Very cool. My quad has very high ground clearance. with landing skids in the middle (Turnigy HAL frame). I was thinking the other day "hmm, I wonder what would happen with vibration if I put the motors on the bottom of the arms instead of the top." It struck me that the air hitting the arms would be much less, only whats gets "sucked passed them" as opposed to slammed down into them. Low and behold, the next thing I see on here is your hex on the front page with the motors on the bottom!
My brain is melting a little bit trying to picture which direction the motors should turn to not make the attitude and yaw go crazy, but I'm sure it's simple enough. This could be something to try once I'm a little more skilled at flying it. Right now having the motors on tops provides some protection from when I inevitable tip over on the ground.\
What kind of vertical descent rates can you attain and maintain stability with this design?
exaclty, there is a lot of research in this design, you may not have seen some of my pravious posts but basically this frame is incorporating a number of efficiency gain designs.
The underneath mounting, the 10 degree angling, the raised arms and the long arms for prop sepeartion
So you have the motors angled slightly away from the center making the prop wash spread slightly away rather than straight down? Therefore reducing the problem descending through your own wash making it bounce all over the place? I actually just started this thread yesterday inquiring about a descent rate to avoid this. It is most annoying.
hmm. Would putting the props at the bottom do anything to improve/change power, control, or vibration? The basic advantage being that there is no big arm in the prop wash.
Comments
interesting....
Very cool. My quad has very high ground clearance. with landing skids in the middle (Turnigy HAL frame). I was thinking the other day "hmm, I wonder what would happen with vibration if I put the motors on the bottom of the arms instead of the top." It struck me that the air hitting the arms would be much less, only whats gets "sucked passed them" as opposed to slammed down into them. Low and behold, the next thing I see on here is your hex on the front page with the motors on the bottom!
My brain is melting a little bit trying to picture which direction the motors should turn to not make the attitude and yaw go crazy, but I'm sure it's simple enough. This could be something to try once I'm a little more skilled at flying it. Right now having the motors on tops provides some protection from when I inevitable tip over on the ground.\
What kind of vertical descent rates can you attain and maintain stability with this design?
exaclty, there is a lot of research in this design, you may not have seen some of my pravious posts but basically this frame is incorporating a number of efficiency gain designs.
The underneath mounting, the 10 degree angling, the raised arms and the long arms for prop sepeartion
So you have the motors angled slightly away from the center making the prop wash spread slightly away rather than straight down? Therefore reducing the problem descending through your own wash making it bounce all over the place? I actually just started this thread yesterday inquiring about a descent rate to avoid this. It is most annoying.
http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/rtl-and-loiter-descent-rate?xg_so...
yes the prop wash removal is a significant efficiency gain, they are also angles at 10degress for stability in decent
hmm. Would putting the props at the bottom do anything to improve/change power, control, or vibration? The basic advantage being that there is no big arm in the prop wash.
i do indeed!
Holy frack! That is wickedly cool - I'm assuming you have access to a laser cutter..