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

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Guys, this is really rather simple.  You can do the math yourself, or if we can agree on some parameters, I'll do it for you.  All you need are total weight, prop diameter, and battery capacity - with those figures alone you can predict within +/- 20% what the endurance will be based on empirical physical laws.  Can we get a consensus of those numbers?

  • Can you or someone else add the values on <eCalc> below, for a 114min flight or more? I did try to play with different values, but not able to get more that 50min.

    Please post a capture screen attachment after that.

    xcopterCalc - Multicopter Calculator

  • Finally found the video with the FC he uses... It looks like it has a lot of extra electronics and headers on it, plus some form of built in radio(two antennas visible, one on XBee, and one on the FC itself, plus a further antenna connector on the FC board for preksumably GPS antenna). Cpu is a STmicro ARM cortex of some flavour which is to be expected, but I find the extra stuff more interesting. I would guess some of the logic relates to optical flow/camera interfacing but it looks like there might be a lot more to it than that. Only vis.asta would know I suppose.
  • I've been pondering on putting together a setup with ~400kv motors, multiple 6s1p low C packs and very large props... Should be able to get some decent hover times considering I can put it together with around 75% of weight being batteries.
  • do it... 600kv and 14" are pretty common.. heck that is what I am flying on one of mine... but I sure don't get nearly that sort of performance.

  • Unfortunately because of the lack of more detailed tests of high motor, such as motor tiger is very difficult to find the optimal pair of engine-propeller. The site tests are limited to manufacturers of engines propeller 17 * 5.5, but reason tells me that using a larger propeller can significantly streamline even my rough calculations. Unfortunately there is no data on the use of these motors and propellers 20 more inches

  • John Maffetone 

    if take the motor MN4014-11kv330 with Prop DJI15x5 we take from one motor for 8A the thrust 1500 (with 5s battary)

    Battary 6s11Ah weight is 1235g, if we make quadrocopter then we have ~200g from each motor (1500g-1235g-149g motor) and is 800g for frame, esc, wire, reciver, naza e.t.c.

    with this thrust fo motor need 8A and time for fly is 11A/8A*60=82min.. with error ~60min, vis.asta can select more optimaly component, modify algoritms e.t.c. he spent a few years and more money. I picked up the parts for a few minutes to an hour of guaranteed flight. I think the video is true especially considering dumping batteries. If possible, I try the summer volunteered his test flights to see all by myself.

  • sorry thrust for motor is not 1170A, is 1170g :)

  • who want to check the following component for quadrocopter:

    Battary: 4 * 3s11000 (620g or 2480g for 4x)

    Motor+ESC: mt2814 -11 kv710 + ESC20A (150g or 600g for 4x)

    Reciver: Anybody ~10g

    Frame:~450g

    Prop: APC15*4 (~15g)

    Controller: Naza ~80g

    4xBattary+4*(motor+ecs)+reciver+naza+frame+4xProp=~=3680g (weight)

    Thrust for 1 motor mt2814 -11 kv710 with prop APC 15x4 for I=12.7A is 1170A

    Thrust for 4 motor is ~4600g

    Battary is 4x3s11000 is 44Ah

    for this setup wi have copter weight  3680 g with thrust 4680g when I=12.7A

    Time for hovering ~44Ah/(4*12.7)*60=~50min (is with wires and additional 1kg payload)

    Сourse calculations are rounded. not taken into account in order to balance energy consumption, a little inflated these batteries and engines, the weight of wires and bolts. But even if we take the 50% error we have fly time is 25min with payload 1kg. I did not choose the most optimal motor, battery quantity, specification made ​​in 5 minutes. Cost of this components ~2000$

  • @Carl: hmm? PX4FLOW gives optical/distance based 3D position over ground, plus ground speed/direction/turn tracking which makes it perfectly viable to navigate without GPS if you know your starting point and heading. You would have to program it, but the sensor is working and very precise at what it does (I have it, still just playing around with it though). Gives a totally different meaning to Position Hold VS the pathethic precision GPS offers. 

    @Brad: I think you are discounting the antigravitational effects of the diamond coated unobtanium nanofibres used ;)

This reply was deleted.