NextGen Quiet High Endurance Heavy Lift MultiRotor


Hi there friendly people of DIY Drones

I've been using and building drones for a few years now, and general shortcomings, I find are: noise, flight time, payload capacity, waterproof space for sensor and computing additions. These shortcomings of course all have good reasons to be there.

Some of the things I've done in the past are: made a really big rig (2m span) that's capable of ~1hr hover, and a few kg's payload; made some smaller rigs with some interesting technologies such as vertical surface extended docking (windows/walls). After a whole lot of effort and various iterations, myself and fellow collaborators at Crimson UAV have come up with the Talon6UAV. It is designed to be a premier aerial photography, survey, and R&D drone.

Some of the key aspects are:
    Quiet Operation: Large 26" carbon props operated by high torque motors in an alternating overlapping pattern enables a stable and quiet flight
    Endurance: Lightweight and elegant design coupled with up to 888Wh of battery capacity enable long flights ~40minutes
    Low Downtime: A rail and car battery changing system enables seamless no nonsense battery swaps to keep your business in the air
    Development: Dedicated waterproof space and power supplies for companion computers and sensing equipment allow this craft to be quickly modified to your needs.    

I would really appreciate any feedback, thoughts or ideas from all the knowledgeable people here.

The aircraft page can be seen at Crimson UAV

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join diydrones


  • The arms are sideways folding.  I actually prefer it to umbrella folding.

  • Good stuff and great work, Kyle, congrats.

    One thing that could be improved are the (apparently, from what I can see) fixed arms, by implementing a pivoting mechanism (see for instance Steadidrone, or  Foxtech D130) or fully removable arms (e,g, Gryphon Dynamics, DYS d800). For this type of bird portability is a must, and without similar  mechanisms this X8 is going to be difficult to transport.


  • The biggest advantage is that it allows you to run larger props on a given frame wheelbase/diameter.  Larger props means more disk area, which means more lifting efficiency.

    Fully overlapping coaxial props do not benefit the same.  A coaxial X8 octocopter as the same disk area as a quadcopter with the same propellers.  There is no benefit due to counter-rotation. An X8 is like a quad with the motors cut in half.

    For overlaps about 10-30%, the aerodynamics works out such that they have the efficiency of a standard "flat" Hex/Octo with the same propeller size. 

  • @Rob, @Kyle
    What is the advantage of using overlaping props vs the standard coaxial? From what I understand the coaxial placement can gain efficiency by the second prop using the wake (spin of air) of the first. Does this work also in this overlaping mode?

  • Interesting guys.  I actually pioneered the overlapping prop multicopter 3-4 years ago.  I abandoned it because I found the wake interactions caused quite a bit of noise, sounded like a flying buzz-saw.  But this was a smaller prop (12") higher RPM machine.  Sounds like you've had better results with bigger/slower props.

    Looks like you're using the Tarot T810 or T960 frame.  I'm actually building up a T810 right now.  The idea of trying overlapping props again has crossed my mind.

    Where are you located in Canada?

    FYI, I solved the vibration problem on helicopters a long time ago.  It's not a problem.  I use both platforms as suits the application.  They each have pros and cons.  To oversimplify it, multirotors are better for mostly stationary inspection or video type applications.  Helicopters are better for high performance inspection, video and mapping use. 

  • 2 CF Tees are for inverted landings? ;)

  • I've had much more difficulties with vibrations on large multirotors than Helis, I used a 550 size heli and 700 size heli for mapping with a global shutter MSI sensor and had it hard mounted with no anti-vibration mounting and there was 0 issues with the images. Same thing with a large quad was horrible, we had to use a gimbal. A rolling shutter would probably be more difficult for both.
  • Vibration is also an issue with heli's, which is a non-trivial issue with mapping.

  • You have the capability to fly at 20 m/s. It's a helicopter, you can fly at 2 m/s if you want. The point is a helicopter is even more efficient in motion, aka, doing work, while a multirotor is considerably less efficient when it's moving or mapping. And a multirotor at that size will not be able to handle higher speeds as safely as a helicopter.
  • For mapping purposes you don't want to fly at 20+m/s, unless you are flying really really high altitudes.

This reply was deleted.