4 ms·

Why this and not single-rotor collective pitch? There's no good explanation in the marketing material.

• skykooler 9y ago
  Probably to make maintenance simpler? That's the most expensive part of operating a helicopter.
• FabHK 9y ago
  That's the whole point of these drone-like copters: instead of one engine and main rotor with mechanically complicated collective pitch, you have many fixed-pitch variable speed rotors sitting directly on an electric motor. The complexity thus wanders from hardware to control software.
  • bri3d 9y ago
    Having written both (albeit only at a hobby scale), I'd argue that the control software for a collective-pitch helicopter is substantially more complex than for a quadcopter, and especially this style of over/under counter-rotating octocopter. To me this almost seems like an effort to simplify the automation and control software at the expense of safety and efficiency. I do agree that the mechanicals are much simpler. I can see some maintenance and inspection safety gains but the airframe as a whole seems more dangerous. The over/under counterrotating prop design is both inefficient and prone to cascading failures mandating deployment of the airframe parachute.
    • FabHK 9y ago
      Interesting. Now, clearly, humans can (with considerable training) fly helicopters with controls that influence the mechanics fairly directly (cyclic, collective, rudder, thrust). Can humans fly quadcopters with controls that influence the mechanics fairly directly, or do they always require mediation via complicated control software? Come to think of it, presumably you can (as you have 4df in the controls, and you could have rotors next to each other rotate in opposite direction, and then control the sum of all speeds (=height), sum of left vs sum of right (=lateral movement), sum of front vs sum of back (=forward movement), and sum of diagonal 1 vs sum of diagonal 2 (=rotation) independently, thus translating human inputs into your 4df. Nice!) > simplify the automation and control software at the expense of safety and efficiency. At any rate, I continue to think that the much simpler mechanics and motors are the main drivers. Let's see how the accident rates turn out, but I'm optimistic. > The over/under counterrotating prop design is both inefficient How is it inefficient? I understand that over/under counterrotating props are more efficient, inducing less air rotation.