Banggood is now taking pre-orders for a VTOL wing. It seems to be the holy grail of VTOL to me - no redundant motors, no extra servos, so it's a simple, reliable, and above all, efficient.

http://www.banggood.com/Arkbird-VTOL-Vertical-Takeoff-And-Landing-E...

Note that the link above excludes electronics, the Arkbird Lite 2.0 FC is required, along with the usual electrics.

Tridge..? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQibL09skJ8

Views: 3223


Moderator
Comment by Gary Mortimer on March 31, 2017 at 4:03am

But they fall over. Still fun. Tail sitting is very much in development. The best place to get Tridges attention is of course over on the Ardupilot forums. http://discuss.ardupilot.org/


Developer
Comment by Andrew Tridgell on March 31, 2017 at 5:03am

This type of airframe is already supported in ArduPilot master. We got the first test flight of a non-simulated airframe like this today. See http://discuss.ardupilot.org/t/dual-motor-tailsitters/15302

There is a video from Mark if you scroll down enough :-)

Comment by Rob_Lefebvre on March 31, 2017 at 5:47am

Hein, on what basis do you claim it's "efficient"?  Do you have any performance numbers?

Comment by Jason Franciosa on March 31, 2017 at 6:16am

Could you simply put a Vertical Stabilizer in the front on top and bottom or a small CF rod through the nose so it if does tip over, it simply hits the Rod/Rudder will hit the ground and the plane will be perfectly fine?

Have it touch down on the tail, if that works and stays there, great. If it falls, the CF Rod/Dual vertical Stabs will keep it from having the main body/props/motors/camera hitting the ground?

You can program the autopilot to automatically cut the motors if it goes beyond a certain angle, indicated a tip over, on take off and landing?

Comment by Rick Yonika on March 31, 2017 at 8:24am

Hey, Rob 

I have been wondering about heli efficiency, do you have a watts per lb or other metric for hover


100KM
Comment by Hein du Plessis on March 31, 2017 at 8:55am

@Tridge I was hoping you'd say that! If you can do knife edge in code this would be peanuts ;) Can't wait to start testing! I'll prep the airframe so long :) Going to check it out, thanks.

@Rob I remember seeing only 5 minutes hover time but a flight time of 20 minutes, with a small (2200mah?) battery. Either way - what's great is, while in cruise mode, there's not a single parasitical part, not even pivot servos.

@Jason, all good questions - I never thought this was practical. Soon we'll know, though.

Comment by Jason Franciosa on March 31, 2017 at 9:58am

@Rob,

I think what he means by efficient is that it is a VTOL Fixed wing platform with the assumption being fixed wing flight is the most efficient means in comparison with other options. I like this setup/design and agree it minimizes the requirements for parasitic weight and still have a VTOL option. The VTOL portion of the flight is probably very inefficient, but, if the amount of time it spends in a VTOL state can be minimized as much as possible, this should be a very good solution for a long endurance VTOL platform compared with other options.

Of course, testing will be required and I don't think the banggood foamy is going to be the most optimized to be a good comparison test bed for efficiency numbers.

Comment by Gary McCray on March 31, 2017 at 10:17am

The overwhelming problem with this design is that wind and gusts makes them incredibly difficult or impossible to land successfully.

Even weathervaned so that the wind runs parallel to the wing from the end you are left with any vertical control surfaces directly interfering with the wind.

And this model has considerable vertical control surfaces.

Even without them, that big wing is very problematic when landing in any wind or gust condition at all.

I think they can be a lot of fun for hobby use, but I will be surprised if it is ever successful in a commercial role.

Even the ones with horizontal take off and landing have problems as wind and gusts can play havoc with them especially near the ground, but the tail sitters have a much worse problem.


Developer
Comment by Andrew Tridgell on March 31, 2017 at 11:48am

The overwhelming problem with this design is that wind and gusts makes them incredibly difficult or impossible to land successfully.

which is why I love this design:

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/google-wing-nasa-greased-lightn...

hopefully we'll have ArduPilot flying that sort of vectored tailsitter (belly-sitter?) soon

Comment by Gary McCray on March 31, 2017 at 1:37pm

That is one cool design Tridge,

Seems like you could almost get by with free pivoting prop motor units, maybe spring loaded a bit or with appropriate weight / pivot offset.

I can't tell if that one is using a servo or not.

Best Regards,

Gary

Comment

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

Join DIY Drones

Groups

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

© 2018   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service