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

Join diydrones


  • can you say 'naza fly away'

  • @ Johnny Dennings: Thanks for reminding me that there are still people to whom credentials are more important than substance. Sorry I didn't provide a source for my analysis, Johnny, here ya go:  I've got nearly ten years in building and flying large-ish (up to 700 class) R/C helicopters (some with early stabilization etc.) and now over four years building and tuning  hex and quad rotorcraft (current main bird is a dead-cat Hoverthings frame running the new KDE motors on custom arms spinning 13 inch props, Alexmos based gimbal w. Gopro 3 Black, Taranis R/C gear, Pixhawk, etc.). Four other multis are in the hanger, plus a dozen or so R/C planes and some very fast R/C cars (which I'm tinkering into an FPV direction, wheee!). I fly something just about every day.  I hold a couple of US patents and used to build patent prototypes in my personal little machine shop for others. I also hold a pilot's license (just single-engine land, nothing fancy). Also, a few decades of wrenching on M/Cs, sports cars and heavy equipment have gone by, some for fun,some for hire. And I spent a lot of years as a safety officer in a context where failure has really bad consequences. Been on-line since 1980 (UseNet & BBS's back in the day) and have been scratch-building Web sites since 1999.  Just a bit of experience, son. 

    So. Yes, Johnny, there is an armchair in the house, I think it came with a couch my wife had to have a few years back. But it still looks pretty much new.

    Here's the deal, Johnny: I love this hobby and I contribute heavily to it with on-line and direct help and tutorials and videos, etc. (under a different name) and I don't like people who abuse it, and I'll call them out as I see them. This particular  "man carrying drone" thing is over the top.  I restrained myself from the obvious speculations that could be made regarding the financial aspects, and just pointed out a few of the indicators of major, fundamental, glaring deficiencies. Because they can be a lot more than just time-wasting or amusing, they can be downright dangerous, which hurts as all. You might think about that before you get all snarky when someone calls BS.

    BTW, my "harmonic resonance" remark arose simply because it's something we (I and an engineer friend) are dealing with at the moment in our multicopters, which are running large relatively slow props and have heavy "clean" (vibration-isolated) structures. We are seeing these resonances periodically in Z-axis accelerometer vibrations, which is undesireable. So notwithstanding your assumptions this is not something that's only theoretical for me (and of course it's a deadly problem in full-size helicopters and it could in fact be big trouble in something as large as a flying couch). Your mocking "lol!" and quote betrays a gap in your education, Johnny. Maybe some armchair time with Wikipedia will help. Start with "ground resonance".  Or if you're only flying an Iris or DJI, don't worry about it.

    @Crispin: If you think this all started with someone using a  "multi-rotor from a lego NXT controller" you may also think Apple invented the rectangle (as they tried to claim in court). Of course there's nothing wrong with new ideas, even ones from the backside of the moon.  But this "project" isn't in any tiny part any sort of new idea. Here we have people taking the wheel (to use your example) and suggesting that it be made octagonal. Or maybe that the hub should be off-center. Or let's make them out of ice. And so on. These people are inexcusably clueless. Almost flat-earthers. They represent nothing but noise and wasted time and money. They are in exactly the same category as that Chinese farmer with his earthbound tin and wood helicopter (or they will be if they ever actually put two parts together), but they will never be in the same category as that other Chinese fellow also seen on YT who educated himself and then built an actual working (scary, but working!) full-scale helicopter in his garage and flew it down the road. The former detracts from the latter. Steals from him, actually. And no, the first does not evolve into the second. You misunderstand evolution. It's mostly dead ends, some very literally. That's what this is. They will fail (if they ever actually start and lose interest and take up the next big thing. The only questions is how much of whose time and money will be sucked up. And regarding your "shut up and do it yourself," please spare us the tiny stamping feet, they makes you look silly. 

    @Ed Kirk: Apples and oranges.There's no issue here about the feasibility of man-carrying multirotors, it's been done and probably even can be done in a way that will find safe, practical applications. Here you show us something potentially worthwhile that looks like it applies a variety of technologies in clever ways.  Not sure why you would want to mention it in this context. It looks like this nifty project is based on realistic physics, along with real work and effort. But to the uneducated passerby (or overeager investor...) that round-bottomed, belt-flapping fantasy flying couch project, even just scratched out on a napkin, looks perhaps more interesting and attractive. That's what I don't like. People weaseling in,  posting "blogs" and hunting for "funding" with nothing of substance or value, while basically riding on the backs of folks who have obviously put in blood, sweat and tears. We've seen this for decades in just about any promising new technology. Vaporware.

    Personally I'm holding out for a suit completely covered in tiny motors, each driving a two-inch soft prop, each with it's own gyros/accelerometers, all networked together. (grin) Why not? Build it! 

  • @Ed

    Multiple motors on one drive-train will add redundancy like you said, but will increase losses by a bit on a few fronts.  The first electronic losses due to KV differential between motors.  Even though 4 motors may have the same rated KV, they will actually vary, sometimes by quite a bit.  The faster motors will fight the slower ones a bit.  Or at least some motors will be more utilized than others which is another form of loss.  The second induced loss is weight.  4 smaller motors, their mounts etc., will weigh more than one motor.  To be clear, I am not saying redundancy is not worth it, just clarifying the losses associated with such a system.

    RE: Advanced thoughts,  The tandem rotor heli I am in the process of building has 2 motors, with 2 one-way bearings, and a BEC on seperate battery to control the servos etc.  So I could loose one motor, and land safely/ possibly finish the mission, or loose both and still be able to at least slow my crash with auto-rotation.

    "But then the other side of my brain (the side I listen to) keeps telling me this scheme won't do much to increase flying time enough to be meaningful or productive."

    Basically you are correct, it will actually decrease flight times, but may in the long run, extend someones lifetime.

  • Hey Chim, seems that with your extraordinary armchair criticizing skills and expertise you could quickly become a major player in  man-drone technology evolution. I really liked that one and the resonance part (lol!):

    > Have any of you ever seen, let alone flown, a multicopter with a curved bottom? This thing would be spitting dirt and parts of props all over the landscape, probably when trying to lift off and certainly when landing. And if that doesn't happen, harmonic resonances will likely take care of wadding it into a ball.

    Looks like you have some serious experience testing multis with "curved bottoms". Besides your major theoretical aerodynamics skillset,  of course.


    What are you waiting for?

  • God you're mostly a bunch of whiners.  If it was not for people with hairbrained ideas like this we would be living in caves. 

    Imagine the ridicule when Ugg said he could do more work with a cart,  horse and two round disks.  Or when someone mad a cart propelled by steam. or, the guy who made a multi-rotor from a lego NXT controller and starts this whole craze which keeps you entertained...

    The point is that even if Winfierd's idea does not work,  it's part of evolution.  His next one might or someone will come along and build from his shortcomings... 

    Rather give constructive criticism when you see a problem or shut up and do it yourself... 

    Best of luck to you and Co. Winfried!

  • Quite amazing, thanks!

  • Moderator

    Did somebody say large belt driven

  • @"Sgt Rick" and other defenders of this, um, "project" who are trying to stifle well deserved negative reactions to this nonsense : Have any of you actually read these people's blog? I'm all for innovation and encouraging new directions etc but this thing looks in its entirety like it's being designed by a bunch of high school kids sitting around a campfire with a few six-packs. The naivete is jaw-dropping and the mechanical/electrical "concepts" are largely a conglomeration of things that have been tried and failed miserably elsewhere, along with a heavy dose of off-the-charts speculation and wishful thinking.

    And never mind the obvious safety issues. Even the simplest things are totally bizarre; Take for example the "side view."  Have any of you ever seen, let alone flown, a multicopter with a curved bottom? This thing would be spitting dirt and parts of props all over the landscape, probably when trying to lift off and certainly when landing. And if that doesn't happen, harmonic resonances will likely take care of wadding it into a ball.

    Belt drives because good motors are too expensive? So your ass will be hanging not just from a sketchy bunch of  belts but also from cheap HK motors that are just waiting to shed their magnets or go up in green smoke? What happens to dirt and debris that gets blown up and then sucked into the rotors that are operating so close to the ground? The pilot will need full-body ballistic protection.

    Sorry, but this thing is ridiculous, ludicrous, and would be frightening if it ever got to a point of being powered up, which won't happen. It's so far beyond the pale that one must wonder what the real intentions and motivations of these people might be. Here it should elicit nothing more than a good horse laugh (and FCOL hang on to your wallets, people).

    And to whoever had the bad taste to mention Leonardo in the same breath with these buffoons, get thee back to Wikipedia or wherever. Doodling, even brilliant doodling, is just that. Or are you perhaps building  one of his aeronautical designs with the intention of jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge and wafting away to California?

  • I guess the desire of a small format is to be able to "park" in a regular garage or transported by trailer. Small propellers are inefficient and gives short flight time / large battery pack. Better to have significantly larger propellers and a folding design.

  • There's no need, we have plenty of people...And for all:in this project we will be careful and step by step. First trials will be with sand bags, etc. in a controlled environment.  And I will reply to serious comments and suggestions. Best, Winfried

This reply was deleted.