

    So what is the lightest and best design for an octa with the front props spread for a camera?  Not sure I've found it yet but this summarizes what I've found so far.  In all the cases below, the prop size was 11", the Field of View (FOV) 90 degrees from ship center, and the prop gap 0.2".  Weights are calculated using appropriate sized woven (not pultruded) carbon tubing.

    Let's start with the X octa.  Given minimum prop spacing and the FOV for the camera, the lightest ship is easy to calculate.  See below.  It's stats

    • 235 grams
    • 4P interference (the length of interference between structure and prop wash that slightly degrades flight duration measured in prop diameters).
    • Some crosstalk between pitch and yaw (this can be eliminated by making yaw and pitch less efficient).  Cross-talk occurs when the ship is not symmetric around the X axis.

    3692782391?profile=original

    The next lightest in weight is the V.

    • 225g
    • 7P interference.  But the increased interference is a good net trade for the decrease in weight.
    • Some crosstalk between pitch and yaw.

    3692782609?profile=original

    Then the SS that combines of the best of the U and V.

    • 178g.  Almost a motor lighter than the U.
    • 5P interference.  Getting the P to almost U levels.

    3692782565?profile=original

    Then there is the XX.

    • 178g
    • 6P interference
    • Extremely low crosstalk between pitch and yaw.
    • so maybe not as good as the S but simplistic and far easier to assemble if hiking.

    3692782507?profile=original

    And then the one that might be best if carbon rod bonding proves strong enough, the 88 88.

    • 179 grams
    • 4P interference
    • low crosstalk and can be designed so there is no crosstalk between pitch and yaw.
    • slim enough to backpack

    3692782579?profile=original

    Any suggestions or thought?

    • Octocopters and for that matter Hexacopters have one single advantage over Quads: Much higher profits for makers and vendors. Their other major attribute, in the real world or here in the world of blather, is as platforms for chest-thumping egomaniacs of the sort who drive 4X4 customized pickup trucks with industrial diesel engines and floorboards five feet above the pavement (which they never leave), or who twiddle their calculators while fantasizing at insufferable length about flying submarines and moon colonies.

      Octo-Hexes are like like a B-36 - the later model, with the four jet engines added to the 6 pusher-prop IC engines: ridiculously complex, super expensive, scary, ultimately useless, and butt-ugly. They are also fodder for the FAA and friends, who quite correctly point to these massive flying gang-saws as evidence of the urgent need for regulation.

      Meanwhile, the direction we should be moving is largely being ignored - toward smaller and smaller and yet more and more capable Quads. Why? It's difficult, that's one reason - it's much easier, for example, to have someone with high-school level skills design kludgey physical boards and enclosures (as in APM/Pixhawk) than to hire a real engineer to make them smaller, lighter, and yet more user-friendly. The other reason of course is the good old dollar; there's much, much more money to be made selling tractors than motorcycles.

      Five years from now, if  any civil multis are still allowed to fly, these huge ridiculous contraptions will be viewed as quaint former expressions of a confused, emerging technology - sort of like bag-phones or steam powered lorries. It's time to stop wasting time on these overweight dreadnaughts (I retired my Hex months ago in favor of building a state of the art quad which outperforms it in every single category except the completely useless beer-keg lift (no, you will never ever see Amazon or UPS delivering anything with coptors) .

      We're now looking at 200mm-class photoships capable of performing serious tasks - that's the sort of place further development should be focused. It's not "Where's my flying car?" but rather "Where's my eight-ounce camera ship that delivers stable 4K video and can fly down a city street without crashing and without risking someone's life or getting someone arrested?" That's the future, get with it or prepare to east dust.

    • MR60

      I'm not sure where that came from.  Did you scan too fast? We are talking design and build methods, which applies to equally to quads.

      The octas shown above were just showing how a simple Excel CAD macro can be built to optimize complex designs for a given criteria.  There is a Excel CAD for quads too.

      But I must agree with what you said. Originally I went with an octa because:

      - redundancy of parts that are not yet tested to aerospace standards.

      - efficiency in weight (the motors each carry less of the common items).

      - smoothness

      Then I learned from the community and via test/trial.  There are reliable motors and props out there.  And the shared items actually weigh less than the needed extra structure required for an octa.  Quads can be designed to be as smooth as octas.  So my next duration copter is a quad.  Much more user friendly.

  • --> I dropped in some info as a reply to the inexpensive epoxy discussion back on page 3 if interested...

  • I've just rebuilt my H-quad as a stretched X with two uncut 60cm lengths of wood, and it's a big improvement over the last H frame. There's no longer any flex or movement within the frame, and the COG is more central now. The handling is much better than before. I've also made a floating lower platform that the gimbal and battery are attached to which keeps the video nice and clean.

    Now to figure out how to tidy the wiring up...

    ylh7.jpg

    m7mu.jpg

    a4sg.jpg

  • Forrest don't know if you mentioned this already but how many inches of tube did you end up using in your construction? Mine will be sized similar and I'm wondering if I will need 1 or 2 of the 48" dragon tubes.

    http://dragonplate.com/ecart/product.asp?pID=4107&cID=79

This reply was deleted.