It looks a bit like Anakin Skywalker's starfighter from The Phantom Menace.
The three-rotor SwitchBlade, a small, collapsible drone that's already raised $32,810 on Kickstarter, is designed to compete with radially symmetric quadrotors in the realms of search and rescue, infrastructure inspection, aerial photography, research, and (of course) recreational flight. According to creators Vision Aerial, the tricopter has better balance while flying forward compared with a quadcopter; it's also easier to determine the orientation of an asymmetrical drone while in flight.
The SwitchBlade comes in both regular and pro models. Neither include cameras or other special sensors right out of the box, but both have mounts for them. Both have on-board flight computers that keep the trirotor stable in the air; the pro's system allows for programmable missions. Radio controllers are included with each model. The regular SwitchBlade goes for $949 on Kickstarter, while the pro costs $1,549.
After years of quadrotor domination in the commercial drone market, we're excited to see new designs emerge. Watch some SwitchBlade-captured aerial views of a motocross track below.
Comments
Jonorama's old Creep tri's weighed half that using gyros, and half the cost also!
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1474066
The calc equation is the fundamental PID controller equation, its what most IMU based controllers use at their core. The other two are just prop power and thrust equations.
I can't understand why anyone would want one of these. Perhaps someone can explain it too me?
Their stated specs claim the weight without payload or battery is 1850g (4.0lb). I have been into multirotors for only 6 months and have only built 3 multirotors so far, but the switchblade's stated weight seems incredibly high to me... especially when you consider the relative efficiency of a tri and the incredibly small stated payload capacity.
They spec a 4400mAh 3S (the Turnigy Nano version of which is 399g), so after you deduct the battery from the 700g limit, you are left with a payload limit of just 301g for the standard. hell, I made a 370mm octo made from balsa and flying on 4025 props which can happily lift more than that!
Also, as a ratio of total weight I have found delivers the best balance of performance and range approaches 30% of the total mass. Yet the switchblade is no where near that ratio.
For comparison, my AMP 2.5 equipt 450 quad (the first airframe I even build) weights 1562grams including camera, FPV gear and a rather large 8400mAh 3S Lipo (hell, the battery is 630g on it's own).
Claimed flight duration also seems very short. Again, for comparison, my 450 normally flies for between 15-18 minutes (down to 3.3V per cell), I actually flew for 21-minutes once, but swelled my pack in the process. My landing gear adds nearly 300grams to that number and from that I then hang another 300-odd grams (never tried it, but ecalc says I can fly with up to 2.5kgs in 80% hover).
All things considered. My 450 quad is lighter than the switchblade while carrying a battery that is nearly double the capacity and allows nearly twice the flight time and is even able to carry a much greater payload. However I would not consider my quad to be anything exceptional by any measure, and it certainly didn't cost me anywhere near $1600 either!
There are other things that also make no sense in my mind. Such as the fact ALL the mass is on the chassis and zero mass is on the anti-vibration plate. One would assume that it is intuitive to expect a heavy object to be more able to move a light object than a light object is able to move a heavy object.
More marketeering than engineering? Amusing those in the know, while suckering the uninitiated?
What's the bet that the algorithm written on the whiteboard in their listing could not be explained or interpreted by the bloke who transposed it?
I started flying these on PG-03 gyro's and then switched to HK-401's which were a big improvement.
Never as stable as a quad because of the tail rotor movement and gyroscopic forces, but they just look cool and still loads of fun.
Whoops, it's a 3S battery for the basic.
Wow, $900 for one with a $25 KK V2.0 board? I think it cost me $200 to make my tri, granted it wasn't made of aluminum in so many places but delrin instead. It looks like it just uses $12 DT1000 motors that aren't even rated for the 4S LiPo they're going to use. Aside from the frame, it looks like all the other pieces would cost about $100 for the parts. With no GoPro included, that means after the parts, transmitter, and battery/charger, you're paying them about $650 to put it together for you unless the frame really costs that much to make, and it doesn't. For that price, you can pick up a RTF Y6 and be done with it.
People don't know what they're backing.
Yeah, I saw this a few weeks ago, and I was shocked at the price, and the fact that they sold that many. It definitely makes me reconsider that assumed I'd never be able to do a successful kickstarter on my H8.
Gary...I have never flown a tricopter (in the same sense as this) nor a Y6, so I have no frame of reference. I can see how a Y6 is much simpler purely from a mechanical standpoint though.
Its actually much easier to make Y6's and get rid of that tail servo . Tricopters do fly very nicely hands up everyone that used gyros to do it back in the day ;-) (about 4 years ago which in UAS years is like 40)
Good autopilot in the pro version though ;-)
I looks nice, but it looks NOTHING like Anikan Skywalker's starfighter from the Phantom Menace.
And, what Gary said about the price.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next