http://www.e-volo.com/Home.html

Love the yoga ball as a soft landing device, can't believe the pilot trusted his life to an RC controller though and he never had covers for all those props which would have sliced him up like a blender if things went pear shaped.

Awesome stuff, just totally jealous as we are trying something similar and they flew first :-)

 

Views: 20497

Comment by Michael Krader on November 3, 2011 at 12:41pm

the web site says it has a empty weight of 80 kg. including batteries.

Comment by park jungho on November 4, 2011 at 2:17pm

very amazing.

Please tell me this motor and propeller.

I want to make a multicopter has 30kg trust.

So I need informaiton of motor and prop.

 


Moderator
Comment by Sgt Ric on November 4, 2011 at 3:13pm

Check their site.

Comment by park jungho on November 5, 2011 at 6:06am

I can not find about motor and propeller infomation.

Comment by Ellison Chan on November 5, 2011 at 7:52am

@Park Jungho

The people on this discussion did not build the craft.  You should contact the people at E-Volo who did and ask them for more information.  Then as a good citizen of this community, I hope you will then share that with us, in this discussion.

Comment by yann.B on November 5, 2011 at 1:37pm

i hope he crash less than me ...

great job

Comment by Nick Mann on November 6, 2011 at 6:13am

I doubt they're gonna transparently share their specs in any big way, this is all business, and they've taken some big risks and done some hard work to find their current bird.  

 

Website is claiming ten minute flight time and talking up a future with a fuel-driven generator giving it an hour plus.  

 

As a bit of an aside, I wonder why they've decided to have no x8/y6/hexa12/octo16/etc. style set-up.  Obviously the physics of the lift are very different when a rotor is operating in another's down-draft, but just how different is it?  Are two piggy-backed props not worth the sum of the parts?  Clearly these guys chose not to go the sandwich way, despite being severely squished into a field of threshers that could potentially be half the horizontal size.  I don't suppose this is a topic to raise here.  

 

What is cool is that it looks very realistic that multirotors could lift and deposit considerable weight.  Is it fair to guess that the lift of each "ARM-quad" is proportional and could lift 20 KG or so on it's own?  Plenty commercial application there.

Comment by Brad Hughey on November 6, 2011 at 7:08am

@Nick Mann: The efficiency effects of a coaxial configuration are indeed negative, causing an induced power increase of 25% to 40% depending on the separation gap.  That's why some of the small, indoor model electric R/C coaxial copters have ridiculously large distances between the upper and lower rotors (larger gap being better).  The only reason to have two rotors share the same axis is to counteract torque in a small space without the complexities of a tail-rotor.  I cannot speak to the intentions of a potential competitor, but in my opinion, using conventional model airplane propellers instead of something more aerodynamically appropriate speaks to expediency rather than efficiency.  Most of this group are experimenters themselves and can look at the pictures of the craft in question and probably cite the Hobby King or Tower Hobbies part numbers for almost all of it.  That said, I applaud their resourcefulness and daring.

Comment by Tommy on November 7, 2011 at 6:11am

Awesome!  We can fly to school and office later! 

Comment

You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service