4 ms·
Should be four or less considering each arm has two props. (Unless the motors aren’t powerful enough)
by mrfusion 9y ago
Should be four or less considering each arm has two props. (Unless the motors aren’t powerful enough)
- zellyn 9y agoIf all four on one side went out, I assume you'd be in big trouble.
- CarVac 9y agoAnd if one on one side went out, you'd immediately descend.
- FabHK 9y agoI'd imagine if two stacked ones go out, you'd be in trouble (as the centre of gravity will not be exactly in the intersection of the two diagonals).
- SolarNet 9y agoActually that's a benefit of the quad-copter design. It can sacrifice an axis of control in that situation (a "minor" one, like rotation about the gravity vector). In this case it would likely make the passengers sick, but it would still be able to fly in a controllable fashion. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek0FrCaogcs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek0FrCaogcs
- anotheryou 9y agowith the counter-set props probably less spin even
- FabHK 9y agoYes, you go from 8 df in the control to 7 df (instead of from 4 to 3). So, you could basically "hang" the weight off the remaining diagonal, and then use the working off-diagonal rotors to keep roll/yaw/pitch in line. But then the rotors on the diagonal have to generate twice the force. I'd rather not be a pax in this when two rotors fail.
- mannykannot 9y agoA lift/weight ratio of 2:1 would be quite remarkable, and the ceiling of a mere 4000' suggests that it does not have that sort of reserve, even at sea level and when being powered by the gasoline motor. Being anywhere somewhat hot or high would quickly erode that margin. On the other hand, the chances of four motors failing in the time it takes to set down is probably not high. Back to the first hand, if you do have multiple failures, it is not likely to be an optimal grouping.