Full Electric Flight Mugin 2930 VTOL (3 min 18 sec)

The Mugin-2 now comes the Pro version that made with full carbon fiber.
https://www.muginuav.com/product/mug...-uav-platform/

It is a long endurance unmanned VTOL airframe designed for professional use.
It is the aircraft with the vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) function that can hover, take off, and land vertically. The platform caters to larger UAS projects such as universities or commercial projects. This aircraft is capable of carrying a wide variety of payload configurations and offers extended flight times.

The Mugin 2930mm is an exceptionally large aircraft designed for professional use and can be equipped with a full system of advanced control electronics to run in sync with the most advanced ground stations. This plane can get most anywhere, and perform most any job-related task you may require.

Let us know what you think!

make it tilt all engines and I will buy

Rans Bixler VTOL Trainer at the Portola Night Flight (5 min 17 sec)

For a long range autonomous mission, the design of the Mugin is better as it is. I say that as the designer and builder of the VTOL Bixler in the previous video. The VTOL Bixler was (still is) a fine sport VTOL but it was never more than that. It is also about 5 years old now. The technology has improved quite a bit since then. As a SLT (Separate Lift Thrust) design, the Mugin has the advantages of props that are optimized for lift and thrust. The tilt rotor Bixler has low pitch props that are best for hover and wastes a lot of energy in forward flight.

I have no relation to Muggin and am not endorsing their product. I am just saying that this style of SLT design has become a "classic" in the application space of small to mid size autonomous VTOL, and for good technical reasons. It just works.

Originally Posted by Ran D. St. Clair

For a long range autonomous mission, the design of the Mugin is better as it is. I say that as the designer and builder of the VTOL Bixler in the previous video. The VTOL Bixler was (still is) a fine sport VTOL but it was never more than that. It is also about 5 years old now. The technology has improved quite a bit since then. As a SLT (Separate Lift Thrust) design, the Mugin has the advantages of props that are optimized for lift and thrust. The tilt rotor Bixler has low pitch props that are best for hover and wastes a lot of energy in forward flight.

I have no relation to Muggin and am not endorsing their product. I am just saying that this style of SLT design has become a "classic" in the application space of small to mid size autonomous VTOL, and for good technical reasons. It just works.

My only gripe with the whole quad plane concept is the enormous extra weight that is entirely unused during forward flight. Extra drag is also a significant factor. It just seems very lazy and unoptimized.

Originally Posted by Scratchbuildrc

My only gripe with the whole quad plane concept is the enormous extra weight that is entirely unused during forward flight. Extra drag is also a significant factor. It just seems very lazy and unoptimized.

I have gone over these issues with the professionals who are making the same trades for larger aircraft. There is no ideal configuration. Every reasonable configuration pays the price for VTOL in one way or another. Some may be slightly better than others, but it really comes down to the details of implementation and how well it fits the mission, not the basic configuration.

The big advantage of SLT (Separate Lift Thrust) is simplicity. Nothing tilts or moves. This saves the cost and weight of tilt mechanisms, powerful servos, etc. The wing is always in a position to move cleanly through the air and make lift. This type handles wind well. For model purposes, not having to deal with variable pitch propellers is also an advantage. The lift props can be low pitch, and the forward thrust props can be optimized separately. There are also potential advantages like using wet power for forward thrust and electric for lift. The drag of the motor pods is real, but they can be well streamlined. The drag of the stopped props is also real but not as large as you might think when they are properly aligned with the airflow. The weight of the lift motors is not so bad compared to the entire aircraft, but it is a part of the price you pay.

By comparison tilt rotors need heavy tilt mechanisms and strong servos. They also really need variable pitch props or they pay a steep price in forward flight efficiency. They are better for all electric configurations as tilting and hovering with wet engines is much more difficult. There is no need to tilt all the rotors as only about 1/4 of the hovering disk area is needed for efficient forward flight propellers so you often end up with a mix of SLT and tilt rotors. You also often end up with motor pods similar to the SLT.

Tilt wings have a big heavy tilt mechanism and servo, but at least there is only one of them. The wing is a big barn door when vertical so they often don't handle wind as well. They can be more difficult to transition as the wing goes from stalled to not stalled and the stability can get marginal in the middle. As a result they often require high lift devices like leading edge slats or flaps, which makes them more complicated. The disk area required to hover efficiently is too much for efficient forward flight, so they require variable pitch, or just have poor efficiency in model form just like tilt rotors. They often compromise hover efficiency by having rotors that are smaller than ideal as well. In full scale they might stop and feather some of the motors since like almost all VTOLs they require a lot less power to fly in forward flight than to hover.

Tail sitters are just tilt wings without a separate tilting fuselage. They rarely handle wind well.

There are infinite combinations of the above, and some of them have some clever synergies, but I think you will find that for the money, the plain vanilla SLT is a worthy choice, especially when you consider the value of simplicity. If you have lots of money to spend, you can do better, but for most modelers, it is hard to justify the expense. If you have a business, and a specific mission, then you can optimize for that, but it is much cheaper to share the design cost with lots of other customers and accept a more general solution.

Once again, I have no affiliation with the Mugin folks. I have just designed and built a lot of model VTOLs, and consulted with the professionals on full scale VTOLs.

Originally Posted by Ran D. St. Clair

I have gone over these issues with the professionals who are making the same trades for larger aircraft. There is no ideal configuration. Every reasonable configuration pays the price for VTOL in one way or another. Some may be slightly better than others, but it really comes down to the details of implementation and how well it fits the mission, not the basic configuration.

The big advantage of SLT (Separate Lift Thrust) is simplicity. Nothing tilts or moves. This saves the cost and weight of tilt mechanisms, powerful servos, etc. The wing is always in a position to move cleanly through the air and make lift. This type handles wind well. For model purposes, not having to deal with variable pitch propellers is also an advantage. The lift props can be low pitch, and the forward thrust props can be optimized separately. There are also potential advantages like using wet power for forward thrust and electric for lift. The drag of the motor pods is real, but they can be well streamlined. The drag of the stopped props is also real but not as large as you might think when they are properly aligned with the airflow. The weight of the lift motors is not so bad compared to the entire aircraft, but it is a part of the price you pay.

By comparison tilt rotors need heavy tilt mechanisms and strong servos. They also really need variable pitch props or they pay a steep price in forward flight efficiency. They are better for all electric configurations as tilting and hovering with wet engines is much more difficult. There is no need to tilt all the rotors as only about 1/4 of the hovering disk area is needed for efficient forward flight propellers so you often end up with a mix of SLT and tilt rotors. You also often end up with motor pods similar to the SLT.

Tilt wings have a big heavy tilt mechanism and servo, but at least there is only one of them. The wing is a big barn door when vertical so they often don't handle wind as well. They can be more difficult to transition as the wing goes from stalled to not stalled and the stability can get marginal in the middle. As a result they often require high lift devices like leading edge slats or flaps, which makes them more complicated. The disk area required to hover efficiently is too much for efficient forward flight, so they require variable pitch, or just have poor efficiency in model form just like tilt rotors. They often compromise hover efficiency by having rotors that are smaller than ideal as well. In full scale they might stop and feather some of the motors since like almost all VTOLs they require a lot less power to fly in forward flight than to hover.

Tail sitters are just tilt wings without a separate tilting fuselage. They rarely handle wind well.

There are infinite combinations of the above, and some of them have some clever synergies, but I think you will find that for the money, the plain vanilla SLT is a worthy choice, especially when you consider the value of simplicity. If you have lots of money to spend, you can do better, but for most modelers, it is hard to justify the expense. If you have a business, and a specific mission, then you can optimize for that, but it is much cheaper to share the design cost with lots of other customers and accept a more general solution.

Once again, I have no affiliation with the Mugin folks. I have just designed and built a lot of model VTOLs, and consulted with the professionals on full scale VTOLs.

Very true. Interesting.. thanks for the insight

Watched a number of VTOL UAV type planes on YouTube yesterday, and man are they boring to watch. Interesting, I guess, in a geekish sort of way, but personally I prefer VTOLs that are maneuverable and agile.

Originally Posted by PlumbBob

Watched a number of VTOL UAV type planes on YouTube yesterday, and man are they boring to watch.........personally I prefer VTOLs that are maneuverable and agile.

How about a thrust vectored belly sitter (TVBS) to get the juices flowing?

vectored tail sitter q_hover + fbwa (2 min 28 sec)

Originally Posted by Wright

How about a thrust vectored belly sitter (TVBS) to get the juices flowing?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mm-yPXcqnk

It's a clever concept and nicely done.

Looks like fun. I believe I've seen a similar take-off from water. Interesting foot prints.

Originally Posted by Ran D. St. Clair

It's a clever concept and nicely done.

There are some pretty nice examples of this on the Ardupilot site. But as you have pointed out before, SLT is probably the leading RC solution considering complexity and efficiency.

My immediate concern, looking at the Mugin, is that payload makes it nose-heavy.

Originally Posted by Ran D. St. Clair

...

Once again, I have no affiliation with the Mugin folks. I have just designed and built a lot of model VTOLs, and consulted with the professionals on full scale VTOLs.

It's interesting that SLT is what the full scale Cora has chosen. The CEO of Zephyr is a friend and neighbor and we've discussed the trade-offs. It's just as you say.

Anyone know what flight controller they use? Does it speak standard serial protocols so I could put a 433MHz radio on it?

Originally Posted by erkq

My immediate concern, looking at the Mugin, is that payload makes it nose-heavy.

You raise a valid point. Ideally the variable payload should be centered at the CG. Lots of space far ahead of the CG doesn't do you much good unless the payload is light weight and bulky. Fixed payload, on the other hand, can be balanced by shifting other things around, usually the battery. If the battery is already as far back as it can go then there aren't many good options. This layout looks like it was intended for a heavy internal combustion engine aft of the CG.