Evolution of our prototypes. PART 1


On the right our very first prototype, on the left our latest protoype.



Very early test of concept. Testing 3D printing for the first time.



Prototype version 2. Very early development.


Our first fully functional prototype a long time ago with fully functional checkpoints algo.


Electronics PCB ofthe first fully functional prototype. Soldered by ourselves by hand.


The first fully functional prototype already mounted. Large and ugly.

Link of our Droiko on Kickstarter: Kickstarter Droiko

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join diydrones


  • Hello Jerry, 

    At 6000 feet above sea level, thrust of any flying device is reduced by 20-25% aprox. We have not tested it, because we live at sea level, but Droiko should work just ok. At sea level we usually need 50% thrust to do a hover, so in your case it would be at 75% or more just for hover. This means that battery life will be reduced and so the agility of the drone. Thank you for pointing this out and we will try to better test our future products at higher altitudes.

    Coaxial helicopters are very efficient flyers, so we just had to optimize a bit the electronics, make customized high quality motors and increase the battery capacity in order to achieve more than 12 minutes of fligth time.

    Thank you very much for your feedback!

  • Hi Luis,

    I live in a city where 6000+ feet above sea level, those bar coaxial toys simply doesn't work. I don't know how your design could fly for 12 mins time but that's great flight time. Esky is very agile but could also off the stick hover (drift slowly), but all my co-axial bar lama is not controllable in a room.

  • Hello Jerry, Thank you very much for taking the time to comment. 

    I am the main developer of Droiko. I did not know about the Esky150, seems very interesting and very affordable, although I think it has some pros & cons, as always. I like how agile it is and the fact of having less parts (which means less cost and less breaks), but comparing it to our Droiko, ours is much more stable indoors (easier to fly for beginners) and our fligth time is longer than 12 minutes, instead of the 3-4 minutes of the Esky150.

    Anyway, I also like the concept of flybarless, I will consider it for future projects, maybe a bit larger one.

    Exactly, what is your concern about co-axial with balance bar design? The lack of agility?

    We went with this design mainly to increase fligth time, for 4-6 minutes of fligth time I think we would had gone with a quadcopter design, what do you think? Do you still like the Esky150 better than quadcopters of similar size? 

    Any feedback helps us a lot for this and future projects, so thank you again, wish we could chat some minutes to share our experiences. :D

  • We are not worry about the weight because Droiko passed the tests succesfull. There is no problem.

  • my concern on your project is co-axial with balance weight rotor design, you can have a look at esky 150.

This reply was deleted.