|
|
|
I think it is a tremendous effort to get this thing to fly. I seem to remember that when our quads first became available, they did not fly for very long either. I am sure the battery technology is right around the corner to get his quad to fly longer.
I applaud the effort he put into the design and build of his project. I bet he would get an "A" if this was used for a science project. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Move aside criticism, but whoa. That level of scratchbuilding is on top of the chart! Yeah, nowadays young people rarely build their own 'drones' but this guy indeed thinking outside the box. Hats off for him
|
|
|
|
|||
|
I bet not many of you are old enough to remember this.... It was the test frame that was used to test the principle of VTO and the plane built using this technology was the Harrier Jump Jet.
|
||
|
|||
|
||||
|
Quote:
apparently we have all been driving motorless cars ! MIND BLOWING. Real bladeless tech ...
|
|||
|
Last edited by XFM; Feb 15, 2019 at 07:18 AM.
Reason: added video
|
|||
|
|
|
Ive seen a few of these around. Mostly for inspection of things near expensive stuff where you dont want rotors.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
But yes there have been a fair few hobby level EDF "multirotors", plus ducted fan military UAVs for some time (using the more efficient layout of a single central fan with control vanes in the airflow). Just google "Honeywell T-Hawk". |
|
Latest blog entry: Eachine QX65 FPV quad review
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with EDF on something that can make use of the high pitch speed. It's not a very good way to make static thrust though - that's why helicopters typically have big slow-turning rotors and not little ones spinning at warp speed. Having two 90 deg bends in each duct further reduces the efficiency here.
|
Latest blog entry: Eachine QX65 FPV quad review
|
|
|
|
|
Great effort, Stefano! Keep it up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Lipo being used in the video is a 6S 7400 mAh. Following normal practice of not discharging below 20% would mean 5.92 Ah available. Quoted current draw is 420A - let's assume that's at full power, and guess it will hover at half that i.e. 'just' 210A. Estimated flight time on that basis would be 5.92 / 210 hours, or 1.7 mins. Adding a second battery would increase the AUW by almost a kilogram but might get close to 3 mins, if it was still flyable at that weight. This is without any kind of payload, of course.
A far more practical use for those design and fabrication skills would have been some lightweight but strong carbon prop cages/shrouds that could be fitted to conventional quads for 'high risk' operation. But that probably wouldn't have attracted 1.5 million views of a monetised video on YouTube |
Latest blog entry: Eachine QX65 FPV quad review
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | |||||
Category | Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Build Log | "Bladeless" Drone First Flight | triv | Multirotor Drone Talk | 3 | Oct 25, 2018 09:12 PM |
Discussion | Saphonian Bladeless Wind Generator | DT56 | Life, The Universe, and Politics | 26 | Apr 28, 2016 01:59 PM |
Discussion | Splash Drone (Waterproof Drone) Video Update | rp3 | Multirotor Drone Talk | 0 | Jun 02, 2015 04:42 PM |
Discussion | Bladeless Heli | Fox Rider 4 | Electric Heli Talk | 11 | Mar 19, 2009 11:08 AM |
Discussion | Bladeless | Rooney7783 | Coaxial Helicopters | 10 | Jan 20, 2006 01:44 AM |