Testing out how the new Y6 responds to an in-flight motor failure. Not bad!
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Testing out how the new Y6 responds to an in-flight motor failure. Not bad!
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
...also i was always thinking that Arducopter code will spin lower motors faster than top,developers,is that true or not,if not cvan you implement that?
Loss on my Y6 compared to hexa is around 10%(23min to 20min),same props up and down,10cm spacing between them is better than 15cm(for 10cm u need to use pancake motors)...with y6 finally props are not in the picture...about losing one motor(in the flight,not if u try to take of like that),hm,it wont fall down but u will be able to have controllable fall down with hard landing(only in stab mode,acro no way)depends of your skills how hard(tip:do not touch right stik just the throttle....for sure y6 is better on windy day but also harder to fly and more prone to mistakes.....
Jared, anecdotal evidence from others confirms your theory.
Joshua: This is really good flight performance with Y6. Nice work guys. I'm curious to see a test of two things:
Performance with payload.
Performance of a comparable Hexa.
Did a little simulation on the school computers and found the best combo is larger upper props and high pich smaller low props the smaller the better obviously.
Other combinations include low kv top motor and high kv bottom motor and when in conjunction with the above suggestions you can see the power and efficiency loss drop from 25% down to 10% above normal
My guess is that you can get the overall efficiency improved somewhat by working on the prop combinations a bit more.
All other things being equal, the prop on the bottom should have a higher pitch than the one on top and the larger the diameter prop(s) your motor can swing the higher the aerodynamic efficiency you can get.
In coaxial planes, there is a considerable pitch difference between the front and back prop but they are dealing with a dynamic air mass whereas the copter is essentially dealing with a static one, should work the same though.
Basically a great design, simple and with better forward clearance for Cameras.
Excellent result on the single motor out.
Once you have prop selection down it will be interesting to do an equal 1 - 1 comparison with this versus your standard hex and find out just what the time / power penalty is if there is one.
Now ignite the ESC on fire, like what usually happens.
I did a bot of research and found you loose 25% of your power and efficiency through this setup, so what you gain through redundancy you loose in flight time and power to weight, however i would rather have a copter that ;ands more often than a copter than "lands" once.
Hi Max, when you say e-prop, are you referring to APC E props or the graupners?
@Ian: Yes, it's a bit more abrupt initially as a motor power failure allows the prop to autorotate a bit to give the controllers time to adjust. With a prop snap, you lose power immediately and it will lean immediately to an uncontrollable attitude if you don't react quickly.
I found a Y6 motor failure barely controllable with AC2.7 & earlier versions, but with AC2.9+, you're seeing the improved throttle control algos really shine in the above video. Good job guys.
As for coaxial configurations: http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/y6-and-hexa-equal-lift
I find that "it all depends", the NASA paper shows about a 18% efficiency loss... I do find my Y6 flght times are 3-4min less than my hexas flight times. As for power, on pure vertical climb I see periodic effects with climb rate on the Y6 sometimes, where as the hexas are always "linear". In horizontal flight, the Y6 has more pitch/bowl effect and needs more angle boost compensation to stay level. But the Y6 hovers better in wind and moves more acrobatically like a quad when in motion comared to the hexas.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next