Please support our Kickstarter Arrow Drone campaign!

One of the printers we use for prototyping / manufacturing. This is the BIGREP ONE, the most advanced big FFF printer!

We are using bionic structure to make the Arrow Drone stable and crash proof.


This is the customized Arrow 200 for the next trailer. This will look so great with electronics and leds!


Hi, i´m flying the Ardupilot for many years now. This community accompanied me on my way into the professional multirotor industry. I´ve been working for Ascending Technologies on the Volocopter Project for example.

I´m a big fan of the work diydrones/3drobotics does for the multirotor development. A special thanks to Chris Anderson!

I always try to push the boundaries with my drone developments. The Arrow Drone is made out of hightech materials and bionic structures. This makes the drone rigid and crash proof.

We see drone racing to become the next big worldwide extreme sport this year. What makes it unique is the combination of advanced flight mechanics, adrenaline, competition and fascination. We developed the first customizable systems that make the entrace easy for beginners and give pro pilots the full potential for racing events.

The Arrow 270 can also be used for moviemaking with the upgrades (brushless gimbal and GPS). Due to its compact size (see the comparison to the Phantom 2 in the trailer) it is perfect for traveling. Im thinking about building the Pixhawk as an upgrade into the Arrow 270. What do you think, would it also be useful for racing?

If you like the Arrow Drone and you want to join the adrenaline packed action sport drone racing that get one of our affordable systems. You can save even more money on our preconfigured teampackages:

Arrow Drone Kickstarter Campaign

More information:

3DERS.ORG Featuring the Arrow Drone

3DPRINT:COM Featuring the Arrow Drone

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join diydrones


  • @ Erik

    I'm not trying to give them a hard time, but rather point out something I thought was obvious. After further inspection there's a few items that need attention to get the expected results. Writing "projected" or "calculated" speed would have been better, but it's unlikely to achieve the horizontal speed in it's current config. I could add a list on "crash testing and durability" as well, as rigidity is the enemy of impact survivability. But I'd probably be labeled as a nit-picker... ;-)

    For me the 150kmh speed is an unnecessary requirement for the market they're targeting. They have other strengths they can rely on.

    Regardless I'm sure they're capable of making it right.

  • We are working hard in the background ;).

  • Well, I still hope they pull it off. I just think they need to post some more videos of some real flying. The videos don't even need to be that polished, but a little more thought should go into how they sequence their updates. Going with the crash footage for your first update probably isn't the best way to get a Kickstarter going. It's kind of funny actually. Typical engineers.

    Meantime, everyone is so hung up on the 150km/h claim that this whole thread has turned kind of sour. The proof will be in the pudding. Let's not beat a dead horse. Even if they can't get it to 150, would that be so awful? It's not like it would be the first time a crowd funded project didn't reach all its goals. The onagofly nano has had to revise a few specs along the way and they're up to $2.8 million.
  • This is worse than expected -- even a bit ridiculous. How could it have "flown at 150km/h" when the PID is so wrong at 10cm/s speed? What's up with those PIDs? What's up with the piloting level beginner skills at slow speed? And what's up with those crashes at ultra slow speed? Real crashes are full blast and from at least 10 meters high! Mirror of what the kickstarter is going to? A perfect example of how to shoot yourself in the foot. 'nough said, everything is explained in that video. Dang. So we knew all along.

  • Yeah. I'm not sure a crash video is the best marketing approach...

    So far I've seen 2 videos of the Arrow. The Kickstarter launch promo, and now a series of crashes. And this video doesn't really show what it says it shows. Sure we get to see a few crashes, but what happened next? For all anyone can tell from the video, those drones may never have flown again.
  • Hi Josua. 

    Maybe add some more footage of what the airframe looks like after a crash to show it didn't get damaged?

    Typically people become concerned with "crashing" their investment if you show them that it can in fact crash. That might lead to slow sales.

  • Long day at the office, testing different power setups, plugs etc...


  • Hi Josua

    Classic forum deflection move to draw attention to the person and not the product.... ;-)

    The 3D printed drone is not my design or build, I only used it as an example of what "aerodynamic" looks like. Structurally I'd never use 3D printed components in my designs, I only use it for mounts and R&D. Every application has it's own design priorities and compromises, I was not trying to compare the whole product, only maintain some perspective of when one can call something "aerodynamic". A rounded cover does not a aerodynamic quad make, let alone as "aerodynamic" as a arrow. That is what my pictures were meant to show, including my hand drawn arrow! In comparison your design has about 5 times the relative arm thickness of the quad I showed, yet you flat out deny it negatively impacts it's performance.

    Basic drag combat strategy is to reduce frontal area and streamline the rest to make the airflow smooth to achieve a low Cd. From your pictures of the arrow I can't see either being done effectively, on top of which you're blocking the insufficient thrust created by the props by using wide arms. You can either increase thrust or reduce drag to achieve the claimed speed. From what I can tell you have done neither.

    The whole discussion arose simply from the claim of 150kmh top speed. Which was my first posts question. So to further the technical discussion on how your Arrow achieves this I've compiled a list of items that I I'd welcome your feedback on.

    Sitting here on the other side of the world your quad design does not have that capacity, at least in my view, because:

    1. It is not very streamlined - especially the motor arms which are too wide and doubled up
    2. It has a high frontal area at the high pitch angles required for the claimed speed 
    3. It has very little streamlining of the body components on the trailing side (image the shape of a water drop)
    4. It has no streamlining of the prop wash exposed arms in the direction of travel (these could even be designed to produce some lift)
    5. The props only have a pitch speed of 155kmh with your 4S motor setup which is by far not enough to propel it at 150kmh
    6. Other's have mentioned issues with the same props exploding at 120-130kmh - likely from centrifugal forces
    7. The prop pitch speed could be increased but also could make the quad unstable
    8. The motors are underrated for the RPM/Prop combo and you're driving them over twice their rating (use the Cobras or something better suited instead)
    9. It's likely you'll need to run more than 4S - probably 6S like quadmovr does
    10. It's likely that the prop wash will generate so much turbulence on the frame arms that you'll have 2-3 minutes of battery, which will see most batteries fail prematurely
    11. There is no FPV footage, or high speed footage, nor high pitch angle footage which would show any potential vibration or instability issues, despite the frames "strength".

    If you have solved the above why not simply demonstrate the performance claimed if you can't technically refute it by discussion? If not then simply change the Vmax claim and the problem is resolved. Currently from my perspective you can only achieve the Vmax claimed with a major re-design of the Arrow.

    PS On pusher prop - the Wright brothers would have never "invented" wings and flown if they would have listened to the masses!

    Physics, or it's understudy science, is not subject to public opinion! ;-)


  • Hi Graham, we are already working on the next trailer where we will show the performance of the Arrow Drone. Check our update on the Kickstarter campaign.

    @JB What is your real name? Do you have any professional background in the mutlirotor drone industry? Which company?

    We are working for many years in the professional drone industry. The Arrow Drone is a high quality systems that have been tested and optimized for a long time.

    I like the design of your quad, also nice 3d printing quality. A bit like formula 1. But actually your quadcopter is not a racing quad. No camera and it is printed out of PLA or ABS - it will brake with the first hard crash. So you can´t compare it to my system.

    A racing quad is a high performance system and you have to balance the differents requirements. A closed hull is nice, but would also be much to heavy. We decided to use a bionic design and special material combination to make the drone stiff.

    As discussed earlier - at fast forward flight the drone will fly tilted, which means the air will mainly blow against the top body of your drone. So your drone will also not fly exactly like an arrow. Looking at your drone with big APC propellers i guess it is even much bigger than ours and will make much more resistance from an aerodynamic position.

    Summing it up compared to other racing quadcopters the Arrow Drone has balanced requirements with a very low wind resistance, because everything is packed inside the drone and the cover of our body is shaped aerodynamical.

    p.s. pusher prop as 5th motor doesn´t work well, thats why nobody uses it...

This reply was deleted.