I just came across this one.

Disregarding all the usual concerns involved with manned flights of this type etc. I like the technical solution of using many self contained units, each with it's own battery, ESC, motor and propeller. Keeps it simple and adds redundancy at the same time.

Views: 2226

Comment by Joe Renteria on September 4, 2015 at 3:08pm
I like it. Seems like it would be better to place all that battery weight in the center.
Comment by Joshua on September 4, 2015 at 3:39pm

The only problem with centralised power however is that you then need to run relatively heavy wiring out to each motor.

Comment by Andrew Zaborowski on September 4, 2015 at 3:56pm

Very creative, I can envision those as modules that are added or removed according to payload.  I can't imagine myself having to charge all the batteries individually though.  Also he needs a stabilised mode.

Comment by Jason Franciosa on September 4, 2015 at 5:04pm

Maximum Inefficiency Achieved.

Comment by Artem on September 4, 2015 at 5:06pm

well,,,, think about different discharge rates, at one moment it is possible that some of the lipos will be depleted, while others be ok. This really needs some circuitry to allow each pack voltage monitoring. 

Comment by Brad Hughey on September 5, 2015 at 7:53am

Here's another example of the fact that there's more to a large-scale electric multicopter design than merely having enough thrust vectors to add together. The basic problem is rotational inertia, of both the propellers and the airframe. As Mr. Renteria was saying, having all that weight distributed so far from the control axes means that the control system cannot respond fast enough to keep the craft oriented. He got off the ground, but he appears to be floating at the whim of the local aerodynamic environment.

Comment by John Arne Birkeland on September 5, 2015 at 8:45am

I also suspect at that altitude he was in and out of ground effect, or at least still in turbulent air.

Comment by Andrew Zaborowski on September 5, 2015 at 5:50pm

Brad: to me it looks like a typical hover in acro mode.  I bet the yaw performance is poor but overall it looks totally controllable.  I agree of course there's more to a manned multicopter than thrust but this seems like a pretty clever mechanical setup (and a less clever electric setup)

Comment by Randy on September 5, 2015 at 7:21pm

Nice demonstration and congrats to the designers/builders.  It's definitely less scary to watch than that Y6 video a few months ago.

It's not ardupilot that's being used here but just for the record, obviously ardupilot is not meant for manned vehicles and we strongly discourage that.  For manned vehicles when designing failsafes, you obviously have to put some priority on saving the vehicle & pilot while for unmanned you're thinking about making sure the vehicle doesn't fall hard on someone.

Comment by Ben on September 5, 2015 at 10:48pm

What I'm surprized is the location chosen, so close to trees...

Also this type of testing should require a special firmware that will put an altitude limit (like 1 meter, it's just for testing). And just a 80 kg dummy onboard, not a human pilot.

There's a point in the video where he looks scared to jump too high. It made me think of the guy who wanted to show the world his proof of concept parachute by jumping from the Eiffel tower, and fell at free fall speed...

I'm more impressed by this guy with his hoverboard, which is by design very instable, but looks well tuned :


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

Join DIY Drones


Season Two of the Trust Time Trial (T3) Contest 
A list of all T3 contests is here. The current round, the Vertical Horizontal one, is here

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service